GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260232796


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:39:56 -0500
References: <mailman.6002.1260226551.2086.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


>From: David Faux <>
>Zhivotovsky ...having a solid and persuasive rationale to back up his
>figures,
>and one whose technique calibrates well with known human events
>(e.g., the migration of the Maori to New Zealand).

Dear David,

First, this is not "known human events" at all, and estimates vary between
800 and 1300 years bp.

Second, there was not a "calibration" at all in the Zhivotovsky paper. You
probably have not read it.

That "calibration" was a joke, and violated all possible "standards" for
academic papers.

These are harsh words, however, they are a certain underestimation of a rape
which was done in that
paper over a common sense and academic "standards". Read it.

In case if you did not read it, I will remind you. The authors (Zhivotovsky
et al, 2004 ) have considered
22 Maori haplotypes and 23 Cook Islands haplotypes, and have postulated
(sic!) 800 years for the population
of the islands, that is 32 generations (they took 25 years per generation).
They obtained 0.00998 mutations
per marker in the dataset, that is obtained the mutation rate as 0.00998/32
= 0.000312 mutations per marker
per generation. Not 0.00069, mind you. That was the end of this particular
"calibration".

Then, after a series of considerations and re-considerations, they desided
that it was an "underestimate", and
they started to remove haplotypes from the dataset and change other things.
After a number of steps they have desided
to take it as 0.00069 mutations per marker per generation, that is three (!)
times higher that they have obtained earlier.
This 0.00069 came out of... well, out of the blue. Not from those
"calibrations" at any rate. The Bantu gave
quite a different figure... in fact, the Bantu gave nothing. The Bulgarian
Gypsies gave a quite different figure again.

It is shocking. And they keep repeating as a mantra that there was a
"calibration", and the "academic community
has critically considered this calibration and approved it". Or "accepted
it".

Well, dear David, sic transit gloria mundi. Sooner or later. It is time to
"transit".

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov

P.S. A paper with a detailed consideration of that "calibration", step by
step, is published today in the same issue of the edition
I cited in a preceding comment.



This thread: