Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260389293

From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:08:13 +0100

Dear David

I made my remarks as a general reminder about a difficult concept in
science, or the philosophy of science. Honestly, it was not intended to be
aimed at you or Underhill or Zhivitovsky, but by the same token there are
intelligent and qualified scientists who misunderstand the point I made. You
seem to think my description fits Underhill and Zhivitovsky, but I am not

My main advice would be about how to discuss things. Not only would I
discourage arguing too much about whether the son will rise tomorrow, I
would also discourage other medieval discussion strategies such as using the
word "heavyweight" in place of an argument.

Anyway. Coming back to what you said, do you think that your interlocutors
are disagreeing with you concerning whether the germline rate can be
projected simply into the distant past even for populations?

I think everyone agrees that this is problematic. The debate seems to be
about whether Zhivitovsky found a real solution.

Best Regards

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:52:50 -0800
References: <408B6494040041E581DC092DF85C9F47@PC>
In-Reply-To: <408B6494040041E581DC092DF85C9F47@PC>

Ok, this is clearly meant as a barb sent in my direction. Fair enough.
However ... Are you saying that these "heavyweights"
are in the league of pseudo - scientists or creationists, deluding
themselves into believing in something that is sacrosanct to them -
following your line of reasoning this would seem to be the case.

This thread: