GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266775833


From: "Tim Janzen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] : variance of S116*
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:10:33 -0800
In-Reply-To: <992E7EBACB0B40688D42C7E72D3ECD42@anatoldesktop>


Dear Anatole,
Your points are well taken. Ideally, I would like to have a minimum
of at least 20-30 haplotypes for each region. That would help with the
statistical reliability of the information. If I had the data, I would run
the calculations with a set number of haplotypes from each region (at least
20 or so). In particular, it would be helpful to have more data from
southern Europe and eastern Europe. I have tried to be reasonably
conservative in the conclusions I drew at the end of my message. If you
will note, I didn't make any claim that I know precisely were R-L48 or
R-U106 originated. I suspect that R-U106 originated somewhere in northwest
Europe, but in my own mind I have not ruled out the possibility that R-U106
originated somewhere in Great Britain or Ireland and then moved east from
there or that it originated somewhere else in continental Europe. The data
I used is all readily available from the FTDNA R-U106 project and everyone
else is free to offer a different interpretation of the data or to create a
larger database of R-U106 haplotypes from which they might possibly draw
more precise conclusions.
I could post the raw mutation data for each region, but I don't
think that many people would know how to interpret that information. Most
people want to look at this data in terms of years (or possibly
generations). I am using 30 years per generation in case anyone wants to
convert the information into generations. Whether one generates TMRCA
estimates in years or generations, the point of these intraclade estimates
is to look for differences in variance by region. I agree with you that the
R-U106* data at this time doesn't strongly point to one specific area of
origin. More precise conclusions might possibly be drawn at some point in
the future when we have more data. In any case, the available data (both
the variance data and the current distribution of R-U106*) would suggest
that R-U106 didn't originate in southern Europe.
Sincerely,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Anatole Klyosov
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:09 AM
To:
Cc: Anatole Klyosov
Subject: Re: [DNA] : variance of S116*


Dear Tim,

Leaving aside my estimates which showed the "age" of U106 as 4175+/-430
years (those are calculations using 7100 alleles), let's focus on your
relative "ages" across Europe. Frankly, I do not see a real difference
between different regions, plus the highest value in NW is hard to explain
when everything around is lower. However, the real problem is in statistics.

You do not give the margin of errors, and with those values all your figures

would be largely overlapping.

One thing, you do not need to calculate "ages in years", it would be enough
to present just a number of mutations in chosen haplotypes (or whatever
primary unit you have used for calculations). By calculating in years, you
introduce an uncertainty with precision of the values of the mutation rate
constants.

In a nutshell, the data are too uncertain to make any conclusions on
directions of the movements. Statistics is not there.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov



This thread: