Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260399709

From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:01:49 -0500
References: <>

From: David Faux <>
>However it was the well respected scientists Zhivotovsky, Underhill and
>Feldman (2004) who categorically stated that the germline rate cannot be
>projected into the distant past without introducing a correction factor to
>bring the figures in line with the evolutionary effective mutational rates.

There is a mess in understanding here. It is a mess in understanding from
your side, David, and from the side of the well respected scientists.

First, what is "distant" in this context? It is not defined by you (no
and, strangely enough, it was never clearly defined by the well respected
scientists. There was some vague hint that everything beyond 1000 years
is "evolutionary", however, it was never clearly stated and has never been
proven. And if they would have clearly stated it, it would have been wrong.
As a result, the "evolutionary", flawed, mutation rate became "one
size fits all", as John has properly stated. Well respected scientists
never introduce something so vague as a methodology.

In reality, instead of "distant" it should have said "having a number of
or "branches", and "a set of different lineages having a number of the most
common ancestors, one for each lineage", or something more elegant but
defined. Well respected scientists should be able to do it.

Then, they did not introduce and did not have an intention to introduce a
"correction factor" as you repeatedly (and wrongly) try to present here.
They introduced a mutation rate of 0.00069 per generation of 25 years.
Period. Again, "one size fits all". For any given haplotype, for any given
span to common ancestors, for any genetic drift or without it. For any shape
of a haplotype tree, for anything and everything. One mutation rate. Period.

It was never "calibrated". It was never shown to be actually 0.00069. It had
margin of error so huge that it covers virtually everything.

>Thus, these career scientists (population geneticists) have agreed (as does
>now Hammer and other well known figures in the field) that a compensation
>factor (at the moment it is somewhere between 3 and 3.6) needs to be
>multiplied to the germline rate to bring the calculated dates in line with
>the purported valid dates (as reflected in studies of isolated populations
>with known migrational histories).

There was no any "compensation factor" in their system. There was only one
mutation rate, "one size fits all". There was no anything with "know
histories". Read their paper. What was "known migration histories" for
They have obtained about 2,000 years as TMRCA for Bantu, and then casually
mentioned that Bantu were in existence for 14,000 years. Is it a calibration
"known migration histories", or what?

>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.

You said it. They were "creationists" in a sense that they created something
which does not exist in a sense they wanted to show. The rest in your words
is correct. Thank you.

Anatole Klyosov

This thread: