GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-01 > 1294076163
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] How old is Y-Chromosome Adam?
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:36:03 +0100
You mentioned how better and more estimates for the mutation rates of slow
markers should help get better deep estimates of ages, such as that for Y
But, thinking through what Ken is writing, I guess the other thing that can
help is just more slow markers.
For example the extreme case which shows the problem of a slow marker is
trying to use a small number in genealogy - let's say the ones in the 12
marker test from FT DNA. In genealogical time, there is a very big chance
that no mutations will show at all, giving an estimate by any method which
will presumably approximate to infinity or some maximum which has been set.
But if we have a lot of slow markers, well, I won't say that slow markers on
their own can ever work well in a genealogical timeframe, at least not in
the numbers currently being used, but we can say that the chances of seeing
some mutations in this timeframe become much higher.
...So I was wondering. If I understand correctly, every time you compare two
sets of slow markers the bigger set always gives a lower estimate?
If you start with small numbers of slow markers and add them bit by bit, do
the estimates drop until they reach some sort of equilibrium perhaps?
|[DNA] How old is Y-Chromosome Adam? by "Lancaster-Boon" <>|