GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-02 > 1296764485
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA of 3 families in a new subclade
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:21:25 +1300
References: <1109918832.406200.1296682819129.JavaMail.root@sz0058a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><005c01cbc32a$7d3f8a30$c2482dae@Ken1><001501cbc37b$343344c0$9c99ce40$@dgmweb.net><6D06A49A-6D7C-468E-B063-7C1B447F3EB3@verizon.net><4D4ABCCC.9000004@gmail.com><18131EA6-5A0F-473E-A8BB-3E6CBE7B4165@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <18131EA6-5A0F-473E-A8BB-3E6CBE7B4165@verizon.net>
Jim,
You said...
>>>>>>>
> I just think TMRCA is a poor tool for most genealogists, and most DNA
> projects. But maybe my view is too narrow.
<<<<<<<
Perhaps results from TMRCA formula based on STR mutations are more complex
than they can superficially appear. I think they are evidence, just like
any other evidence. I think as a "ball park reality check" they are very
useful, and it is a pity to dismiss any evidence. It would be better to
spend time to ensure a good understanding significance of confidence
intervals, than to avoid using the evidence.
No tool is necessarily perfect. Sometimes a birth certificate can be the
most dangerous of tools to put 100% confidence in without other means of
corroboration.
John.
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] TMRCA of 3 families in a new subclade by "Alister John Marsh" <> |