GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260381040


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:50:40 -0800
References: <mailman.279.1260259242.26095.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><A93225B377724B83BF5250F368878955@anatoldesktop><ea3bd9560912080855u5f4216a1g4d0b6a16d543dae1@mail.gmail.com><REME20091209002724@alum.mit.edu><ea3bd9560912082206r79afe90ubf5cf4f7ca9774fb@mail.gmail.com><006f01ca78c5$39021a50$ab064ef0$@org>
In-Reply-To: <006f01ca78c5$39021a50$ab064ef0$@org>


Yes, but there are currently many models on the table, each with their own
set of assumptions and a set of formulae to fit the fit the facts or
construct he facts - sometimes I am not sure. Until more certainty (or
persuasive evidence) issues forth, it is my view and apparent that of others
here that it is best to either tentatively accept the majority view among
career population geneticists, or sit on the fence. A safe bet when this is
not one's particular area of expertise. However the blindly accept the
views of one camp, because the rest of the flock is moving in that
direction, is folly.

David K. Faux.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Lawrence Mayka <> wrote:

> This line of thought is almost identical to a fundamental element of
> young-earth creationism: That we cannot know whether natural processes
> occurred at the same rate in the past as they do today, and that therefore
> all dating of the past is potentially deceptive:
>
> http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay
>
> In a philosophical sense, this is clearly true. We cannot observe the past
> directly, so all scientific assertions in its regard can never be more than
> extrapolations from the present (or as David pejoratively called them,
> "statistical manipulations").
>
> Of course, sensible practitioners of scientific method do not claim to be
> accumulating philosophical truth, but rather constructing models that
> correctly predict further observations.
>
> > From: [mailto:genealogy-dna-
> > ] On Behalf Of David Faux
> > My
> > point is that we do not know directly (meaning via direct observation)
> what
> > the father - son mutation rates were during the Bronze Age - it is all
> > inference, based on a series of assumptions that all remains static in
> this
> > department while populations face ecological, sociological and other
> > challenges which shift the panorama of linear or non - linear changes in
> > structural and functional aspects of genetic transmission from generation
> to
> > generation.
>
>


This thread: