GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293656403


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:00:03 -0500
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1>


I share your puzzlement. It is not an "idea" that the Y-tree is "almost"
entirely a set of bifurcations, it is a bifurcating tree. We simply have yet to
determine the order of all the SNPs. Presumably, if we test enough people we
will eventually know the ordering, in which case we will have a bifurcating
tree, with a single SNP at each node, one that is congruent with the "real"
bifurcating tree, which exists whether we are aware of it, or not.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:genealogy-dna-
> ] On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
>
> > I think this also highlights the idea that our Y-tree is
> > almost entirely a set of bifurcations, regardless of whether or not
> > the "markers" for those bifurcations are known to us.
>
>
> "bifurcations" instead of what else? Trifurcations, etc.? It is not clear to
me what you
> were driving at in the above?
>
>

This thread: