RootsWeb: GENEALOGY-DNA-L Re: [DNA] How old is Y-Chromosome Adam?

GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-01 > 1294183951

From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] How old is Y-Chromosome Adam?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 01:32:31 +0200
References: <201101040808.p0488xgP020485@mail.rootsweb.com><AA814106-788F-475B-9494-D839E21F7AC6@vizachero.com><AANLkTi=FN3NEtEsp93qpYyLSr_tD9PLJb+pRZm+HHpv7@mail.gmail.com><00e301cbac30$3bb02b80$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTikw0bwRedjAOMqFXGJ73jEmh-pXOuLfKQENrB77@mail.gmail.com><010e01cbac34$c3983480$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTimhrGmoUa=attiP4TkQxa73QJK9-vVdvoM2free@mail.gmail.com><019b01cbac57$659e0c60$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTikJRLQ3ahx+4Hvbe2m-W7stiT61ZXbVGpafQpiZ@mail.gmail.com><023701cbac63$48c06820$c2482dae@Ken1><AANLkTimEM+3KetvWNGMwyXjMG02nWZt+c3XieMe1T4PB@mail.gmail.com><DCF434F8-F111-4384-B2F8-B07413D48158@vizachero.com><AANLkTi=PohvmWe88TaERfs3Fp8ADQ5sQ9DxzBw13t1xP@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=PohvmWe88TaERfs3Fp8ADQ5sQ9DxzBw13t1xP@mail.gmail.com>

And, the discrepancy is 18-fold using fast/slow markers using Ken's program as presented by Tim here, for the A/C comparison: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-01/1293994877 On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Dienekes Pontikos <> wrote: > Ballantyne's spread was 20-fold using the 10 fastest/slowest markers > as estimated by me, and 16-fold with the fast/slow markers as > estimated by Tim in 2009 and 13-fold in 2010. It is still 7-fold when > using 23 fastest vs. 23 slowest ones. So, even if all the slowest ones > had 45% overestimate of the age (not true, as it is only 18% in one of > the slow ones that Ken estimated at my request), then we are still > left with a 4.5-fold discrepancy. > > And, all of this with the caveat that Ken's method is better than Ballantyne's. > > In short, the alleged underestimate of the mutation rate for slow > markers contributes very little to the discrepancy. > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote: >> Well, don't leave without remembering that the fast markers are >> underestimating TMRCA. >> >> And remembering that Ballantyne's spread was more like 10-fold, not 20- >> fold. >> >> I'm sure some are sick of pointing it out, but I'm not sure it has >> sunk in yet given what you write below. >> >> VV >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Dienekes Pontikos wrote: >> >>> I'll leave the subject by noting that for the slowest marker Ken's >>> method gives a 45% faster rate, hence most of the ~20-fold difference >>> in the age estimates of "Adam" when one uses the 10 slowest/10 fastest >>> markers cannot be explained by the postulated underestimation of the >>> mutation rate of slow markers. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > -- > Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com > Dodecad Ancestry Project: http://dodecad.blogspot.com > -- Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com Dodecad Ancestry Project: http://dodecad.blogspot.com