GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-12 > 1228416230


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Iberian R1b age estimates
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:43:50 +0000


David Faux wrote:

...It is simply beyond the realm of possibility that the Somerled type arose via a founder circa 1450 AD.
...The haplotypes of the R1a individuals from Corded Ware Germany are identical to haplotypes in the area today. They look surprisingly modern. The burial could have been a week ago and no one would be able to tell from the haplotype that the internment took place 4600 years ago. There is something fundamentally flawed in the concept of the molecular clock as it applies to certain molecules.
...Looking at the data below in a wholistic way, it would seem that the only way to interpret your analysis of the data is that during the Bronze Age there was a complete replacement of male Y chromosomes - a Continent wide sweep...

Dear David,

Unfortunately, your logic has serious flaws, which do not stand basic scientific criteria. It is really sad. You very commonly put forward some fundamentally wrong arguments, and do it as if you KNOW that they are correct, examined and verified. In reality they are guesswork at best, and distorted if not falsified at worst. I do not mean that you do it deliberately; it is just your modus operandi (MO).

Let me explain. You gave me more than enough examples to illustrate what I have just said. Please do not take it personally, in my eyes your MO is just a common (unfortunately) way of some people to discuss and to enthusiastically disprove what they see, hear and read.

I listed a simple example of 84 haplotypes of the Donald family, which are believed to be originated from a specific individual who died in 1386, that is 622 years ago. My calculations showed that a common ancestor of those 84 individuals lived 650 years ago. It is pretty good fit, isnt it? Mind you, I have used the Chandlers best fit mutation rates for the first 12-marker haplotypes (0.022 mut/haplotype/generation and 0.00183 mut/marker/generation), and obtained compatible results for 12- and 25-marker haplotypes for the linear and logarithmic methods, using quite different principles for calculations of a timespan to a common ancestor. In a separate message I can show how I did it, if someone wants to know.

Now, what was your response? You did not lay out YOUR way of calculations (which would be a constructive way in a discussion), to show that my methods are incorrect. No, you have elected a non-constructive, purely verbal way or generating some self-appointed arguments which in fact are all fiction. You pulled out some Somerlend haplotype (???) and made a conjuncture (without bothering to prove) that those 84 haplotypes are Somerlend haplotype. I quote: The Clan Donald haplotype (aka Somerlend haplotype).... Are you really sure that you realize what are you talking about? You borrowed some fables and legends and without eye blinking you try to make them equal in weight with my calculations?

Are you serious? You immediately jumped to some funny (no less) conclusion that these 84 haplotypes should be at least 4 times older, and probably - I quote: it cannot be less than 3000 years old.

Did you think, I wonder, when you wrote it, that the 4-fold shift of the whole table (in a holistic way) would make the Gypsies coming to Europe some 4500 years ago, the Arabic Cohen MH 36,000 years bp, R1a1 on the Balkans 46,000 years bp (!!), and American Indians 64,000 years bp.

Are you sure that you were thinking about it when you wrote your comment? Oh, yes, and haplogroup A bearers should have had a common ancestor 300,000 years bp, instead of 75,000 years bp according to my calculations (not presented today).

Lets move further. I do not understand your DYS385a,b=14,31, this was probably your typo for DYS389I,II. However, whatever it was, it was irrelevant to what I maws writing about. As well as irrelevant your Somerset motif of YCAIIa,b=19,21 in a sharp contrast to the 19,23 found in the rest of the R1a1 world. What weight does it carry? Zero. Because a mutation of 23 to 21 (or vise versa) can happen, as it had happened in one of ancestors of the Donald family who knows how long time ago? So what? You can call it a subclade, and I, who has 19,23, do not belong to the Donald clan. So what? How can it change the fact (or, rather, calculation) that those 84 individuals have a common ancestor who lived 650 years ago? You shook the air with those alleles, I am sorry, but nothing else. Irrelevant.

By the way, your statement about the rest of the R1a1 world is technically incorrect. In my small collection of 32 of 37-marker haplotypes of the Russians and Ukrainians one has 19,22, and another has 20,23. Hence, their descendants would carry those 19,22 and 20,23, like the Donalds carry 19,21. So what? Mutations are mutations, you know. They happen.

Your standard tune on no archaeological data is principally incorrect. There are plenty of data regarding ancient settlements in Europe between 4000 and 5500 years bp (radiocarbon data). The R1a1 found in Germany and described in a recent publication are 4,600 years old. I calculated a common R1a1 ancestor in Germany as 4,700 years bp. The data do not conflict with each other. If the excavation would have produced R1a1 in Germany of some 15,000 years ago, this would be a conflict. But not between 4700 and 4600.

Then, your consideration on excavated R1a1 haplotypes as being identical to haplotypes in the area today is wrong. In the context of your message it was even a falsification. The excavated haplotypes are different, most of them have DYS393=14, very unusual today. There are other differences.

Using a holistic way, I repeat that your comment, unfortunately, has no value, is it employed a distorted, flawed logic, and contains wrong information. I hope that you seriously consider it for your future comments.

Sincerely,

Anatole Klyosov





This thread: