GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-07 > 1248047583


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:53:03 +1200
References: <65129899-5600-4649-B875-9CDBF6816259@earthlink.net><3b2a446a0907191321p3f0a566ah7a3970747bdfc6c2@mail.gmail.com><005a01ca08b3$c2de57c0$6400a8c0@Ken1><128A85B892F64BF186346574509B9DC2@john><003d01ca08c6$6f96c8a0$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <003d01ca08c6$6f96c8a0$6400a8c0@Ken1>


Ken,

I thought you were "trying to be inflammatory"! I guess I was responding in
a similar way!

When I said the "broadest information the better", I was assuming the
information would have at least some relevance to the topic. If you or some
others don't see a correlation between mathematical estimates and
archaeology, it does not necessarily mean that either the archaeologists of
the mathematicians are right, and the other wrong, or that either
mathematics or archaeology are "irrelevant". Just my view. I am prepared
to give discussion broad latitude.

I note that mathematical formulae (which rely on random models for
mutations... which we don't know to be true or not) produce estimates
varying by up to a factor of 50, depending on whether the calculations are
based on slow or fast mutating markers. If the archaeology lobby had not
questioned the apparent inconsistency of some mathematical estimates with
archaeology, we might not have discovered this potentially 50 fold error in
the mathematicians' assumptions about mutations. It is better when we
bounce an idea around between different disciplines.

I personally find it fascinating to explore the possibilities that various
haplogroups/ clades were associated to some extent with historic/
archaeological records.

When you carefully selected your words "this list can get SWAMPED by other
subjects", was that intended a reference to me?

John MARSH.

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -


----- Original Message -----

> Ken,
>
> You said....
>>>>>>>>
> I'll go one step forward; discourage the archaeology-centric posts.
> <<<<<<<
>
> I think the more exposure we get on this list to the broadest information
> the better. > John.

Yes, you have a good point --- to a point. I was trying to be inflammatory,

and really complaining about the ratio of things as they have developed.

But the root subject of this list can easily get swamped by other subjects
which are mainly endless speculation and can weaken the development of the
science and practice of genetic-based population studies.

You don't mean the "braodest information the better" I would guess. Even
you would suggest some bounds.

Ken



-------------------------------
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: