Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-01 > 1264348308

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] STR evidence supports Balanced Tree Hypothesis
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:51:48 -0700
References: <> <C31F5F114DCF4FCF8DEC2D4E08EAA842@anatoldesktop><00c501ca9cb5$fdd8fbf0$6400a8c0@Ken1><>

G(AB) has nothing to do with G*(A) and G*(B). For instance: coalescence age
for I1 is about 4000 years, and for I2a3-Western it is 3000 years or less.
Yet the age of the MRCA for these two haplogroups is about 20,000 years ago.
>From 20,000 years ago to shortly before those coalescence ages the I1/I2a3
tree consists of two single lines of ancestry going back from the respective
MRCAs to the joint MRCA of both haplogroups who lived on that ancient node
20,000 years ago.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Aburto" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] STR evidence supports Balanced Tree Hypothesis

> One could "complete the square" on that equation, almost, but then one
> would need to show G(AB) <---> [G*(A)G*(B)]^(1/2)
> My mind is wandering off a bit this morning .... I just hope it doesn't
> wonder off too far :-)
> Al
> > On 1/23/2010 9:27 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>> Ah; the nature of the misunderstanding by Tim seems clear. I believe Tim
>> thought an interclade TMRCA was being done, while by the description
>> Anatole
>> did a standard variance type TMRCA (done of course by Anatole's own
>> counting
>> method) of a mixture of A and B haplotypes.
>> We know what such a mixture will produce: if fraction f of the
>> haplotypes
>> are A and (1-f) of them B one should get:
>> f^2 G*(A) + (1-f)^2 G*(B) + 2f(1-f) G(AB)
>> with G* being coalescence ages for the separate clades (A or B) and G(AB)
>> is
>> the age back to the MRCA for A and B.
> -------------------------------
> 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: