Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213135763

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Generations2 program and the CMH-12 extendedhaplotypes....
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:09:23 -0600
References: <><009f01c8c97a$e40205b0$6400a8c0@Ken1> <> <00f801c8c988$87da6030$6400a8c0@Ken1><><><006301c8ca46$511b8a60$6400a8c0@Ken1><000601c8cac0$d0b1bd60$0100a8c0@john><006b01c8cb05$db25ed30$6400a8c0@Ken1><009b01c8cb42$3d1c15f0$0100a8c0@john>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>

> Ken,
> I guess I was trying to say that if the databases you run through your
> formula are biased (not intentionally) to the extent they are tend to
> excluded members of a group with the most variance from a perceived modal/
> ancestral haplotype, it could affect the result of your calculation.
> [[[[ Of course; give others the credit of maybe being aware of that ]]]]]]

> Where you have used your own databases based on selection by STR modals,
> you
> also are likely excluding those haplotypes with the most variance in the
> wider clade, but including all who have the least variance from the
> ancestral/ modal haplotype.

[[[[ With regard to other's databases given to me from other haplogroups,
what you say could possibly be true or not. Others pick their databases
according to their own criteria. But since you have no idea how I select my
clade members, you are somewhat presumptuous saying that haplotypes are
being excluded. My criteria could equally well possibly be allowing in
those who don't belong. How would you know which, if either, is
appening? ]]]]

> If your formula works on variance of variance, [[[[ Again, the formula is
> not mine; it is the standard, ubiquitous measure of variance used by most
> everyone in the field ]]]]]

One of these days I will just date the complete collection of every western
Europe M269 haplotype in sight --- with no further SNP or STR conditions
applied. When that turns out younger in age to its MRCA than you like, what
objection will you have then?

This thread: