DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-07 > 1311457778


From: tuulen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings.
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:49:38 -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><CABbuToxeY9MjE7sz8iePsDgt-nGPqg1bu-eib79mcHRmDC0AJQ@mail.gmail.com><4A900A32-FDB8-48BA-AE5A-DE6726A7F99E@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A900A32-FDB8-48BA-AE5A-DE6726A7F99E@verizon.net>


Bill,

Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite
high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher
confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison
between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test results.


Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more
about it, please.

Doug



On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Bill Howard <> wrote:

> Hi, Doug,
> I appreciate your remarks and your comments are well taken.
> We must accept the haplotype strings as they are. I don't think the testing
> agencies make too many mistakes, so it is not a matter of "garbage-in", nor
> of "garbage-out."
> The problems lie in overinterpreting what comes out, and most of the
> problem are directly traceable to unknown mutations.
> That's why I state many times that the errors are of the order of 180 years
> (SD) so the dates could be off by three times that, provided the
> distribution is Gaussian, which it probably is. Therein lies the problem if
> we overinterpret through genealogy eyes. It is not so bad if you have your
> genetic eyes on, because errors in that realm are expected to be high. For
> that reason, I feel that the RCC correlation approach may have more
> applicability in looking into differences in haplogroups. I think I have
> covered all of this in my FAQs but it never hurts to repeat the admonition
> about not overinterpreting!
> It is usually not the 'facts' of DNA that are on shaky ground; it's the
> interpretation!
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, tuulen wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> > 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: