GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260457731


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:08:51 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1250371257.573661260457467378.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


From: Gary Felix < >

<<VV

<<The problem, David, is that ZUF appear to have taken a step in the
<<WRONG direction. Instead of identifying the many different factors
<<that might affect the translation of intraclade variance into a TMRCA
<<estimate, they instead took the approach of throwing all the factors
<<into a blender and concocting a mess.

>Not true.



True.



Let's consider a simple analogy. There was a forest, with trees of different sizes and heights.

Nobody knew how to measure their height, since all brought ladders got stuck in the woods.

Tough situation.



Then ZUF have appeared and said - we have a solution. Let's consider each tree as 10 feet

high. And folks around them said - thouse guys are heawyweights. We got to listen to them.

They are well respected and must be right. Their opinion is uber alles.



Now, five years passed. Someone named Gary has collected data on the trees measurements 

and meticulously placed them on a site  in July of 2009. He quoted

with some surprise that someone has actually measured one tree and found it 30 feet tall. 

"It is an overestimation" meticulously recorded Gary. Another fellow has found that a particular

tree was only 3 feet tall. "Underestimation", recorded Gary. There was no actual

conclusions made. Oh, sorry, this one:

>>This is (ZUF) a valid means of checking mutation rates.

The fact that they came up with different mutation rates

reflects the complexity of the task.


Translation: The fact that trees have different heights, reflects the complexity of the task.

However, ZUF did a good job and provided a valid means of tree heights measurements.



On December 10, 2009, when a discussion arose again, Gary wrote: C'mon guys, again?

We discussed these factors in a critique back in July:


http://archiver.rootsweb. ancestry.com/th/read/ GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-07/ 1247449249


Huh?



Anatole Klyosov





This thread: