GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260390604


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:30:04 -0800
References: <mailman.279.1260259242.26095.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><A93225B377724B83BF5250F368878955@anatoldesktop><ea3bd9560912080855u5f4216a1g4d0b6a16d543dae1@mail.gmail.com><REME20091209002724@alum.mit.edu><ea3bd9560912082206r79afe90ubf5cf4f7ca9774fb@mail.gmail.com><REME20091209015633@alum.mit.edu><ea3bd9560912091050x269ed21j66e8bb05570c7db1@mail.gmail.com><REME20091209151913@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20091209151913@alum.mit.edu>


So the solution would seem to be a type of catatonia - not do anything
whether you call it the use of "fudge factors" or whatever to address a very
difficult if not insoluable problem. I applaud ZUF for taking a step in
what would seem to be the right direction. They will of course need to
offer revisions and updates and maybe veer a little to the left or right -
but this is as you know how science progresses. They have taken "the
problem" to the next level. They have not etched something in futhark
script that, since it is carved into relatively imperishable materials, will
remain indefinitely. It is just one small step, generating healthy debate,
and I anxiously await further developments in the matter - including from
yourself.

David K. Faux.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Chandler
<>wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> > The truth is we don't know.
>
> If you insist on taking the obscurantist route, that also means you
> cannot "sit on the fence" after all. To be rigorous, you must reject
> all forms of extrapolation in age calculation. For example, you must
> reject outright the application of fudge factors to dates that go
> thousands of years into the past. For that matter, you cannot
> seriously accept the concept of averaging fudge factors from separate
> populations to get a "more reliable" result to be extended to other,
> uncalibrated populations. "The truth is we don't know."
>
> John Chandler
>


This thread: