GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-05 > 1306020364


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-chromosome Adam 142 thousand years old;revised phylogeny.
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:26:04 +1200
References: <BANLkTimx1d2=ZOT65herSt9P5bDGe0ovmQ@mail.gmail.com>,<COL115-W28C9234B037CA60D7D0673A0700@phx.gbl>,<464589E58568493DB00717758A3914E3@kenPC><COL115-W62E3062A018FF0AC3650B6A0700@phx.gbl><3951EB8E289F440C9064DF8CB0BC8B22@kenPC>
In-Reply-To: <3951EB8E289F440C9064DF8CB0BC8B22@kenPC>


The TMRCA for Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve seem to be moving targets subject to
when and how testing has been done, and how extensive the testing has been.

If we were living 28,000 years ago, both Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve may have
been as far back as 800,000 years for Neanderthal/ Modern Human hybrids
living in Europe. If today we Y-DNA tested all 3 billion males living on
earth, we might find one or more Neanderthal or other archaic human Y-DNA
line survives in a living human.

There is a tiny mischievous part of me which would just love to see a
Neanderthal male or female line be found to survive, so then we could all
start respeculating the time and location of Y-DNA Adam or mtDNA Eve. Just
imagine the difficulties and wider confidence intervals we might have if the
TMCRA was as far back as perhaps 800,000 years.

All we can say with some degree of certainty is that if we "define" Y-DNA
Adam as the common ancestor of only haplogroups A to T as known and
identified today, he might have lived about 142,00 years ago.

John.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Nordtvedt
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 6:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-chromosome Adam 142 thousand years old;revised
phylogeny



-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bird

Of course not, Ken. However, wouldn't you be happier with the estimates if
the TMRCAs for mtDNA and YDNA came reasonably close to agreeing with each
other and perhaps even with the archaeological record?

[[ Until I looked into what goes into the male versus female TMRCA, I would
not be happier with any particular outcome estimates. And I have almost no
idea what archaeology would have to do with these two people.
I do know that male reproductive behaviors and resulting demographic
statistics differ from those of females. And that is an important
ingredient in producing the TMRCA. KN ]]




>
>
> At least this estimate places genetic Adam in the same general ballpark as
> genetic Eve.
>
> [[ There is no particular reason Adam tmrca and Eve tmrca need be the
> same.
> KN]]


-------------------------------
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

This thread: