Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1110038157

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:55:57 -0700
References: <000901c5211d$a13f1000$6400a8c0@G2k> <015701c52120$e1bf2e00$eb409145@Ken1> <>

Doug, Could you explain the reason for, or underlying basis for this
calibration factor between these two rate sources? Does each source believe
its numbers are the objective rates? Was the methodology of the two rate
sets different?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA

> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
> > If they do something as gross ballparkish as set rates for markers from
> > outside of the FTDNA set equal to the (their own?) average value .054,
> > not sure this is so useful. The markers outside of FTDNA set I have
seen at
> > DNA Heritage, Sorenson, etc. are all over the lot, just as are the FTDNA
> > averages as you move from 1st to 2nd to 3rd panel. .054 could be fast
for a
> > number of those outside markers. If they have measured them, however,
> > would be another story.
> Individual marker rates are available for all or almost all markers
> except the ones unique to the beta Sorenson, which Sorenson is currently
> setting at 0.002. I posted numbers in the last few months. Just be sure
> to use a consistent calibration: Sorenson and FTDNA differ by a factor
> of 0.7. The results from Kerchner's log page agree with Sorenson and
> not with FTDNA.
> Doug McDonald
> ==============================
> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors
at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:

This thread: