DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2007-08 > 1186928308


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Network.exe
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 08:18:28 -0600
References: <e0d2d2870708112158j3e470dfaub71ce2ff2d37d69@mail.gmail.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ewing" <>

It is important to try to use a "hands
> off" set of markers."
>
> Well, yes. But surely you don't want to simply ignore that some markers
> are
> much more volatile than others. And I think you would probably acknowledge
> that comparing the results you get with several different alternative sets
> of markers will illustrate the point you make. I think the trouble you
> warn
> about would come from cherry picking markers and then not revealing that
> you
> had done so.

Fast markers actually should have better statistics connected with their
variance than slow markers. This is so because there are more mutational
events. The superiority of fast markers in this respect is reflected in the
recommended way to combine the variances or mutational counts of the whole
set of markers employed. Yes, the differences in results you see when
different sets of markers are selected is an illustration and to some degree
a measure of how problematic this age estimation game or process is. Ken


This thread: