GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-07 > 1247885944


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] For Age Estimates beware of tossing STRs away
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:59:04 -0600
References: <516801.35250.qm@web86610.mail.ird.yahoo.com><4A610DC6.4040607@san.rr.com><004f01ca0740$f6b0be40$6400a8c0@Ken1><E13E0451-3FB5-4CFE-8994-566D56D6A8F5@vizachero.com>


What snp ages do you have other than the paper of a year or so ago from the
U Arizona people? Those are mainly quite old node ages.

I guess you really mean old, like most of the way back to Adam? Haplogroup
I node ages easily range from the very young on back into ages in excess of
20,000 years. But maybe haplogroup I started to split up in Europe 35,000
years ago ?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] For Age Estimates beware of tossing STRs away


> I'll speak only for myself in saying that my decision to omit the
> slowest [[ fastest ?? ]] STRs was motivated by two factors.
>
> One was the observation that estimates for old nodes were not much
> older than estimates for young nodes.
>
> Two as the observation that estimates using STRs were systematically
> (but not linearly) younger than estimates for the same nodes made
> using SNPs.
>
> In other words, it was not about getting ages I "liked" better but
> about finding away to resolve inconsistencies.
>
> VV
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>
>> People have a tendency to select the STRS which give them ages they
>> are most
>> comfortable with or like for some reason.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: