GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221526829


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:00:29 -0700
References: <mailman.2470.1221503749.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000a01c91786$372507c0$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><004d01c9178a$52481070$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560809151643p38de9482qc132a42a747c5519@mail.gmail.com><00a401c91796$a2b98410$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <00a401c91796$a2b98410$6400a8c0@Ken1>


You misunderstand Ken. I don't "hope" for an older age for U152, I only
hope to know the truth. At present I have no indication that any
mathematical exercise can get me closer to my objective. So, I wait.

David K. Faux.


On 9/15/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>
> [[[ But in this case the S28 and S116 SNPs could not be so early as you
> hope. That is why the INTERCLADE MRCA guy who is ancestral to both S116
> and S21 is so important to date. And his age looks to be 4000 years
> ago, plus or minus statistical confidence interval. You misrepresent the
> constraints by calling them the expansion time estimates. Those intraclade
> time estimates were incidental side shows to check that they were consistent
> with the key INTERCLADE age, and they were in all cases. Ken ]]]]]
>
>
>

This thread: