DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-06 > 1309179983
From: Bill Howard <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:06:23 -0400
I have been looking exactly at this effect. Now it looks confirmed.
That factor of two I have found in a few other areas ---
The major one that I found is the following -
I have taken the MODAL haplotypes for a number of haplogroups and I have run a phylogenetic tree on the sample. Mathematica places the haplogroups in very nearly the same order as their order in the ISOGG haplogroup sequence, EXCEPT the RCC time scale indicates an age that is about half the ones that are in the ISOGG web page (because I used modal values).
My suspicion, backed by earlier discussions with Whit Athey, was that I was using MODAL values for the haplotypes when I should have been using sets of their actual (more extreme) values. That's a tougher job and I have been putting it off.
And now, Sandy's reference to Nordtvedt's article appears to confirm my suspicion that the use of MODAL values is not correct and it goes a long way toward explaining why my MODAL dates for the haplogroup analysis were a factor of two too low.
The upshot of this realization is that my RCC time scale for the MODAL haplotypes of the haplogroups I used (when doubled) is as accurate as I showed it to be in my original JoGG articles, and because it basically reproduces the ISOGG sequence independently of the work of others, it not only confirms the ISOGG dates (such as they are), but they can be used with about 30% confidence many tens of thousands of years into the past. It also puts haplotype analysis on the same basis across haplogroup boundaries.
This may also explain why my dates for the origin of M222 are about twice as old as others have gotten, including Ken Nordtvedt.
Wow! I think this may be a breakthrough in assigning times via the RCC correlation method and it tends to validate the earlier dates found in the phylogenetic trees I have been making for others.
- Bye from Bill Howard
On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote:
> Two Points here. Firstly, Ken Nordtvedt's paper at
> is relevant. Essentially, he explains that matches that appear to be close,
> are actually about twice as distant as traditional TMRCA estimation suggests
> they are. Further, traditional methods of estimation exaggerate the TMRCA
> for more distant matches. I couldn't find what he means by traditional
> methods, but I did manage to follow most of his reasoning.
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
> 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
|Re: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 by Bill Howard <>|