GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-11 > 1227897655


From: "Tom Gull" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TRMCA for R1b1
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:40:55 -0500
References: <C556259C.FA4C%bobhay@optusnet.com.au><0741DF0B-C741-4EEB-B761-C1F995CA28D9@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80811280713j4ec76a5cpda422767c2fa2150@mail.gmail.com><2B633A6B-F35A-4E4F-B341-69C4AE554EF9@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <C556259C.FA4C%bobhay@optusnet.com.au><0741DF0B-C741-4EEB-B761-C1F995CA28D9@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80811280713j4ec76a5cpda422767c2fa2150@mail.gmail.com><2B633A6B-F35A-4E4F-B341-69C4AE554EF9@vizachero.com>


I think it's interesting how one factual posting about TMRCA analysis for
R1b1 can morph into a rehash of the "my ancestors were the Lascaux cave
painters" vs "nomads from the steppes" arguments. Vince posted a new
analysis early on the 26th, Alan R mentioned the eastern refugia and the
implications of the analysis on that, David made his usual "not supported by
population geneticists" posting, followed by the usual rebuttals and some
side postings about who was trying to suppress discussion. Obviously, we
don't want to suppress postings like Vince's original new work and people
speculating about what it implies.

Then Bob asked the really valuable question: OK, you guys disagree, what is
the actual supporting evidence for each theory? I've seen a lot in these
forums on the "younger R1b" theory but very little of the factual
underpinnings for the "R1b was the original European haplogroup in the
western refugia". Did it all really boil down to "R1b predominates now so
it must have done so then"? Or is there a set of interlocking evidence that
hasn't been refuted yet?






This thread: