GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-08 > 1250003124


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-chromosomes of Jewish priests (2009 paper)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:05:24 -0400
References: <f3f05ce80908110327u5062ccb3g8bb2c2a4325a2fe6@mail.gmail.com><4A817271.3030901@scs.uiuc.edu><ea3bd9560908110743h40a3dac2v193ba708db42931b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560908110743h40a3dac2v193ba708db42931b@mail.gmail.com>


On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:43 AM, David Faux wrote:

> The fact is that since
> the publication of the YCC update there have been numerous
> phylogenetically
> significant SNPs discovered and which will need to be added to the
> count and
> hence the date via this methodology will be pushed back a
> considerable way
> in time.

That isn't the way the Karafet et al. method works. You can read the
paper to see their methodology spelled out if you are curious about
why you are wrong (though the paper has been out long enough by now, I
would have thought).


> Hence one must
> conclude that Hammer, Behar and Karafet (primary author of the much
> discussed paper using a SNP counting procedure to date binary markers)
> accept the ZUF premise about effective mutation rates (I have never
> doubted
> it but tried to keep an open mind).

One must only "conclude" that if you were desperate to do so. I don't
know why the new paper still uses the Zhiv rates. Having Zhiv as an
author is probably one factor (though I guess that could turn into
"chicken and egg" discussion quickly). One thing is clear, though,
and that is that no one in the literature is actually discussing the
question of whether the Zhiv rates are appropriate or not. Until
someone does that, the challenges and problems we have found with the
rates over the year remain unaddressed by the academics. They are
under no obligation to address us, of course, but their silence
doesn't make them right.

> There is slender to no reason to question their figures.

There are dozens of reasons to question their figures.


> Trying to dismiss the
> ZUF rates chosen by the authors by simply dividing by three - makes
> absolutely no sense to me, and perhaps not to some other similarly
> deluded
> non-conformist stubborn iconoclastic rabble rousers impervious to
> social
> pressure who are lurking about.

The Zhiv rates are too low by a factor of three. We can see that, so
fixing the authors' mistake is quite easy. And being impervious to
social pressure is surely a virtue, at least occasionally. Being
impervious to reason is not.

VV


This thread: