GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289596840


From: Mike W <>
Subject: [DNA] Fwd: Fwd: First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:20:40 -0600
References: <AANLkTi=R-uQYBmw7vDz3Tsfjzv7_c6JD__MT_n4i6XvE@mail.gmail.com><625030.15518.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><AANLkTin314jXQN2fOafYjTPKv=kBE8CmNG-bh8FPRoG-@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTimAuM7fw-Byb1M=kafpZ4BZZKGxN6O1QxuYCQQY@mail.gmail.com><016901cb8298$82e64500$bb579245@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <016901cb8298$82e64500$bb579245@Ken1>


Ken,

I don't hang my hat on that, at least any more than Myres et al do in
their study. As I cited in the original message, I think R-M269's
phylogenetic tree structure and the geographic distribution of its SNP
results is another place to hang one's hat. I like having two or three
places for hats. You may not have seen that a few days ago I cited
several complete papers related to this topic.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1289227817

A great graphic is in the study - "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin
for European Paternal Lineages" by Balaresque et al.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC2799514/
Check out Figure 1, Chart C, the gray one - "Geographical distribution
of mean microsatellite variance within hgR1b1b2". Barlaresque goes on
to say "in contrast, we show that the geographical distribution of
diversity within the haplogroup is best explained by its spread from a
single source from the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic".

By the way, though my point is related generally to R-M269's recent,
east to west expansion, I think Vince Vizachero's graphic on R-U106
using the Myres data is an interesting one for those who are most
interested in R-U106. I point this out so you can see I wasn't cherry
picking country data. Red is older, blue is younger. -
http://tiny.cc/t58c7 To be fair to Vince, he was very clear to
note it isn't his data, he was just graphing using some kind of
interpolation method. Nevertheless, it is a view of Myres' data.

I do throw in the caveat that I do think Myres' data is spotty and not
a truly representative cross-sectional sampling. I don't blame them,
though, it would be expensive effort. I also disagree with Myres'
coalescence times, but they give themselves plenty of wriggle room on
that.

Regards, Mike

---- Ken Nordtvedt said : Rather precarious (skimpy, interpretively
vague....) data there to hang any valuable hat on!

---- Mike W said:  study shows the highest coalescence ages for R-U106
(R1b1b2a1a1) as Estonia and Poland


This thread: