GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290200339


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:58:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <275404940.668464.1290200086181.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


>From: Vincent Vizachero < > 
>The fundamentals on the behavior of DYS390 were published many years
ago. One paper is Forster et. al 1999 ( http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/9/1108.full.pdf  
but there were others. A complete treatment of its applicability in
R-M73 has not yet been published, but its mention in the Myres et al.
paper should satisfy those who doubt its validity.


My response:



Thanks again. I am afraid I am one of those who cannot be satisfied by something said on passing. Every male contains DYS390, but on some inexplicale reason only R1b1 have a luxury to have parts of it deleted, and not only one way (from, say, 24 to 22, but also to 19). Why such a deletion is not observed in R1a1, for example? It makes me feel deprived. Even if R1b are that lucky, why it is not observed in those dozens of thousands of R1b in Europe? They all have DYS390, aren't they? 



It is much more logical to accept that this deletion (I am good with that explanation HOW it might have happened) has occured some 12-16 thousand years ago, and we consider it as a mutation, no more no less, and a very ancient one. That the population with it is only 1300 years of "age" is very typical for Asia, they have plenly of population bottlenecks. It is plain crazy to continue to talk that they are not VERY zancient, because they (DYS390=19 or 22) contain a whole bunch of other mutations - remember, 25 and 19 mutations on 25 marker haplotypes, or at least 22 and 17, even if to put aside (temporarily) DYS390=19. 



Therefore, we are talking on R1b 12-16 thousand years ago anyway. It is very typical to see a shallow (ybp) population with alleles tremendously remoted from the "mainstream" population. It means - ANCIENT common ancestor. I do not believe I have to explain it here.            



>We have a few facts which, probably we can agree on.
>The TRMCA of R-M269 is about 6,000 years ago.


Yes, this is my data. Published a while ago and repeatedly described here. Thank you for mentioning. I agree on it.





>The TMRCA of R-M73 is about 7,000 years ago.


Disagree completely. Where did you get it? Both Lawrence and myself have explained here that it is at least 11-12,000 ybp, and likely more ancient.  



>The TMRCA of R-P297 is about 12,000 years ago.
>The TMRCA of R-M415 is about 16,000 years ago.


All these figures are either in error, or just made up. Where are the primary data?





>Additionally, we have a few facts of which you may be unaware:
>The point of maximum STR variance for R-M269 is SW Asia.
>The point of maximum STR variance for R-M73 is SW Asia.
>The point of maximum STR variance within R-M415(xP297) is SW Asia.
>The point of maximum subclade diversity within R-M269 is SW Asia.
>The point of maximum subclade diversity within R-M73 is SW Asia.
>The point of maximum subclade diversity within R-M415(xP297) is SW Asia.


All the above is false. Primary data, please. What is WS Asia, anyway, in this context? You have never answered.



>Consequently, the presence of a few

>R-M73 haplotypes in the Altai region

>is fairly unremarkable since members

>of this same subclade of R-M73 are

>found in most places that Turkic languages

>are spoken - from Anatolia to Sibera



This was my point when I have suggested that ancient R1b1 spoke proto-Turkic languages. Some of them speak very archaic Turkic languages. By the way, a bottleneck of about 1300-1500 ybp fits a divergence timepoint of modern Turkic languages. These two things could be connected.    



>analysis of this subclade reveals that

>it has a very recent (<2kya) MRCA.


Welcome to the population bottleneck concept. I suggest you to look not only at "2 kya" but also at their haplotypes. They are typically much more informative.



Anatole Klyosov


This thread: