Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-04 > 1114291616

Subject: Re: [DNA] O2, I, R1b? - Need to SNP
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:26:56 +0000


I think you are a lone voice calling in the wilderness. Not a single population geneticist I know would agree with you - not one. Are they all out to lunch? Can you offer me the name of a respected published geneticist who would agree with you? More markers could simply mean more confusion since Y-STRs mutate.

How many people on this List have the expertise you have to "read" a haplogroup from a haplotype - right, a couple at most and I am not one of them. Are you prepared to give each person who questions their haplogroup assignment the benefit of your expertise? How much do you know about E3a? Can you guarantee an accuracy rate comparable to the real mccoy - a real SNP?

How about this for a way to end the debate. A person (with permission) will provide you with their haplotype, you make a haplogroup assignment based on as many markers as they can give you, you send your prediction to the person, the DNA sample is SNP tested, and they report the two values and so we find out whether your accuracy rate is 100% or close. But Ken, even if we were to find that you had a "gift" in making these predictions, what are people supposed to do if you are unavailable? Who do you suggest can fill your shoes? I have not heard anyone else on the List claim to be able to go head to head with a SNP test and hit the target dead center each time. Truthfully I think that this is an absolutely impossible feat.

David F.

-------------- Original message --------------

> I think this dispute is going to get repetitive (and boring to List
> veterans) if we don't come to some understanding of the ground rules. Yet
> there are always new people who come to participate in or lurk on the List
> discussions, and perhaps are seeking advice about what to do next, etc. So
> I simply can not turn the List over to those pushing for costly SNP tests
> in those situations when I don't believe they serve much purpose except
> enrich those who produce the SNP measurements.
> It seems to me a lot is being concluded on anecdotal messages in this
> immediate discussion. We have not seen the haplotype designated O2 (by
> whom?) which is now believed to be I by FTDNA? (if I remember the erased
> portion of the thread correctly). Seeing the data could help us decide
> whether there was real ambiguity, how short the haplotype was, or just weak
> prediction.
> Starting upstream (how far upstream?) is also not in my opinion the most
> efficient strategy in most cases to perform SNP tests if you resort to that.
> Test the most likely downstream SNP first; success there ends the story and
> expense. Only a negative then should send you back upstream a step.
> I don't sell SNPs or STRs or predictions. But as long as I am a regular
> participant on the List I will not remain silent when excessively general
> advice to immediately resort to SNP testing, particularly upstream, is
> given on the List. Peoples' thirst for more information can in most cases
> be better served by advising them to get more STR markers measured.
> Ken N

This thread: