Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260149418

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:30:18 -0800
References: <><>
In-Reply-To: <>

It is a shifting landscape Vince, and no one is certain about anything. No
harm in propounding hypotheses, and even theoretic frameworks bolstered by
data from varied sources. However, even the population geneticists seem
uncertain about the timing of events. Now Michael Hammer has come on board,
along with Peter Underhill some time ago, with Zhivotovsky in terms of
dating clade ages - so multiply by 3.6 - or not. How are genetic
genealogists supposed to have confidence in any one approach when opinions
are so varied and so entrenched. I will sit on the fence but if pressed do
favor a Neolithic expansion of P312 with the rapid emergence of an array of
subclades. I don't disagree with the Western Asian source population. We
will be discussing this matter until ancient DNA or an approach not yet
conceived is able to provide something more definitive. Just the way it is.

David K. Faux.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Vincent Vizachero <>wrote:

> Views change, and you can see a distinct change in views on this
> question in the literature. The recent paper by Jacques Chiaroni,
> Peter A. Underhill, and Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, for example, actually
> holds out R in western Europe as an example of a "migration that can
> reach highest values up to 100%, at or before barriers most distant
> from their likely place of origin." The barrier in this case, of
> course, is the Atlantic Ocean. The origin, according to the paper by
> Barbara Arredi, Estalla Poloni, and Chris-Tyler Smith, is West Asia.
> This shift in views is in contradiction to the ancient work by Semino
> and others, but if those six geneticists can agree on something (in
> this case, an expansion of R from the Near East into Europe), I guess
> that is worth pointing out too.
> VV
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Gary Felix wrote:
> > What should have been said in the first place are that these recent
> > ages of haplogroups could be proven wrong and are not in agreement
> > with
> > the general view of population geneticists.

This thread: