GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290201770
From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:22:50 -0500
On Nov 19, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wrote:
> 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?
Why? Seriously? It's a rare deletion but not unique to R-M73 (did
you not read the reference I just provided?). Why is M269 not
observed in R1a1? Why is U152 not observed in R1a1? We are talking
about science, not religion: "why" is a legitimate question to ask
about he mechanism of mutation, but not about the recipient.
> 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.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh? It is NOT a
very ancient mutation, and we know this because we are not blind to
the facts. In this case, only one subclade of R-M73 has the deletion
while the other does not. The TRMCA of R-M73 is 7kya. Ergo, the
deletion could NOT have occurred 12-16 kya.
> 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.
Again, your inability to be precise is hampering your comprehension.
The TMRCA for this particular clade of R-M73, the one with DYS390=19,
is indeed very recent. Again you imagine some "why" (bottlenecks and
what not) but you miss the point: this clade is modern, not
ancient. And so the history you can infer about the time period PRIOR
to the MRCA is incredibly limited. You are making a mountain out of a
molehill, and are too arrogant to realize it.
>> 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.
Your humility is stunning. Really. As if you are the only one derive
this estimate. Please, spare us.
>> 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.
How can you disagree when you have not even made an estimate for this
node? Lawrence estimated the TMRCA for R-P297 at 12kya and the TMRCA
for R-M73 at 7.2 kya. I happen to agree with him on both counts. I
don't think you are adequately following the phylogeny.
> What is WS Asia, anyway, in this context? You have never answered.
SW Asia is "Southwest Asia". Check your encylopedia or a good map if
you don't know where that is.
|Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages by Vincent Vizachero <>|