DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-07 > 1311448486


From: tuulen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings.
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:14:46 -0400
References: <792e.1f7af352.3b5b5b6a@aol.com><CABbuTowyGYo8HK2Fiy=cEBKSEdBW-RQ6xJph8VPupvv-GObQvQ@mail.gmail.com><97122ADC-6702-45A4-A490-1A24FC5D475D@verizon.net><CABbuTozGwLW=KkOk-y=AU5zLQdycDKWVxjmnZdbaqpvjDCCvNw@mail.gmail.com><8B31FBE3-AC0F-44C7-869A-20B755AC9276@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <8B31FBE3-AC0F-44C7-869A-20B755AC9276@verizon.net>


Bill,

Although I am quite new to DNA-based family research, my background is in
mechanical engineering, where in my student days I spent several years at
advanced mathematics and grinding a lot of equations, to a point where
numerical theories and I became good friends, and on that basis I can
generally understand what your theory is based on and how it works.

Your theory makes good sense, and could expose many not-so-obvious facts, as
of relations among and between various groups of people. Bravo, good
thinking!

However, there also is the old dictum, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and so
analysis results are only as good as the data used to generate them. That
goes to my earlier comment, that sometimes DNA facts can apparently be on
shaky ground. The consideration is that DNA itself is apparently not 100%
stable, that it could remain stable for hundreds or perhaps thousands of
years, but then suddenly and unpredictably mutate, such that apparently it
is possible for DNA between a father and his son to not be a 100% match, and
that the chances for such random mutation apparently tend to increase
proportionally to time, as the longer the time period considered the greater
a chance for random mutation, or that two people could be unrelated but
could today have a 100% match simply because their DNA had eventually
mutated into an accidentally perfect match.

In other words, such analysis could be brilliant, but perhaps such
brilliance should be tempered due to an inherent unpredictability of DNA,
and should not be considered !00% infallible.

It sounds quite promising, however, and I look forward to learning more
about it.

Doug


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Howard <> wrote:

> Yes, Doug, and thanks.
> Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a
> slightly different and more exciting application for it.
> I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy that
> my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I have
> done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on the
> other.
> I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run a
> test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes.
> So it goes…… and, it's fun.
> - Bye from Bill
>
> ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix to
> derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname
> administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored by a
> colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab.
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit
> that
> > goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone attempted!
> >
> > However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to
> learning
> > more about it.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Doug
>
>
> 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: