GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-11 > 1162486342


From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Neolithic J2 and E3b in Britain? Maybe not.
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:52:22 +0200
References: <3b2a446a0611010918j45594e12r28817e9f8821f252@mail.gmail.com><042401c6fe97$5ce8b830$6401a8c0@Precision360>
In-Reply-To: <042401c6fe97$5ce8b830$6401a8c0@Precision360>


I'm looking at

http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3asd.htm

and here it says explicitely that the "corrected"
mutation rates are used based on Zhivotovsky et al (2004).

Therefore the ages are calibrated by "fudge factor".

To get the "Alternative Estimate", free of "fudge factor", just divide the
"official" result by 3:

J2 13081 / 3 = estmated 4360 (consistent with suggested 3800-4000)
J1 19848 / 3 = estimated 6616 (consistent with suggested 4200-5000)


Are you using a different page of McEvans results?

And are there the 95%-confidence intervals available?

Also notice that Haplogroup F is estimated 2.5 times older than AB, and many
times older than all other groups, pointing to the real Root of the modern
human Genetic Tree, overcoming the "long branch attraction" effect.


Sasson Margaliot




On 11/2/06, Lawrence Mayka <> wrote:
>
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> > Sasson Margaliot
> > J1 is younger than 5.000 years long. Did you read the
> > discussion on the List of "fudge factor"?
> > K2 is less than 5000 years old, likewise.
>
> McEwan's analysis does *not* use a fudge factor. Indeed, his web page
> apologizes for the fact that without a fudge factor, his calculated age
> for
> R1b is politically unacceptable to most people (though quite realistic, I
> think).
>
> That's the point. He calculates that J1, E3b, I1b, K2, and Q are 15K-23K
> years old, 2-3 times as old as R1b.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: