GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-08 > 1344183559


From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Comparing results on 111 markers- Y-Database
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:19:19 +0300
References: <mailman.3435.1344122915.15571.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><833256361.132677.1344135347280.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <833256361.132677.1344135347280.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


The listed numbers for Klyosov and Rozhanskii do not correspond to
what is actually in the paper
(http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566)

For example, Klyosov claims that he estimated BT as 66,000 years, but
in the paper he writes:

"Similar pairwise calculations with the base haplotype of haplogroup B
as well with all other haplogroups (besides A) place a common ancestor
of beta-haplogroup to 64,000 ± 6000 years before present (see Figure
3)."

"Another, quite different branch, had formed a fork, then apparently
went through a population bottleneck around 70 - 60 thousand ybp
(perhaps the Toba event), and gave rise to β-haplogroup, ancestral to
non-African haplogroups, 64,000 ± 6000 ybp."

He claims that he estimated DE as 60,000 years, and E as 45,000 years
but in the paper he writes:

"Haplogroup DE split to D and E around 42,000 ybp, and currently
populates vast territory from North Africa to the west to Korea and
Japan to the east."

He also omits sample points. In Figure 3 of his paper it is clear that
he estimates NO as little over than 20,000 years, I estimated it as
33,000 years.

He estimates the common ancestor of E1a and E1b (Figure 3) at about
35,000 years, and I estimate E1b1 at 43,000 years.

In short, his apparent "concordance" between my results and his is
largely artificial, consisting of a combination of made up numbers,
and hiding under the carpet the cases where our numbers are not close.

SNPs have replaced STRs in all areas of genetics. We've seen it happen
in autosomal DNA (the early work of Rosenberg from the early 2000s
used STRs, everyone uses SNPs now). We've seen it happen in Y-DNA, and
we're about to see it again in a very big way in the coming few
months.

SNPs are simply better; in the 9 million-long region sequenced in the
1000Genomes data, and with a rate of 3x10^-8 mutations/site/generation
we expect 0.27 mutations/generation. Klyosov's 22 marker panel has
-according to him- 1 mutation per 4,250 years. A few million slow
clocks trump a few dozen fast ones -- even if one were not dealing
with the much more troublesome molecular machinery of STRs.

I realize that a lot of people have invested a lot in Y-STRs, and they
served their purpose for a while, but they're now a historical relic.
Of course people might still find some use for the abundant datasets
that have accumulated, but personally I see little reason to perfect
the oil lamp after we've discovered electricity.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:55 AM, <> wrote:
> A couple of days ago D. Ponticos has published his list of haplogroup chronology, calculated based on the "1000 Genomes" Project . Here are our results (Klyosov & Rozhanskii), published in May 2012 in Advances in Anthropology, vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 80-86, and his results, respe ctively (in years):
>
>
>
> alpha-haplogroup ("root" in Ponticos' table)
>
> 160,000; 159,000
>
>
>
> BT: 66,000; 71 ,000
>
> CT: 60,000; 63,000
>
> C1/C3: 36,000; 35,000
>
> DE: 60,000; 63,000
>
> E: 45,000; 47,000
>
> F: 55,000; 56,000
>
> J1/J2: 21,000; 21,000
>
> R1/R2: 28,000; 24,000
>
> R1b/R1b1:16,000; 15,000
>
> R1b-M269:7,000; N/A
>


--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com
Dodecad Ancestry Project: http://dodecad.blogspot.com


This thread: