Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-06 > 1243999348

From: Gary Felix <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:22:28 -0700 (PDT)

Crawford's book was first published in 07 and the study he sites is 04.

The mistake you are making with low TMRCA is thinking that larger datasets would yield more accurate data when it is pretty evident now that these bikini haplotypes used by geneticists in deep ancestry studies were used to help negate the effect of drift.

I'm not sure you know what lower effective population size means.

Mexico DNA Project Admin.
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote:

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 7:45 PM

On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Gary Felix wrote:

> Crawford states this was unexpected and the news made headlines 
> about 10 years ago

Maybe it was unexpected based on what was known 10 years ago.   We 
know more now, and today we know that there is no reason to be 
surprised that mtDNA and NRY have different TMRCA estimates.

> How would you explain differently, genetic adam being about half the 
> age of genetic eve when Geneticists say it is drift or sex specific 
> demographic processes?

You are giving the explanation already:  lower effective population 
size.  The mistake you made was taking this reasonable reality and 
trying to pin on it some phantom "bias" that serves to "confound 


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

This thread: