Re: New aging estimates
Thanks for the notification, Jared. Yes, great work Iain McDonald is doing. I wonder, however, why he doesn't use the widely accepted BCE/CE dating standard rather than the old BC/AD. It's not a big thing but it would seem more scientific to me to use BCE/CE.
From: Z16357@groups.io <Z16357@groups.io> on behalf of Jared Smith <jared@...>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 10:09 AM
Subject: [Z16357] New aging estimates
Iain McDonald has just published a new project analyzing all of the P312 Big-Y results. P312 is much older than our Z16357. The general heredity is P312 > L21/Z290 > L513 > S5668 > Z16357.
He places the 95% reliability date of Z16357 being formed 2528BC — 1177BC with a central date of 1873BC. This is quite a bit older than the estimates I've been using. I generally run two sets - one at 1000BC and one at 500BC.
He places Z17911 as formed 310BC — 713AD with a central date of 252AD. This is also quite a bit older than the 1000AD date I've calculated.
As for our more recent haplogroups, his estimates are only slightly older than mine.
Of note is that he did not include our recent Smith BY19970 data. If he had, I think this would have pushed his dates a bit more recent.
Does this mean that his estimates are right and mine wrong? We all perform mathematical analysis within certain constraints and assumptions. And the variability is notable. He certainly applies a strong methodology.
You can check out Iain's excellent work at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics.html