GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221526668


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:57:48 -0400
References: <mailman.2470.1221503749.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000a01c91786$372507c0$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><004d01c9178a$52481070$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560809151643p38de9482qc132a42a747c5519@mail.gmail.com><011903B7-20E8-4ADD-9B75-1AEA446E423A@vizachero.com><ea3bd9560809151740q5197dc46oce737bb225d49e34@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560809151740q5197dc46oce737bb225d49e34@mail.gmail.com>


On Sep 15, 2008, at 8:40 PM, David Faux wrote:

> Yes Vince you can end up with a TMCA in the Neolithic or Bronze Age
> or even
> more recent unless you use corrected calibrated dating techniques
> such as
> ZUF.

The ZUF rates have nothing to do with this question, and should not
be used to estimate the TMRCA of haplogroups in any event.

> I don't think that anything other than ancient DNA or total
> agreement amoung professional population geneticists can or should
> convince
> us of anything. There is too much controversy swirling about.

There is more misunderstanding than controversy, I think, though I
note that those who misunderstand seem to do so persistently.

VV

This thread: