DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-02 > 1328985974


From: "Don Milligan" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Paper on M222
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:46:14 -0800
References: <4F36B316.5090303@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F36B316.5090303@earthlink.net>


THANK YOU SUSAN FOR KEEPING THE DISCUSSIONS GOING, SHARING YOUR INSIGHTS,
AND HELPING OTHERS SORT OUT ALL THE INFERENCES, PLUSES AND MINUSES, AND THE
LARGER PICTURE(S) OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES.

MUCH APPRECIATED! THANKS, DON MILLIAN

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Susan Hedeen
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:28 AM
To: dna-r1b1c7;
Subject: [R-M222] Paper on M222

In the article Bill did not mention other dates proposed for M222, the
main two being the ASD methods of Nordvedt et al and Anatole Klyosov.

/*His perogative.*/

Anatole (1450 bp ± 160 (ie, 550 AD)/*This has since been adjusted*/ --
see your statement below.
Nordvedt (Janzen spreadsheet - 500-600 AD).*/Likely resultant of the samples
used/*

Anatole does add that this date reflects the current population of M222
which was due to a bottleneck. He places the actual origin around the time
of the AD/BC break. So 0 AD. might be more appropriate for his date.

/*Using haplotypes of current survivors of a bottleneck does pose the
problem of not being able to assess the subclade previous to the
bottleneck...The 0 BC/CE date was rather firmed up by comparing the
Scot/Irish clusters of the*/ M222+ O'Dochartaigh and Amuligane; however, at
best /this was an analysis of only 31/32 haplotypes./

It should also be noted that the Trinity study included a small sub-set of
M222 taken from Irish surnames said to be descendants of Nial./*And in
short, this sampling reflects a sampling bias, and at that there were few
with few markers in the haplotypes.

*/ As far as I know Sandy Patterson and others using similar methods have
arrived at dates similar to those of the Janzen spreadsheet. Lots of dates
have been thrown around by different people. Most seem to center around
400 AD. or later.*/ This indeed would reflect analysis of a population which
has go/*ne through*/ A bottleneck, and additionally have a rather close GD
among the haplotypes.
Remember, Krakatoa erupting in about 535 caused a severe climate change for
15 years in which there was tremendous devastation due to starvation and
disease seen in Ireland, Scotland, Europe and as far away as China& Mexico.
Those who did not survive, their genes are lost to time. This is only one
of many population bottlenecks which have occurred with-in humanity.
/*
John McEwan in one of his web pages describes using ASD methods to obtain
his results. It is an ongoing puzzle to me why he arrived at such earlier
dates than those supposedly using the same methods./* Likely different
parameters.*/

_http://mcewanjc.org/p3asd.htm_ (http://mcewanjc.org/p3asd.htm)


It obviously makes a difference in how we view M222 if it originated in
1400-2000 BC or 400 AD.*/
Yes, it does, and to date the research frankly has not been comprehensive
enough
to reach the popular conclusions which have been made.
They simply are results of certain data analysis which in many cases
reflect also a sampling bias, and using certain methods some which are under
scrutiny and
making suggestions and theories based on the interpretations of the
analysis conducted./*

*/In regard to Howard, he could be correct. The problem with his analysis
is that Unless he gives up the full details of his method and calculations
so that his analysis/* */may be reproduced, it is simply another study as
many which are not reproducible./* */In a way, his results are virtual
extrapolations using among others, physics formulas . Since I am not that
saavy in that regard, I'm not certain that I've interpreted that correctly--
There is nothing wrong with any of that; however others need to be able to
take the same information and use the same or approximate approaches and/or
others and arrive at the same or approximate conclusions.
/*
*/I personally believe he is more correct than not; however in this game
personal beliefs and biases are not proof, or even tentative proof when we
survey the varying
methodologies/* */used in all the various calculations, etc.


Thanks John, for putting up the paper...I've read it several times, but I
think it would be something others may want to as well. I believe he has
some frequently asked questions and answers too...are those up as well?
Susan/*

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: