GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213049604


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Generations2 program and the CMH-12 extended haplotypes...
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:13:28 -0700
References: <936471110806080753k1912d8e7s787d45c8d71666a@mail.gmail.com><009f01c8c97a$e40205b0$6400a8c0@Ken1> <484C0D1B.90109@sbcglobal.net> <00f801c8c988$87da6030$6400a8c0@Ken1><484C81C9.7080509@sbcglobal.net> <484D4B0C.9010308@sbcglobal.net><006301c8ca46$511b8a60$6400a8c0@Ken1> <484D708C.70407@sbcglobal.net> <00c801c8ca5c$21cfaf00$6400a8c0@Ken1> <484D7D95.3020907@sbcglobal.net><9B5EA1BF-476B-48E2-9EB7-D932F284B463@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B5EA1BF-476B-48E2-9EB7-D932F284B463@vizachero.com>


Good points Vincent. I relied on what I found on the Cohen Project and
the Y-DNA J Project (Cohen subsection) as my guide. I did the histograms
for each marker. I calculated the modal. Then I went through my J1
database (271 haplotypes having 37/67 markers) looking for marker
mismatches (I ignored GD, I just looked for mismatches). This allowed me
to pick up a few extra cases, but I didn't feel comfortable going beyond
about 15 mismatches (15 with 67 markers, 8 with 37 markers (actually I
went up to 9 as after examining the specific cases they looked ok to
me)). I thought then of writing a Bayesian clade predictor program
which would allow to dig deeper in mismatches with more confidence. If
you check the file I sent (column CD, "FTDNA Project") you'll see that
most of the data is directly from the Cohen DNA or Y-DNA J (Cohen
subsection) projects, they were basically my main guide. I know it isn't
very scientific, but it is the best we have.

I didn't think about that second point. It could be a problem. Bias is
difficult to overcome sometimes :-(
Al


> Vincent Vizachero wrote:
> What criteria are you using to decide who is, and who is not, a
> "Jewish Priest"?
>
> Also, are you worried that people who match the CMH at 12 markers are
> more likely than other J1 folks to upgrade to 67 markers? Or more
> likely to identify themselves as priests?
>
> Vinc
>
>


This thread: