GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260421782


From: Gary Felix <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:09:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <70FA8875-13CC-4EAA-91EE-43C684AA225D@vizachero.com>


<The problem, David, is that ZUF appear to have taken a step in the 
<WRONG direction.  Instead of identifying the many different factors 
<that might affect the translation of intraclade variance into a TMRCA 
<estimate, they instead took the approach of throwing all the factors 
<into a blender and concocting a mess.

Not true. We discussed these factors in a critique of his paper back in July:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-07/1247449249

Same thing a few of us have been saying for years.

The genealogical mutation rates as Dr. Hammer had referred to them recently, forced a belief that the Paleo of Europe had little impact when in fact they are responsible for about 71 percent of the Y lineages of Europe (per Sforza and Sykes).

Gary
Mexico DNA Project Admin.


_____________________________________________________________

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote:

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
To:
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 7:29 PM

The problem, David, is that ZUF appear to have taken a step in the 
WRONG direction.  Instead of identifying the many different factors 
that might affect the translation of intraclade variance into a TMRCA 
estimate, they instead took the approach of throwing all the factors 
into a blender and concocting a mess.

Of all the papers I've seen published, the ZUF papers have done more 
harm to the field than any others.

VV


On Dec 9, 2009, at 2:30 PM, David Faux wrote:

>  I applaud ZUF for taking a step in
> what would seem to be the right direction.





This thread: