GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290808999


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:03:28 -0700
References: <455998.6672.qm@web113308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><003101cb8d8b$8c16b4e0$c2482dae@Ken1> <009301cb8da1$d956b320$8c041960$@dgmweb.net><00df01cb8da4$e8ecd820$c2482dae@Ken1> <00aa01cb8dae$47770740$d66515c0$@dgmweb.net><015401cb8db1$70725520$c2482dae@Ken1><00b001cb8db3$335015e0$99f041a0$@dgmweb.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] SNP Breakthrough for I1*-AS


> We have descended into a quibble over what "rare" means. [[This is not
> quibbling, you are just wrong that polymorphic y loci are rare --- and
> don't now claim that is not what you meant. The loci on that
> non-recombining portion of the y where the lab people say they are
> actually useful for tree tagging purposes are essentially universally
> polymorphic on mankind's y tree. Them having been found in just small
> quantities so far is as previously mentioned a reflection of the cursory
> search so far. ]] >


> Minor point: SNPs aren't "robustly dividing."

[[ It would be in this specic case of I1* if L338 ends up dividing that
population into X percent derived and 100-X percent ancestral with X being
some number between maybe 20 and 80, for example. ]]



This thread: