GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260977127


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent- back mutations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:25:27 -0700
References: <4B264DA0.4020206@san.rr.com><200912150636.nBF6aIcW020798@mail.rootsweb.com><3C7226E21D8B42C3B704E165C522F268@john><004a01ca7d97$6c230ad0$6400a8c0@Ken1><B93DAFD942A74628B7E40B919226A0F0@john><01de01ca7e00$aa2bfdf0$6400a8c0@Ken1><3C1A1C3775304D7196A96A89C2BF74CF@elizabethod>


I on purpose kept using "fractional terms" in my message.

Fewer generations, fewer mutations; larger fraction size of statistical
flucuations.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth O'Donoghue" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent- back
mutations


> Ken commented:
>
> So Tip gets more confused, in fractional terms of its predictions, by
> randomness the
> shorter the basic time interval of the tree under consideration ---
> whether
> we are talking about back mutations, too many mutations, too few
> mutations....
>
> -----------------------------
>
> This was years ago, but I recall discussing the use of the Tip calculator
> with Eileen Krause in relation to my identification of the different
> tribes
> of our O'Donoghues, which would go back 1000 years or more, and she said
> that they were more secure in the accuracy of their calculations for a
> genealogical time frame of 600 +/- years than they were for longer
> TMRCA's.
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: