DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-03 > 1333010242


From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: [R-M222] Geographical distribution of M222+ and a peak at DF23+
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:37:22 +0100
References: <mailman.33.1332831605.6995.dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> <4F71B0A6.6070005@earthlink.net> <89EF7258-4726-4158-A2DF-C21E442D1E70@me.com> <000101cd0cb2$95151030$bf3f3090$@com><0DF9A903-8A37-4969-B2AD-B57F74BFA20B@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <0DF9A903-8A37-4969-B2AD-B57F74BFA20B@me.com>


Malcolm

Ken Nordtvedt, erstwhile Emeritus Professor of Physics at Montana State has
proved that

E(v) = mG

where E(v)= expected marker variance
m=mutation rate
G=number of generations

So the number of generations taken to reach a given level of dispersion of
marker scores can be estimated as (observed variance)/(mutation rate).
Obviously, the more markers the better. This means it's quite natural to
divide the observed sum of variance of one haplogroup by that of another in
order to get a feel for the age of one haplogroup relative to another.
That's what Mike did, and he did so in order to avoid arguments about poorly
researched mutation rates. I think that's perfectly valid.

Below are links in .xlxs and .xls formats to a file containing the known
DF23+ as of this morning.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/DF23.xlsx


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/DF23.xls


The variances sum to 19.99, approximately double the comparable figure for
M222+. Given that there are only 13 haplotypes so far, it's probably a good
idea to multiply the 19.99 by 13 and divide by 12 in order to convert to an
unbiased estimate (Excel doesn't bother with this refinement).

Looking at the names so far, all three of Lamont, Johnson and Kelly now have
both DF23+ and M222+, although none of these 3 surnames have much M222+. I'm
sure there will be many surnames with both M222+ and DF23+, but so far none
have been reported with origins outside of Ireland/Scotland.


Sandy





-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Malcolm McClure
Sent: 28 March 2012 11:13
To:
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Geographical distribution of M222+

Sandy

We can only have confidence in statistical methods based on samples if they
can be calibrated and verified. So far as I know, no group has yet
established a verified line of descent from a known MRCA extending back 2000
years. I am unaware also of peer reviewed studies in any field where
variance ratios of (samples including estimates) from different populations
have divulged verifiable results in the time domain.

Mike's statistical method assumes that all point mutations are equally
random, unidirectional and unaffected by variation with time of
environmental mutagens such as solar radiation and nicotine.
Each of those assumptions seems at best to be questionable.

Malcolm.

On 28 Mar 2012, at 08:15, Sandy Paterson <>
wrote:

> Malcolm
>
> I don't believe what Mike did in dividing the sum of observed
> variances of
> M222+ by those of P312 is an abuse at all. Of the 111 markers in the
> M222+ largest
> FTDNA test, only about 35 of the mutation rates are (reasonably)
> well-researched the remaining 76 have to be estimated in order to do
> estimated TMRCA calculations. Of the 67-marker panel, about 26 are
> fairly well-researched, with very little known about the remaining 41.
>
> I have chosen for the most part to quote sum of variances rather than
> ETMRCA, but Mike chose to quote ratios to P312. So when he quotes a
> figure of 0.63 for M222+, that means by his estimate, M222+ is about
> 63% as old as P312. I can't see anything wrong with that at all,
> although I don't believe it is accurate to use fewer than around 50
> markers in the summation. In any event, ETMRCAs are not normally
> distributed, they are skewed, with a long tail at the high values and a
shorter tail at the lower values.
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Malcolm McClure
> Sent: 27 March 2012 14:56
> To: ;
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Geographical distribution of M222+
>
> Susan
>
> I welcome your clear statement about the aims and objectives of M222
> correspondence.
> It was beginning to get diverted by speculations about the dim and
> distant past rather than being confined to evidence concerning the
> relevant past two millennia. Until we can establish a clearer identity
> for our tribal antecedents, their strifes and allegiances over the
> generations, their migrations and bottlenecks, we are unlikely to
> establish individual family and surname antecedents with confidence.
> The recent correspondence about Variance ratios seems to me to be a
> misuse of statistical tools that were devised to reflect the shape of
> Normal Distributions based on a single measurable variable. Lumping
> variables makes for nonsense statistics.— Just my 2¢ worth.
>
> Malcolm.
>
>
>
> 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: