GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291986262


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:04:22 -0500
References: <mailman.1955.1291922460.2081.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><FBF6AFE1675149838D5F55EDED1BC486@anatoldesktop>
In-Reply-To: <FBF6AFE1675149838D5F55EDED1BC486@anatoldesktop>


On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:11 PM, Anatole Klyosov wrote:

> Carriers of this R-P312* undoubtedly
> have a lot of other snips not defined and not classified as yet, as
> well as
> each one of us. Calculations will provide a time span to a common
> ancestor
> who "first" obtained this S116 snip and not any other known downstream
> snips. This individual had existed in the past, some 5,000 ybp. His
> direct
> descendants live today, and do not have P312-downstream clades known
> today.

Here's the first mistake. You refer to this ancestor repeatedly as if
he is an actual person. When you are talking about a paragroup, you
cannot know that this is true. R-P312* might have a MRCA more recent
than the MRCA of R-P312 or not: there is no way to know with any
confidence. Further, when you are comparing R-P312* from far-flung
places it is becomes even more problematic: does R-P312* in the
Balkans have the SAME MRCA as the R-P312* in France? You don't know,
and neither does anyone else.


> Therefore, comparing the base haplotypes of P312* and M153
> and their TMRCA we can figure out the base haplotype of P312 and how
> long
> ago did he live.

Here I think you make my point for me. Your illustration is not based
on taking the intraclade variance of a paragroup at all: you've
switched to comparing two groups to each other (a paragroup vs a
clade). That is STILL problematic, but it isn't even intraclade
variance. Interclade TMRCA estimation is inherently easier to
interpret than intraclade variance estimation, which was exactly one
of the points I was making.


This thread: