DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2009-12 > 1260663434


From: Thomas Tucker <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Coyne and Golden project families
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:17:14 -0500
References: <002501ca7b6b$13bb7590$aa00a8c0@Sisko><996528.29154.qm@web50805.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <996528.29154.qm@web50805.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


Merry Christmas cousins.

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Moore <> wrote:

> I too apologize for harsh comments made. J Moore
>
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Gregory Brown <> wrote:
>
> From: Gregory Brown <>
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Coyne and Golden project families
> To:
> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009, 3:38 PM
>
> Many thanks to those who posted links to papers discussing the theory
> behind TMRCA adjustments. I
> found the Walsh paper particularly interesting, and both the Walsh and
> Chandler papers make a strong
> mathematical argument for such adjustments based upon the distribution of
> variation seen within a
> derived population such as R-M222 while still acknowledging the limitations
> imposed by the
> underlying necessary assumptions...an argument which was never (in my mind)
> in dispute. The portion
> of this thread which led to (at times) heated discussion, however, was the
> following:
>
> "Close matches when one of the parties is near modal M222+ mean nothing at
> all.--Sandy"
>
> Absolute statements such as this are dangerously misleading. "Doubling the
> TMRCA", especially when
> looking at a 67-67 match, is a far cry from "meaning nothing at all", which
> is exactly why people
> were confused by Sandy's statement and asked for more information.
>
> I'm glad the discussion has finally gotten around to examining publications
> that acknowledge and
> explain the uncertainty that surrounds any study which deals with
> population dynamics, variable
> mutation rates and probabilities and draw appropriate conclusions. Thanks
> again to those who
> provided them.
>
> Finally, I apologize to the list for my own posts that became more
> sarcastic as the thread
> continued. Perhaps my initial posts were not well worded and offended Sandy
> somehow. All anyone
> ever wanted was some additional info to help them understand that initial
> broad statement. Being met
> with derision is a bit like being confronted by a bully, which I do not
> tolerate well. Again, my
> apologies to the other members of the list.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> 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
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> 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: