GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-12 > 1228347587


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Iberian R1b age estimates
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:39:47 -0800
References: <e2f96c1b0812031449l529563a0x3da9a220a48cb448@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e2f96c1b0812031449l529563a0x3da9a220a48cb448@mail.gmail.com>


Robert:

What would Zhivitovsky, Underhill and Feldman suggest that you do with these
dates :-) No, I mean how would you correct these to obtain a true estimate
which takes into account the population effective rate? The accepted
practice, based on Zhivitovsky's well reasoned and generally well received
estimate, would have you multiply the numbers by a factor or 3.6. Now what
would be the correct dates?

My point is that to accept a new orthodoxy is folly until peer reviewed
studies have been submitted and closely scrutinized. Since the year 2000,
the Paleolithic date for M269 has been accepted in the west (e.g., McEvoy)
relating to the Franco-Cantabrian refugium; and the east (e.g., Cinnioglu)
in relation to the Balkan refugium. Clearly there are two camps and yoz paz
yur money and you takes your choice (a famous quote from a notable twentieth
century figure).

On dna-forums I lined up all of the evidence in favor of the "old orthodoxy"
which includes new data from all sources includling autosomal data. I have
no intention of repeating it here. It is splendid that Dienekes is willing
to risk censure and name calling (my experience) for daring to go against
the grain and challenging the views of a vocal minority of non population
geneticists, admitted very bright, but likely very wrong. I am very
thankful for Dieneke's contribution because other than this posting I have
kept silent on the matter because eventually defending oneself or the views
of 95% of the professional community is draining and at my age I simply am
no longer able to endure this sort of "battle".

No disrespectful comments to this post will be accepted or tolerated, they
only attest to the desperation of those who should simply say, "Yes, we will
simply agree to disagree". I am perfectly willing to switch allegiances
when the data warrants a switch.

David K. Faux.


On 12/3/08, Robert Tarín <> wrote:
>
> List,
>
> For what it is worth...here are the TMRCA results for the Iberian R1b
> haplotypes (includes subclades) having 67 markers (n=64) out of my database
> as per Tim Janzen's program at http://www.timjanzen.com/dna.html .
>
> Ken Nordtvedt method, Chandler and Little rates, 30yr/gen
> 3,175 years (all 67 markers)
> 4,255 years (removing CDYa,b, 464)
> 3,932 years (removing 385, 395, 413, 425, 459, 464, YCAII, CDY)
>
> James Heald method, Chandler rates, 30yr/gen
> 5,220 years (all 67 markers)
> 5,554 years (removing CDYa,b, 464)
> 5,535 years (removing 385, 395, 413, 425, 459, 464, YCAII, CDY)
>
> Robert Tarín
>


This thread: