GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1222214682


From: "R. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:04:42 -0400
References: <092320081711.10617.48D923280005753600002979220588911690019C019704050E@comcast.net><ea3bd9560809231035w7bcdacdmcc04a36b7f4aad08@mail.gmail.com><3b2a446a0809231359j239c446cmc56ee73e6aa4ceac@mail.gmail.com>


Thanks for that information. I didn't know all that, and it's good to know.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?


> Dear David,
>
> I would like to clarify who here is "professional" and who is "amateur".
>
> Back in the sixties, the disciples of Einstein had a problem:
> they had a brilliant theory (Einstein's theory of general relativity),
> but no good method how to check its predictions in precise experiments
> and/or observations.
>
> Then there came Prof. Nordtvedt and helped them out.
> He designed a good method that is known as the "Nordtvedt effect",
> thus gaining his place in the history of science.
>
> Forty years later, the new science of genetic genealogy had a similar
> problem: no good way to calculate the number of generations to MRCA.
> As Prof. Zhivotovsky explained in his 2006 paper, the methods they used
> were very much dependent on the details of population history.
>
> Recently Prof. Nordtvedt designed a better method for estimating TMRCA
> which - unlike the previous methods - is NOT affected by bottlenecks,
> expansions etc. .
>
> Now, when professional biologists (who are amateur mathematicians and
> equally amateur archeologists)
> publish their half-cooked ideas in biological publications reviewed by
> other
> amateur mathematicians
> and amateur archeologists (being professional biologists), the
> mathematical
> and archeological
> results cannot possibly be considered scientifically validated.
>
> When a real professional, world-class mathematician joined the research,
> the
> result is
> professionally designed, and generally an adequate method for estimating
> TMRCA.
>
> By the way, Prof. Klyosov is a distinguished researcher in the field of
> biochemistry. He received
> the Russian State Prize (in Russia this is similar to a Nobel Prize, but
> on
> a smaller scale). He has forty years of professional experience in
> applying
> advanced mathematical methods to molecular processes.
>
> I think that your telling Prof. Nordtvedt and Prof. Klyosov that "you are
> both out of step
> with any and all population geneticists" is entirely inappropriate,
> because
> we are talking about calculations using mathematical methods in which
> population geneticists are not expected to be competent.
>
>
> I do think that academic credentials are important, but in this case it's
> Ken and Anotole who happen to have them .
>
>
> Sasson
>
>
>
> Ken Nordtvedt wrote (back in 1968):
>
>> The acceleration of a massive body in an external field for general
>> space-time geometrical gravitational theories is obtained.
>> The condition on the metric is such that mgmi=1 is obtained,
>> and we reobtain the result that mgmi=1 in Einstein's theory
>> for massive objects with time-independent internal structure.
>> But it is shown that a measurement of mgmi for astronomical
>> bodies would measure space-time metric components which
>> have not been measured in other gravitational experiments.
>> In the scalar-tensor gravitational theory due to Brans and Dicke,
>> it is shown that mgmi differs from 1 by a term of the order of
>> the massive body's gravitational self-energy divided by its total energy.


This thread: