GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289898143


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolitic Y-DNA published
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:02:23 -0500


Andrew,

Your link is for a WTY thread. As a matter of fact I wasn't able to find the recent threads such as the one mentioned here [ "Explaining Haplogroup Success" ] in the archives. Any reason ?

Didier

Andrew wrote :
> Just a comment.
>
> While I would postulate pretty much the same types of origins for R1a and
> R1b as Dienekes, I do want to point out for the list's sake (it has been a
> while since we had a good scientific debate) that Anatole and Dienekes are
> in the below selected snippet showing a difference which revolves around the
> same subject as the good recent posting of Ken about "Explaining Haplogroup
> Success"
>
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/12897636
> 37
>
> (It is one of those posts admins should keep a record of for explaining
> things to participants.)
>
> ...Fact is that it has surprised us all over the years to realize how
> dominated Y DNA diversity is by a small number of amazingly young lineages.
> Or in other words it is interesting how quickly some die out. So Anatole
> does have some sort of point in the below snippet. (Remember I focusing on
> this snippet. This is not the whole discussion, I know.)
>
> >From his blog I know Dienekes is also very conscious of the high extinction
> rate, or dominance rate, and is amongst those who tend to mention the
> liklihood of selection in order to explain it. I believe Ken on the other
> hand is right to doubt that we need any such explanation.
>
> Best Regards
> Andrew
>
> ---------
> Dienekes: > R1b1 has hardly a presence in South Asia or East Asia or indeed
> in many populations of Central Asia and Siberia.
>
> Klyosov: It is incorrect. Then, "presence" is important, but "age" is no
> less important. Do you consider "age"? CAN you consider "age" (TMRCA)? CAN
> you really analyze "age" of those populations? Well, if not, then what are
> we talking about?
>
> Dienekes: >So, what kind of plausible model can have it originate in the far
> eastern end of its present distribution, cover thousands of miles westward,
> but not diffuse even a little bit eastward or southward.
>
> Klyosov: Again and again, it is incorrect. Have you analyzed the recent
> paper by Zhong at all with hundreds of Asian haplotypes? Then, may I remind
> you on population bottlenecks?


This thread: