GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221532525


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:35:25 -0700
References: <mailman.2470.1221503749.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000a01c91786$372507c0$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><004d01c9178a$52481070$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560809151643p38de9482qc132a42a747c5519@mail.gmail.com><00a401c91796$a2b98410$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560809151800h30b0ee61s31744272148fa8d8@mail.gmail.com><00bf01c91799$fa22a760$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560809151834p2b0b346btcd3b44a4364c9d17@mail.gmail.com><00cc01c917a0$43a0d5f0$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <00cc01c917a0$43a0d5f0$6400a8c0@Ken1>


Yes, pray tell Ken, where are your assertions made public except in a series
of postings here and on dna-forums? I am speaking about population
geneticists who have published articles in peer - reviewed papers this year,
2008. They have provided dates for R-M269 (perhaps R-U152) circa 28000
years (Contu et al., 2008). If you and Vince and Anatole don't like this
study well that is fine, but it is published! When you have done the same
then newcomers to the List will tend to put more stock in what they read.
Until then I refer them to geneticists such as Contu and Underhill etc. for
the most up to date thinking - 2008. You may be avant guard and ahead of
the pros in this "game", but that has yet to be demonstrated in anything
resembling a peer - reviewed format.

We have been over and over this time and time again and I am not going to
change my views and you are not going to change yours. Stalemate. Fine,
then people can decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

Sorry, I have to get back to putting over 12 inches of photocopies of
recently downloaded articles in population genetics and archaeology into 3
ring binders. I have really said all that I can say on the subject. Others
will need to chime in or not. I have had enough air time.

David K. Faux.


On 9/15/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
>
> The interpretations given to me by my pop gen contacts also make
> > sense so no red flags go up and so until there is a body of knowledge to
> > which I can refer in the literature, and a group of respected population
> > geneticists who are subscribing to this or that view - I will hold my
> > ground. > David K. Faux.
>
> Whether you hold your ground or not is not important, but all this on-going
> hot air about anonymous respected population geneticists believing this or
> that gets very suspect when after long periods of time they publish no
> RECENT papers which support what you wish to promote. Since this is a
> public forum with many new people coming into its broadcast radius all the
> time, I would think you would understand that arguments should be about
> publically checkable assertions, calculations, etc.
>
> We all have the same access to the past literature and can check its
> validities for ourselves. But all this asserted secret contacts stuff does
> not belong in a forum like this.
>
>
>

This thread: