GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220517972
From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:46:12 +0300
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:41 AM, David Faux <> wrote:
> As to the "infamous Zhivotovsky coefficients", I know you are a biochemist
> and respected scientist - but I don't know you. I correspond with Peter
> Underhill a co-author of the Zhivotovsky, Underhill and Feldman (2006)
> paper, and I have the utmost respect for his work.
One piece of evidence to consider:
in which Dr. Underhill is a co-author, uses germline mutation rates.
in which Dr. Underhill is also a co-author, uses the "evolutionary rate".
My own analysis has led me to believe that for large haplogroups
variance accumulates nearer to the germline rate and not to the
and the source code for my experiments is publically available:
PS: As for R1b, I am agnostic until I see a representative sampling of
its variance and a comprehensive study of its phylogeography. There
are at least three different pieces of evidence that can be used to
estimate the age of a haplogroup:
(1) Y-STR variation. This points to a relatively young age in the
(2) Geographical extent. Older haplogroups have had more time to
spread to wider regions. This points to a relatively old age.
(3) Haplogroup size. Older haplogroups have had more time to grow to
larger numbers. This also points to a relatively old age.
So, in my opinion, the available evidence is contradictory. The
contradiction can be resolved in a number of different ways (e.g.
Y-STRs behave differently than thought, or there was positive
selection). In a few years, when whole Y-chromosomes will be routinely
sequenced, and ancient DNA results will be more easy to acquire, we
will be able to solve the puzzle.
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog