GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291759705


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAH 15 marker Y-DNA panel
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:08:25 -0700
References: <CA824C4968F14F569388AC524C6D4D00@JohnPC><000501cb95ea$da5a54b0$8f0efe10$@dgmweb.net><AANLkTik7qEa9Ji7SNK7rO_gzoV7gXsUYM9DZF7j2Rbw5@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTimB65Towp=oTmyM6Cjo6zS_dyX4yD16HaiB_sUW@mail.gmail.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike W" <>


Over 96 markers, the GD of P312 with K9VGV, the L21 modal is 0 so the
two are identical.

Over 78 markers the GD of P312 with QB382, the U152 modal, is 2.

Over 67 markers, the GD of P312 with HXTNR, the U106 modal, is 3.

This is just a reflection of what the The 1000 Genomes Project
Consortium ( 2010) called "A striking pattern indicative of a recent
rapid expansion...."


[[Not exactly; although all this is consistent with being in the middle of a
rapid expansion (bushy portion of the tree). What is indicated is that
those named snps, part of the tiny set discovered snps as of circa late
2010, happen by chance to large degree to have occured temporally close
together in the midst of this action. In other words, the rapid expansion
happened whether snps close together were by chance found or not as of
today, and that the rapid expansion is probably more objectively (eternally)
captured by the collection of GDs between the pairs of all the descendant
haplotypes seen today.

I hope this does not seem nit picking, but I still don't get a sense the
list contributors yet accept both the largely accidental and bias-driven
nature of the particular set of snps we have right now in the y tree. KN]]



This thread: