GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145938488


From: "Jason S. Clary" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genealogy as we knew it
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:14:48 -0700
References: <380-22006462243924780@earthlink.net> <1f5c01c665cd$477615a0$022aa8c0@davros> <REME20060424020537@alum.mit.edu> <031801c66770$bb17b910$022aa8c0@davros> <REME20060424124726@alum.mit.edu> <040a01c667e0$a835a120$022aa8c0@davros> <REME20060424175302@alum.mit.edu> <054101c66809$a61e8450$022aa8c0@davros> <REME20060424230215@alum.mit.edu> <060201c66819$fcfa48d0$022aa8c0@davros> <062701c6681c$71aacdb0$022aa8c0@davros>


Hmm.. Actually it looks fine at .003 if I scale my chart down to match and
really compare them closely.

>I said previously:
>> Could their method of calculating GD change the basis enough so that
>> their numbers might be reasonably consistent but only when adjusted to
>> account for their method?
>
> Nevermind... I just adjusted my marker numbers down to 22, 33 and 55 for
> the purposes of the probability calculations (reducing those counted as
> infinite down to 1 each) and it doesn't make much of a difference. It
> still requires a mutation rate of around 0.0045 to match their chart.

This thread: