GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265843907


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:18:27 +0100


Dear Anatole,

Going through your last post which was now some time back...

>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. ... I have noticed that every joke I made you
consider as if I speak before a High Court.

Please do not be distracted by my citation of your words. I do not doubt
that they were meant light heartedly. I cite them just because they are the
starting point for a reply.

>Second, please do not demand that I must (sic!) answer something when there
was no any real question.
>Responded to what?
>Can you specify your question?

I do disagree that I never asked any clear question. I think my question is
consistent, and is indeed based on trying to understand the conversation
between you and Ken which got stuck. (And I think you felt that others were
judging you too quickly without asking the questions behind their doubts?)
The most specific version at
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/12656489
02 was:-
>In my example above, which mutation happened first and is more ancestral,
on the following "slow moving markers":-
>*The 11 or 12 on the second marker?
>*The 16 or 17 on the third marker?
>*The 18 or 19 on the fourth marker?

> I have opened the link and immediately closed it. Did you really want me
to study those well over hundred of extended haplotypes

No, I suggested originally that it would not be necessary for my question.
Perhaps you didn't realize why. I do understand that the type of question
you get asked the most, and which you explain the most, is to look at a
bunch of haplotypes and estimate an age. We have also had such discussions.
However in this case I want to isolate the step which is prior to this part.

I asked only how you make a "haplotype tree" (your term), which as you said,
and maybe this is the point I need to understand better, is an essential
first step which many people get wrong. For example to John's example you
start by first saying the group had two clades, and in your articles you
also show trees. I would like to isolate this step and understand if you do
it in a special way. I think other people are also interested.

Concerning this first step, if you do it like the rest of us, in my opinion
it will very often just be a shot in the dark, whether you do it by eye or
by computer programme. If you do not, then I really want to learn the
method. I would be happy.

Above, I re-stated the question you thought I had not asked. Here was your
response first time round...

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/12656888
32 You wrote:- "This what can be shown on a haplotype tree. You cannot say
what is "more ancestral" since there are several ancestors there. THE
ancient "the most recent" common ancestor might not be even seen clearly
from the listed haplotypes. It can be deduced, though, by comparing base
haplotypes of several subsets, which can be identified on the haplotype
tree. Some of them can be poorly identifiable due to insufficient
statistics."

So, going through the paragraph...

1. The haplotype tree will be shown in the haplotype tree.

2. If the statistics are insufficient, then identification can be
insufficient.

That's where we got to so far.

Best Regards
Andrew


This thread: