GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116164000


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS 464, 459, and CDY Correlations and Deletions
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:33:20 -0600
References: <00e301c55906$50b1c2b0$c6559045@Ken1> <144901c55946$c814db40$72a0bf43@YOURF8387228BF>


If the up versus down mutation rates did not change with length for a STR
you would expect a broader distribution of lengths, because the age of the
ychromosome (billions of years?) would be more appropriate than the age of
modern man (roughly 100,000 years). The STRs have a continuity of existence
between the evolved species. And there is a boundary of 1 or 2 for the
shortest STR length. But this does not speak to interdependence between
the STRs --- just some of the reasons why repeat lengths are confined. The
primary reason the repeat lengths are bunched around a modal value in a bell
curve like distribution for descendants in a haplogroup is because all those
repeat lengths have only had thousands of years to accumulate mutations from
a unique founder's value, augmented by up/down mutation rate differences
which depend on length.

But I'm glad we share our bottom lines on this. I think there is a need to
assemble the objective facts on this. The statistics will get a little
complicated; the "normal" coincidence rates of the type being discussed
between 459, 464, and CDY will have to be established, ....

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Goff" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS 464, 459, and CDY Correlations and Deletions


> Ken,
>
> This is an interesting post and I'll have to look through my data now. Re
> your last sentence, I don't know if it has been canon that markers are
> independent of each other. My belief has always been the opposite since I
> started studying the data. I have no idea how Y chromosome DNA markers
work,
> but I believe that there is some sort of mathematical/physical
relationship
> between at least some markers for two reasons: 1) the types of
correlations
> you mention below, and my own casual observations 2) to my knowledge,
we've
> not discovered a person who has all of the highest or all of the lowest
> markers across the panel; if marker values arise strictly on a random
basis,
> wouldn't there be a more even distribution across values rather than a
bell
> curve?
>
> I'm not sure I've clearly stated my view, but the bottom line is that I
> agree with you that there seems to be a correlation, in at least some
cases,
> among markers. Thanks,
>
> Phil
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:26 AM
> Subject: [DNA] DYS 464, 459, and CDY Correlations and Deletions
>
>
> ...the main purpose of this note was to mention the interesting
correlations
> between the three special markers indicated above. The canon has been
that
> markers are independent of each other.
> >
> > Ken
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: