GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290067974
From: "Tim Janzen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:12:54 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2140114066.556037.1290022955638.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Dear Anatole and others,
Thank, Anatole, for posting your recent estimates for M269 and other
SNPs. As you may realize, your estimates are fairly close to the estimates
I posted to the list recently at
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/12892798
50 for these SNPs. As a general rule, your estimates are slightly lower
than mine, but not by much. You are using an entirely different method than
I am. As you know, my method is based on interclade variance using John
Chandler's mutation rates. Thus, while some may be criticizing your
methodology, I think it is important to note that your results are very
similar to those generated using the interclade method. I was hoping that
Dienekes would be willing to weigh in and provide his best estimates are for
the ages of these SNPs (or their nodes), but thus far he has chosen not to
post any of his own estimates. I agree with others that it is not wise to
ascribe tight confidence intervals to these estimates since I think that
tight confidence intervals suggest a higher level of surety to the estimates
than I think is wise. Those of involved in making these calculations
realize that there is a significant amount of uncertainty to them,
particularly, the farther you go back in time. In any case, I still believe
that making the best estimates we can make is better than making no
estimates at all.
Sincerely,
Tim Janzen
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages
Dear Tim,
We can determine timespans to common ancestors of current haplotypes
belonging to said subclades. Whether or not they were at the "bottom" of the
respective subclades, remains to be determined, if possible.
M269 ---- more than 6200 ybp (Proceedings, 2010, No. 8, pp. 1310-1315, "An
"age" of R1b1b2-M269 and its subclades L23, L51, L11").
L23 --- ~ 6140 ybp (ibid.)
L51 --- 5300+/-730 ybp (ibid.) or 5850+/-860 ybp (another set of data)
(Proceedings, 2010, No. 2, pp. 249-299, "Haplogroup R1b")
L11 --- ~ 4800 ybp
P312 --- 3950+/-400 (ibid.)
U106 --- 4175+/-430 (ibid.)
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages by "Tim Janzen" <> |