GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265765724
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:35:24 +0000 (UTC)
>From: "Lancaster-Boon" < >
>Concerning the example you asked me to give I note that you have not
responded to it really because you say I bastardized the data and you say
you do not believe me about the markers I did not paste into this forum.
I will respond to the essence of your message later. I have not read your message yet, because I bumped into the first paragraph (see above) and it made me slightly astonished.
Let's agree on a few basic things in our discussion. First, the format of this Forum allows an "easy talk", however, still preferably focused on the subject. Please do not take my "easy talk" very seriously when I say that you bastardize the data. I have noticed that every joke I made you consider as if I speak before a High Court.
Second, please do not demand that I must (sic!) answer something when there was no any real question. I just came back to your original message with "bastardized haplotypes" and saw again that there was not any specific question from your side. You talked about number of things, listed a serious of curtained haplotypes to show that they can be mutated (sure they can!), but a question?
I have now to be specific. You have informed that you are not picking an unusual group, explained that they (haplotypes) belong to a family,and gave a link showing well over hundred haplotypes, adding "you can see them". I have opened the link and immediately closed it. Did you really want me to study those well over hundred of extended haplotypes, when you did not even specified a question??
O.K., then you have described that they share the same surname, etc. etc. Then you have explained that "there is no point showing marker values, which are merely the same". O.K. Then you went on explaining that they "look very much like the example of Ken's". I did not see it that way, but it was O.K. Then what? And then you said "there are numerous possibilities". And you again continued to talk about Ken's example and second-guessing why I "objected" to that example. Finally, you end up with a rhetorical question - "If most data sets had obvious branching, the whole field would be completely different?" End of your message. Where is the beef? I mean, what did you expect from me? And now you wrote: "I note that you have not
responded to it really because you say I bastardized the data..."
Responded to what?
Can you specify your question? I would be glad to consider it. May be it is specified in the last message,
A final point, before I quit. It seems that we continue to talk past each other. I have analyzed here lately a number of cases - from U106 and L21, with TMRCA of about 4200 years to a number of much more recent cases. I have explained in details how you made calculations. However, you repeat again and again - "but in order to count mutations I think you need a full "family tree". Did I need "a full family tree" for those calculations I gave recently?
Then you wrote re. my examples - "I am not sure why you think this needed to be shown". Hello!! Is anybody home?
Dear Andrew, I do not want to continue picking on each other' words, it is completely unproductive. While I was writing the above, I glanced through your last message and saw again and again those "others find it very hard to be confident about this", "most databases I see are insufficient", etc., etc.
I cannot help "others" with their brain structure. Therefore, please, ask SPECIFIC questions. Otherwise we are moving in circles.