GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-11 > 1227891009


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TRMCA for R1b1
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:50:09 -0500
References: <C556259C.FA4C%bobhay@optusnet.com.au> <49300835.2090609@scs.uiuc.edu><006501c95170$91cf78d0$6400a8c0@Ken1><49301A20.5040909@scs.uiuc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <49301A20.5040909@scs.uiuc.edu>


I'll admit that it bothers me a little bit too, but not a whole lot
for two reasons.

One is that if you do what you suggest elsewhere (use STR variance on
a group of slow markers) you get an estimate for both TMRCA-R1 and
TMRCA-R1b1 (and all the other TMRCA estimates from Karafet, including
CT) that are consistent with the numbers that Karafet published.

The other is that the TMRCA-CT calibration point affects all
downstream estimates linearly. If my TMRCA estimate for R1b1 (for
example) is off by a factor of two or three - which it would need to
be to support instead of contradict the out-of-Iberia theory - then
the TMRCA estimate for CT would have to be off by the same factor. A
TMRCA estimate for CT of 140 kya or 210 kya would really have the
archaeologists (and geneticists) in a tizzy.

VV


On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:

> The argument that BOTHERS ME MOST is the date that Vizachero
> accepts, based on Karafet, who of course is one of the "in group"
> people, for R1. This is based on something nobody talks about much:
> an age for the AB/CT split!


This thread: