Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111945030

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Why DYS 390=25 R1b?
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:37:10 -0700
References: <>

As one who has been urging Alan from the beginning not to draw conclusions
about subgroups from one marker trends in Europe, I did not like being
grouped in a letter criticizing one marker conclusions.

But "6" is no magic number in statistics or probabilities. 6 "what" is the
minimum for what?

There are just various strengths of probabilistic evidence --- from the
non-existent to the marginal to the decent to the very strong. People have
to live with such a continuum. Months ago I tried to say that the
statistical evidence one gets in genetic genealogy of families or
populations just "tilts" the odds of various scenarios being reality. It
has to be folded into all other evidence; sometimes it prevails and other
times it does not. What fraction of the time do people send a message to
this list quoting a most likely TMRCA without giving the plus or minus
interval of confidence or FTDNA's new-fangled cumulative probability
numbers? It is very frustrating we go over this same ground over and over.

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Why DYS 390=25 R1b?

> Academics (whose views should be considered since they have spent their
career studying the things many of us today are just beginning to grapple
with) tend to see 6 as the bare minimum for analysis of marker patterns. >
> -------------- Original message --------------
> > >I have gone through my R1b data for DYS390=25 in the Atlantic, North
> > >Sea-Baltic and Alpine-South German areas:
> >
> > Can Alan or Ken or anyone explain why you think that analyzing
differences like
> > this is worthwhile? 25 is just one step from the modal value.

> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: