GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260463803


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:50:03 -0700
References: <223586096.576031260457731064.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><4B21244F.7080202@san.rr.com>


I don't think there is any "right" mix of markers. There may be more
well-behaved (easier to model) markers, however.

If one can represent the behavior of markers mathematically, that's all that
counts for including them into variance age estimates. We do want the
maximum total mutational power (rate) in order to have the tightest possible
statistical confidence intervals to the estimates. So one throws away
markers only for solid reasons.

Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Aburto" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent


> Hi Anatole,
> I think when we get the _right_ mix of markers to use that correspond to
> the actual mix of fast & slow markers in the Y-chromosome that we'll be
> happier ...
> Perhaps ... :-)
> Al
>
>
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: