GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220587630
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:07:10 -0400
From: Vincent Vizachero <>
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Anatole Klyosov wrote:
> 2) What is "consistency" in this context? All common ancestors at
> EXACTLY the same date?
No, "consistency" means that the label "R1b" should mean the same
thing in all cases. On 1 Sept you posted to the list an estimate for
"R1b with subclades (overall for about 17,000 haplotypes from YS),
4500-3950 years BP" followed by "Asian R1b (extrap from different
branches) - 16,000 years BP". Clearly the former is mostly R-S128
while the later includes a fair amount of something else (R-M73?, R-
M18?, R-M335?, R-P25?, R-M343?).
I hope you have noticed that my calculations of some 17,000 R1b haplotypes were accompanied by words "Naturally, it is not a clean experiment. O.K., lets move to more specific sets of R1b haplotypes".
Here is the excerpt in full:
The YSearch database contains 12,090 25-marker R1b haplotypes (with subclades). They all contain 83,240 mutations, that is 0.275 mutations per marker. It looks familiar, isn't it? The same ballpark as that of R1a1 (see the preceding message). It gives 180 generations, that is 4500 years to a common ancestor.
Naturally, it is not a clean experiment. O.K., lets move to more specific sets of R1b haplotypes.
And then I have shown that whichever "clean" subclade we take, it gives approximately the same timespan to a common ancestor, that is around 4500 years. That is what important. Not 30,000 years, as some claim, not 22,800 years, not even 9,000 years.
Now, in case of Asian haplotypes, they cannot give 16,000 years to a common ancestor without a large variations in their mutations. You cannot get such a large variations by just taking various European subclades of R1b. Clearly, there are some large difference in Asian R1b haplotypes compared to European ones. That is what important.
Just throwing names of subclades "(R-M73?, R-M18?, R-M335?, R-P25?, R-M343?) without understanding how they differ by mutations would not add anything in our knowledge. Show me that their mutational differences can account for the 16,000 year difference between them (or would bring the 16,000 years to a common ancestor), and I will thank you. So far - not. Empty words.
>I was referring to the estimate of 6,000 years old quoted by Same for
the Cameroonian R1b1. I meant that if we wish to compare the TMRCA
for the Cameroonian R1b1* to the TMRCA for R1b1* globally or R-M269
globally then all the TMRCAs must be made using similar STRs, the
same mutation rates, and the same methodology. We can not and should
not accept author X's date for one group, author Y's date for another
group, and author Z's date for the third group and expect them to be
I completely disagree. We should use whatever is available, and formulate a working hypothesis. Then we can examine it further, when new haplotype sets are available. That is how science is developing. We cannot sit and wait until everything is just perfect. Of course, a working hypothesis cannot allow us to make categorical claims, however, it clarifies where to go further.
>Contu mistakenly classified a R-M269 chromosome as being R-M18. In
other words, they labeled a guy as M18+ who is really M269+. It is
either a genotyping error or a clerical error. Either way,
including that mistaken chromosome in their TMRCA analysis led them
to severely overestimate the TMRCA of R-M18.
Wrong again. There were 64 R1b1c haplotypes and 8 R1b1a haplotypes in the Contu's paper. Are you saying that those 8 haplotypes (I show here the ancestral of M-18)
distorted the bulk of other 64 haplotypes (M269)
that much?? That the 5,000 years to a common ancestor moved to 22,800 years? Come on... Contu et al had much more serious reasons to screw up their numbers.