GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119893038


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] P25
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:23:58 -0600
References: <062720051712.272.42C0337400038F19000001102207021053050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


David, You and I will clearly argue this until kingdom come. I've worked
in the physical sciences for over 40 years. Just about every conclusion in
the field is probabilistic and ultimately subject to corrections and
modifications. The young molecular biology sciences are even more so of
this nature. There are no proofs in science, only in mathematics.

Anyway, I am excited to commission and promote some selected SNPs where they
are needed and will enlighten.

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Faux" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] P25


> Ken:
>
> I would be ok with a "High probability R1b1c" designation, but you can't
call yourself something for which there is no ultimate proof, only very
strong circumstantial evidence. SNPs define haplogroups.
>
> Chances are that most of the males on this list are 46XY. This is a
probabilistic statement since 1/1000 males are born 47XYY but the phenotypic
traits are too subtle to diagnose without a karyotype (typically done via
categorizing and counting chromosomes under a microscope). I have been
karyotyped and can say with 100% certainty that I am 46XY - I suspect that
everyone else within listening distance is using a probabilistic statement
in relation to their non - autosomal chromsomes.
>
> David F.
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > David, I appreciate the addition of your company to measure SNPs that
other
> > labs have so far refused to market. Your services can speed up our
> > understanding of the peopling of Europe and other regions, and how our
> > particular haplotypes fit into that larger picture. But you consistently
> > cast things too strongly in black and white extremes. Most folks with
> > canonical haplotypes are not "simply guessing" about haplogroups if they
> > have not had the full battery of SNP tests. Their haplogroup affiliation
is
> > clear with high probability. There are all gradations of evidence for
these
> > estimates, from the very reliable to the doubtful. And certainly the
more
> > difficult haplogroups to identify and the marginal haplotypes
(especially if
> > they are whimpy short haplotypes) need either key SNPs or more key
markers
> > to confidently identify.
> >
> > And please, no appeals to the "proper authority". Ysearch is overwhelmed
> > with false haplogroup insertions based on the authorities. And no good
> > estimate of the error rate in reported SNP results has yet come forth.
> > Being an owner, myself, of a very questionable SNP designation as well
as
> > observing the many other foibles of the "authorities" is a sobering
reality
> > check.
> >
> > Ken
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: