GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166073881


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:24:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <REME20061213222522@alum.mit.edu>


Actually John, we are now speaking about another study. The two sample categories that Alzualde (2006) focuses on, as reflecting some sort of discontinutity, are supposed M* and J. The latter includes 16069 and 16126 which are reported by Thomas et al. to be the sort of "hot spots" of which I was speaking; and the former includes the "notorious" 16233. Hence either of both of these haplogroup clusters - 7 among over 50 samples - are potentially false positives (decaying from haplogroups H or V). Even if they were "legit" haplogroups these numbers are extremely small to be making sweeping statements about discontinuity. Besides, these samples are from the 6th and 7th Centuries and of questionable utility when the focus is supposed to be on Meso or Neolithic data. Not sure how well thought out this is though. Being born a hoser from South Cayuga puts me at a distinct disadvantate in parlaying with an MIT alumnus.

Keep your stick on the ice, eh (Red Green, 1990).

David.

John Chandler <> wrote:
It appears that David's assertion was less well thought out than I
realized. It is not enough for V to decay into N1a to explain the
lack of V in ancient samples that are "expected" to include V -- if
the testing doesn't find the decay product N1a, the loop isn't closed.
Also, it is not enough that N1a is found in other samples where the
expectations are pretty vague, to say the least. The latter
difficulty seems to nullify any interest in using the "decay" idea to
explain "surprising" aDNA samples taken from any spot where an
interruption of cultural and/or ethnic continuity is already known or
strongly suspected -- such samples can't really be such a surprise
after all.

John Chandler


This thread: