GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1270036079


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Questions about alternate means of searching DNA Genealogy
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:54:31 -0400
References: <209bca921003291224k5f0b3ae2gef0ece518f0327f1@mail.gmail.com> <REME20100329212910@alum.mit.edu> <000001cacfe2$817a39b0$846ead10$@com> <REME20100330160616@alum.mit.edu> <000001cad0ac$a0be9f80$e23bde80$@com><0794A073-8DE6-4F21-B95E-8CB1F20F2ED3@vizachero.com><028501cad0c0$96b9aed0$c42d0c70$@com>
In-Reply-To: <028501cad0c0$96b9aed0$c42d0c70$@com>


It is not just a question of "pedantics". There is a conceptual
issue, which is important: Y-DNA markers are in tight linkage. If you
can recognize that then you should be able to recognize the error in
your earlier statement: ". . . if each one of those 3 markers are
rare, then the
presence of all 3 values simultaneously will be very rare indeed. . . "

You can see that this is not obviously true. It MIGHT be true, but it
also might NOT be true. It MIGHT be that the frequency of all three
rare alleles together is no lower than the frequency of any one of
them individually. That's what John said earlier, and there really
isn't anything to disagree with as far as I can tell.

Further, the nature of these frequencies matters quite a lot to your
friend's search. If, indeed, the three rare alleles are uncorrelated
then any attempt to "concentrate" on them is probably going to be
futile. If the three rare allele are highly correlated, then such an
attempt may yield fruit.

VV



On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote:

> As I said, this is just interpretation/pedantics and does nothing to
> detract
> from the logical conclusion that it remains a good idea to
> concentrate on
> the rare alleles.


This thread: