Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166056121

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:28:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>

No Ellen, it is not the study I need to go to it is the lab. The answer is in the methodology and once it reaches a certain point of complexity it crosses my line of "expertise". Hence I must bow out at this point and take my skepticism with me. It is simply that red flags keep going off when I see the same "problem spot" appear over and over in these samples and then the discussion turns to mysterious disappearances. As is frequently the case we will have to agree to disagree. Lets revisit this two years from now. I do think that we will have to wait a while before some concerns about using ancient DNA as a pivotal part of an arguement are addressed and larger sample sizes are available. If your argument stands the test of time then the naysayers such as myself will need to eat humble pie or a hat or something :-)


ellen Levy <> wrote:

Frankly, I don't think I present any of the studies as
a "pillar" to my argument, though I confess I rely
heavily on Alzualde's work.

I particularly don't ascribe to Haak's study and spend
a considerable time criticizing his work. If his work
is invalidated due to proof of postmortem damage, then
I cannot say I'd be particularly disappointed. Haak's
argument is that N1a represents a Neolithic Middle
Eastern lineage that failed to thrive in Europe;
hence, Europe remained the genetic stomping-ground
primarily of indigenous Paleolithic (non-N1a) lines.

However, you have yet to provide proof that Haak's
samples are likely to have suffered post-mortem
damage. A N1a result is simply not enough to invalid
a study, David. Go to the study itself. See what
procedures Haak used, if any, to address concerns of
postmortem damage. Find the evidence to support your

Ellen Coffman

This thread: