GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-12 > 1229183604


From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Why Western M269 can't be accurately aged
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:53:24 +0200
References: <917892.81379.qm@web81104.mail.mud.yahoo.com><FACCC4A3-B3D6-44CB-8A1D-FC5B0FE56002@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80812120459g1dfc8756iee4c27f6d55f9dea@mail.gmail.com><7BC311BF-256E-4966-B676-3DF530701158@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80812120827r70233e09n7ba0105b20815e09@mail.gmail.com><3327D706-B5C3-46F3-918F-801520B30296@vizachero.com><f3f05ce80812121047s714e1c5fn65a7117071da2066@mail.gmail.com><D1FC71BF-DF4D-46A9-91CE-FB436085F938@vizachero.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1FC71BF-DF4D-46A9-91CE-FB436085F938@vizachero.com>


That it is inappropriate is not my opinion, but a fact, since
uniform(1,1000) assigns probability mass to the interval of the last
~1,500 years (or ~60 generations) where the probability of the MRCA
living is provably 0.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Vincent Vizachero
<> wrote:
> That it is "inappropriate" is your opinion, nothing more, and one
> that so far is unsupported.

>> Thank you for "reminding" me, but it was not necessary, since I was
>> the one who used that prior in my post. The point that uniform(1,1000)
>> is inappropriate stands.

--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com
Γενετική των Ελλήνων: http://greekgenetics.blogspot.com/
Anthropological Research Page: http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp

This thread: