GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1222285189
From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:39:49 -0700
In other words Anatole, you cannot offer a simple answer to the simple
question that was posed. That is fine. I expected this because in fact it
cannot be answered except by reference to the possibility that R-U152 has
been in Northern Italy since Mesolithic times.
David K. Faux.
On 9/24/08, <> wrote:
> From: "David Faux"
> >Sorry Anatole, you seem to have missed the entire point of my posting...
> This a not a good way to carry a discussion. Because I might have responded
> that YOU seem to have missed... and so forth, endlessly. Please notice that
> I do not do it.
> >There is too much controversy swirling about in relation to any and all
> dating techniques that rely of YSTRs.
> No. There is no controversy. There is one clearly wrong method, which
> triples a timespan; one which is simplified; and the rest give pretty
> consistent results. They will be continuing refining, but this is normal for
> >I think it is time to give up and move in a different direction.
> Wrong suggestion.
> >I am speaking of using SNPs instead of STRs to date haplogroups
> This is a quite a different task, aiming at different goals. It suffers
> from other assumptions but it is O.K. Let it be developing.
> >...is the most amazing of archaeological and art treasures.
> Why you tie them necessarily to R1b? You do not have ANY base for it.
> Actually, excavated haplotypes would often be not too easy to interpret.
> There would be plenty of dead ends and extinct lineages and probably not
> survived haplogroups as well.
> >How can you explain the population structure of today in relation to the
> archaeological record showing continuity from the Mesolithic?
> Wrong question. Stated incorrectly.
> Anatole Klyosov
|Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now? by "David Faux" <>|