GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-02 > 1171577372


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:09:32 -0700
References: <200702152200.l1FM069C006426@mail.rootsweb.com>


I think 1/400 is in the ball park of average rate, at least that's what I
use for back of the envelope estimates.

1/400 = .0025, so I think you got extra zeros in your rates.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA


>I think my math is right. I used the rates of both .02% and .04% because
> the rate has not been agreed upon and both of these numbers are fairly
> widely used, so I gave both rates.
>
> 3/160=.02 which is 2%. .02 is 100 faster than (.0002 which is .02%).
>
> Please help me here if I goofed. Math was not my major (or minor):)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roberta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of charles
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA
>
> Roberta,
>
> I just looked at your slides. I think you have a decimal in the wrong
> place
> for your "predicted" mutation rates. They should be 0.2% (0.002) and 0.4%
> (0.004), not? That would affect your other calculations. Am I missing
> something? Just trying to help out.
>
> Charles Kerchner
> http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm
>
>
> Roberta J. Estes wrote:
>> Thanks to Orin Wells and Ann Turner, the powerpoint slides are now up
>> in two places.
>>
>> http://www.genealogydna.org/presentations/mutation_rates.ppt
>>
>> http://www.dnaheritage.com/files/rootswebupload/MutationRates.ppt
>>
>> I snipped these from the larger presentation. Here is what I was
>> trying to convey.
>>
>> The Estes surname project is significantly larger than this, but when
>> I prepared this chart, I used only proven genealogies, not ones where
>> I know they connect but exactly how is "fuzzy", because I needed to
>> know the number of transmission events that had occurred.
>>
>> On the page labeled 458, which is the marker number being discussed,
>> Abraham is the founder and his DNA has been triangulated. I have
>> people upstream from him due to other people testing. I know those
>> folks descend from his uncle and grandfather, but some of the
>> "inbetween" genealogy is fuzzy, mostly due to the fact that this
>> Northern group of Esteses has has minimal research and has no active
>> researchers now, hence, the people who tested didn't send me their
>> complete genealogies, so I can't use them in this analysis, so I can't
>> count back any further generations from Abraham for this analysis.
>>
>> Abraham's trangulated allele count is 18.
>>
>> Abraham's sons are listed and the number of mutation opportunities is
>> the first number in the box. Looking at Abraham Jr., there are 10
>> mutation opportunities for the one person who tested, and the allele
>> count
> is 18.
>> That is true for both of the people who descend from Abraham Jr.
>> Moving on to Moses, I have him broken down further because I go on
>> later in the presenation to discuss this group in more detail, but as
>> you can see, there are 5 proven descendants here and one of them has a
>> an upward mutation and one has a downward mutation.
>>
>> You get the idea. So there are 3 mutations of a combined number of
>> mutation opportunities of 160, for 2%. I'm assuming here of course
>> that the mutation to 17 is a one time mutation that occurred some
>> place upstream and is carried down as a line marker mutation.
>>
>> For marker 391, Abraham Sr. is 12, and you can see there are 8
>> mutations out of 160 possible events, all downward mutations.
>>
>> The interesting thing for both of these mutations is how many
>> individual lines they occurred in independently.
>>
>> I surely have to wonder why these alleles are "predisposed" (or maybe
>> "inclined" for lack of another word) to mutation downward, in the case
>> of 391.
>>
>> Roberta
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>



This thread: