GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-12 > 1229107671


From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Why Western M269 can't be accurately aged
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:47:51 +0200
References: <917892.81379.qm@web81104.mail.mud.yahoo.com><FACCC4A3-B3D6-44CB-8A1D-FC5B0FE56002@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80812120459g1dfc8756iee4c27f6d55f9dea@mail.gmail.com><7BC311BF-256E-4966-B676-3DF530701158@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80812120827r70233e09n7ba0105b20815e09@mail.gmail.com><3327D706-B5C3-46F3-918F-801520B30296@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <3327D706-B5C3-46F3-918F-801520B30296@vizachero.com>


Thank you for "reminding" me, but it was not necessary, since I was
the one who used that prior in my post. The point that uniform(1,1000)
is inappropriate stands.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Vincent Vizachero
<> wrote:
> gest is in generations, not years.
>
> 1500 years is 50 generations, more or less.
>
> VV
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Dienekes Pontikos wrote:
>
>> uniform(1,1000) is not really a valid prior for R-M269. We know
>> directly of its presence ~1,500 years ago, for example.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>



--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com
Γενετική των Ελλήνων: http://greekgenetics.blogspot.com/
Anthropological Research Page: http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp

This thread: