GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-12 > 1230668369


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y SNP mutation rates
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:19:29 -0800
References: <1035221772.1437591230658555292.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><ea3bd9560812301022l24fbca06u479675c17bff814c@mail.gmail.com><C2F321CA906E4DE287F79B9E9290AC79@RichardNW><ea3bd9560812301036l4f734d07y551a018e474166a@mail.gmail.com><015f01c96ab9$5e4c1bf0$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <015f01c96ab9$5e4c1bf0$6400a8c0@Ken1>


In order that others less versed in this subject not be led astray, I would
hope that someone such as yourself with the "ammunition" to make a bold and
convincing statement contact FTDNA and provide evidence that would be
compelling enough to warrant updaing their webpage here.

David K. Faux.


On 12/30/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Y SNP mutation rates
>
>
> > The statement is left open to interpretation but most people would take
> it
> > at face value. Of course this concept has important implications in
> > relation to dating haplogroups. A "few hundred generations" versus "400
> > years" has immense implications. So, as usual, I am left wit the
> > question,
> > "who is right"?
>
> I think the next step to asking "who is right?" in the face of such
> discordence is to apply one's own common sense and investigatory energies
> into answering the question.
>
>
>

This thread: