Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-05 > 1180470670

From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Do we Understand y-Haplogroup F?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:31:10 +0300
References: <BAY111-DAV54B99C3BCE94310A955B6B12F0@phx.gbl><005601c7a20d$ab0fc340$6400a8c0@Ken1><007b01c7a216$6c537ee0$0401a8c0@Masterbedroom><000401c7a21c$29a2fd40$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000401c7a21c$29a2fd40$6400a8c0@Ken1>

On 5/29/07, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:

> That male who was most recent common ancestor of E and F is
> certainly earlier than founding of any clade of F or any SNP pertinent to
> F.
> That's the date which I have no way presently of getting back to 50,000
> years ago --- given my GDs between E clades and all the clades of G, H, I,
> J, K, ..... R in my tree.


The relative order and direction of mutations which in the traditional Tree
are shown "above" the single letter Haplogroups is far from being firmly

Most likely, the most recent common ancestor of E and F is F himself, with E
derived from F
in three steps: from F to AE, from AE to DE, and then from DE to E.

In this way, the closeness of E haplotypes to the ones in I, J and K is
immediately explained.

How much can you trust a scientific theory to which no alternative was
ever published? Such is the theory saying that the African lineages A and B
"branched out" earlier than others. The evidence cited is the much greater
variability of YDNA found in Africa. But this evidence was never subjected
to scientific evaluation.

Until this year. No so long time ago an article was published examining
exactly this question - is the variability level found in Africa the result
of a longer population history - or of some other factor, including possibly
different mutation rate. The article is by Rogers et al. and is called
"Ancestral Alleles and Population Origins: Inferences Depend on Mutation

And what do you think is the result of this mathematical evaluation? The
result is: the data clearly show "African Bias". One possible explanation of
African Bias is the higher mutation rates in ancient Africa. There may be in
principle various other explanations too, but in any case the A/BR split can
no more be considered a fact.

The new research effectively knocks the Out-Of-Africa approach to YDNA out.
So far, not much was said on this List about what follows from Rogers et al.
2007: that the Root part of the Tree must be re-evaluated using STR data.


This thread: