GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290223268


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of Zhong et al. (2010) R1b-related lineages
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:21:15 -0500
References: <mailman.4479.1290202564.2059.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


> From: Vincent Vizachero <>
> It is NOT a very ancient mutation (DYS390=19), and we know this
> because we are not blind to the facts.

I repeat: Welcome to a population bottleneck concept.
I repeat: ~20 mutations per 25 marker haplotypes points at a VERY
ancient common ancestor. Numbers are given earlier (also see below).
I repeat: Shallow TMRCA's means fragments of very ancient common
ancestors if their base (aka ancestral) haplotypes are very different
from (in this case European) base haplotypes. If you do not understand
it, fine with me.

> Again, your inability to be precise is hampering your comprehension.

:-)))

I think it was me who gave you numbers after numbers, in exchange for some
figures made out of air.

> The TMRCA for this particular clade of R-M73, the one with DYS390=19,
> is indeed very recent.

It does not mean a thing in terms of how ancient are THEIR common
ancestors. I will explain it for others, since I am exhausted trying to
explain
it to you.There are two principally different scenarios with "recent TMRCA".
In one of them there are "recent TMRCAs" and very similar base haplotypes
with another population. In another situation there are "recent TMRCAs" and
very different base haplotypes (such as 20 mutation difference in two base
haplotypes). The second case points at a VERY ANCIENT common ancestor
within the same (or upstream) haplogroup. If we compare R1b1b2 and R1b1b1,
the very ancient common ancestor will be within R1b1 haplogroup.

Example 1: There are two populations with TMRCA of 500 and 800 years
respectively. Their TMRCAs, clearly, are very recent. Their base 25-marker
haplotypes differ by only two mutations. Conclusion: THEIR common ancestor
lived only 1200 years ago.

Example 2: There are two populations with TMRCA of 500 and 800 years
respectively. Their TMRCAs, clearly, are very recent. Their base 25-marker
haplotypes differ by as many as 20 mutations. Conclusion: THEIR common
ancestor lived 9800 years ago.

Example 3: There are two populations with TMRCA of 500 and 800 years
respectively. Their TMRCAs, clearly, are very recent. Their base 25-marker
haplotypes differ by 28 mutations. Conclusion: THEIR common ancestor
lived as long as 17 thousand years ago.

As you see, "very recent" TMRCA means nothing if it is not accompanied
by base haplotypes to compare with. That is why your repeating mantra that
"it is a recent TMRCA indeed" means nothing and is not informative.

>... you miss the point: this clade is modern, not ancient.

Hopeless. See above.

>... You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and are too arrogant
>to realize it.

See above.

VV>>> We have a few facts which, probably we can agree on.
>>> The TRMCA of R-M269 is about 6,000 years ago.
>>
AK>> Yes, this is my data. Published a while ago and repeatedly described
>> here. Thank you for mentioning. I agree on it.
>
VV> Your humility is stunning. Really. As if you are the only one derive
> this estimate. Please, spare us.

My publications:

1) Proceedings, vol. 3, February 2010, "Haplogroup R1b", p. 292. Quotation -
"R-M269, age - at least 6,000 years".
2) Proceedings, vol. 3, August 2010, ""Age" of R1b1b2-M269 subclade and its
subclades", pp. 1310-1315. Quotation: "Subclade M269 is at least 6200 year
old"

Now, your (published) reference(s), please on TMRCA of R-M269?

Anatole Klyosov


This thread: