GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268944472


From: SVass <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b Cohane
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:34:32 -0700
References: <mailman.4166.1268943408.12642.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4166.1268943408.12642.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


My bad. And of course, I should have used the qualifying modifier "minimum" so my sentence should have read:
Minimum Coalescence Age of A&B is 2650 years.

Anyway, as the ht-35 groups are early clusters, they should be relatively near the origin of M269 in both space and time.
sam

On Mar 18, 2010, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

> Of course I am looking at these pair of messages from the outside without knowing the details, but if Vass's "a+b" age is a coalescence age obtained
> for the sum of the a and b samples, that's about what one would expect if the true interclade node age were about 5400 years. The coalescence age for
> sum of two populations is some average between the separate population coalescence ages and the interclade node age. Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b Cohane
>
>
On Mar 18, 2010, Vincent Vizachero wrote:
>> I use a modified version of Ken's Generations5 utility, and I got a considerably longer estimate for TMRCA(ab): 180 generations (5400 years).
>> My coalescence age estimates for each of A and B were similar to yours. VV
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2010, at 11:17 AM, SVass wrote:
>>> I went to
>>> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1bCohane/default.aspx?section=yresults
>>> and copied the two clusters, A and B, to a spreadsheet.
>>> I then computed coalescence ages for each and for the combination using 37 markers.
>>> My results are as follows:
>>> A 23 generations (690 years)
>>> B 37 generations (1105 years)
>>> A&B 88 generations (2650 years)
>>
>



This thread: