GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-03 > 1174660384


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cruciani and 2007 TMRCA estimates
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:04 -0600
References: <KHEKIJEABJGJEKDPFEDMOEFKDGAA.elizabethod@eircom.net> <4602F553.50507@scs.uiuc.edu><297F8512-85EF-4CBB-AD88-0142EC741313@vizachero.com><4603DCF4.6050705@scs.uiuc.edu><FA544080-6F59-4601-B86D-20EFBA1515EA@vizachero.com>


If the paper had called their fudge factor "An effective mutation rate"
instead of "The......" and added "for specific application to a Maori and
Roma......" then maybe it would have some circular and useless truth
content. Presented as a generality applicable to all populations as has
been the consequence in a series of other papers of the last few years; this
is silly. There are sound reasons for why the marker variances are not
growing as rapidly as original theory indicated it should; but those reasons
are population dependent, and make it difficult to state a general
correction to the formulas because we yet do not have a way to make the
corrections which are dependent on early history of the population and the
tendencies of certain males to dominate the matings within the population.


Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cruciani and 2007 TMRCA estimates


>
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> My statement is not baseless. His "preconceived notion" is
>> that he is measuring a mutation rate. Actually that is somewhat of
>> a wrong statement. He KNOWS he is not measuring a "mutation rate"
>> but pretends and states that he is.
>
> Given the title of his most paper (The Effective Mutation Rate at Y
> Chromosome Short Tandem Repeats, with Application to Human Population-
> Divergence Time), I'd argue that there is no pretense.
>
> The paper is clear about its goal: to establish an effective
> mutation rate to sue in measuring population divergence. He is
> calibrating a data set from one application (pedigree studies), which
> can be measured, for use in another application (population
> divergence studies), in which the actual rate can NOT be measured.
>
> The only pretense is that calibration of data is somehow unseemly
> when, in fact, it is a necessary fact of life.
>
> Vince
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: