DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228393803


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:30:03 -0000
References: <c8c.316ffdd5.36687e94@aol.com> <001301c955ea$438a5fe0$ca9f1fa0$@com><4937A795.6090707@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <4937A795.6090707@aol.com>


Hi John

>
There are some things I don't respond to
either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
the following:

"This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
they were originally R1b1c7."
>

No, that's not what I'm getting at at all. I used the McDonalds merely as an
example. What I was trying to say is that whatever they were when they
started, the effect of NPE's would in all likelihood, over time, reduce
whatever their haplogroup was when they arrived in Scotland, to a small
proportion of the whole.

The Dalriata origins are of interest to me in the general sense, but I hold
no strong views on what they were.

>
I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
he'd be happy to clarify it himself.
>

Just to be 100% sure there's no misunderstanding, that is not what I'm
getting at at all.

I think this may be important though, so I'll repeat my reasoning here
instead of referring to earlier postings.

Estimated NPE rates vary.

David Ewing mentioned an estimate of between 2% an 5%, based on statistics
from organ transplants, where tissue rejection is a major issue.

What I did was to consider adoption rates in the USA as a starting point,
where the mid-point of estimates seemed to be about 3%. I then considered
other ways in which the apparent family haplogroup could change, and ended
up using 6% as an estimated 'haplogroup change per birth'.

John, you mentioned the views of others from (I think) another discussion
group, which included estimates in excess of 10%.

David Ewing also pointed out that if an NPE occurs in a geographical area in
which most of the population is of the same haplogroup, the impact on family
haplogroups will be lestened.

So, let's start with a 6% NPE rate per birth, somewhere in Ireland, in an
area where say 90% of the population are M222+.

After 50 generations, about

(1 - .1 x .06)^50 = .7401 will still be M222+

Now take an M222+ group that ends up in Scotland, where (say) only 10% of
the population is M222+.

Here, after 50 generations, only about

(1 - .9 x .06)^50 = .0623

will still be M222+

And that, John, is why I battle to understand your puzzlement as to why
Scottish DNA has a much lower M222+ proportion than Irish DNA.

Having said that, of course I've oversimplified what happens, and of course
the .06 used for an NPE rate should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. But I
don't believe that this invalidates the explanation.

Now let's have a look at the sprinkling of M222+ we find in English
families, another thing John, that seems to worry you.

Well, just as M222+ families who move to England (or Scotland) would have
their M222+ proportion depleted over time, some English families would pick
up the odd bit of M222+.

So if Mr and Mrs Bottomley-Grant's little boy Johnny is found in a school
project to be M222+, there's really no need for Mr Bottomley-Grant to rush
off to purchase a chastity belt. It probably happened many generations back,
via an NPE that (I believe, anyway) probably had nothing to do with
infidelity.

But this is all perfectly natural and perfectly consistent with the way man
procreates.

Thanks John, for responding constructively.


Sandy






































-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of John McLaughlin
Sent: 04 December 2008 09:49
To:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency

<Having set out in some detail why it is not a logical deduction, I
don't think there's anything further I can do.>

Then we can just disagree. You don't need to be a Scot to do that.

<I must say I'm puzzled. You've responded to almost every e-mail I've
posted (which I appreciate), but you seem to have missed (or ignored)
much of what I've said, particularly about the impact of NPE's.

Maybe we should clear this up before continuing. Would you like me to
give you the dates and times of the specific e-mails to save you having
to sift through what's been said? I'll do so with pleasure if wish..>

I'll apologize for that. There are some things I don't respond to
either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
the following:

"This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
they were originally R1b1c7."

This statement is what started the thread which is why I responded in
the first place. There is nothing in history which suggests to me that
the Scottish Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. What you're suggesting
here is a possibility but in my opinion a remote one. I already
mentioned the reasons why I do not think the Scottish Dal Riata were
originally R1b1c7. Again in my opinion the most likely possibility is
the Scot modal. If you don't know by now I almost always respond to DNA
questions in a historical context. As to the 10% figure I can think of
a lot of other ways that could come about.

I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
he'd be happy to clarify it himself.

Does anyone else on the list have an opinion?


John

R1b1c7 Research and Links:

http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: