GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265195642


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 06:14:02 -0500
References: <mailman.355.1265184047.21157.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


>From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
>I think your age estimates are fine, but the error bars are too optimistic

Dear Ken,

I have heard these words many times from those who did not bother to
calculate margins of error themselves, and, more than that, they had no idea
how to calculate margins of error. However, they were quick with their
"opinion". As always.

In that regard, it is strange to hear those words from you. You know how to
calculate margins of error. Why did not you do it, before expressing your
opinion? In my book of science it is a no-no.

I took 284 of 25-marker haplotypes, verified that they are derived from one
(technically) common ancestor, and found that they contained 1853 mutations
from the base (ancestral) haplotype. Your take?

Best regards,

Anatole Klyosov


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
>
> Null-DYS425-U106, 3325+/-540 ybp
> R-U106*, 4175+/-430 ybp
>
> Anatole Klyosov


> >From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
>>But that 3000 years for U106 with null 435 seems somewhat younger than
>>the age of all of U106


This thread: