GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1139692295


From: Doug McDonald <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Sorenson Marker Details
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:35 -0600
References: <142.562fd5de.311f82d1@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <142.562fd5de.311f82d1@aol.com>


wrote:

> No to the first question -- the method they used for calculating mutation
> rates is laid out in the poster I referenced. Yes to the second question -- but I
> am curious as to how strong the correlation is, if someone has time to
> compute it.
>

I personally have done all the calculations.


IF you use variance within one haplogroup (I mean within a narrowly
defined one ... "I" or "R" is too wide, R1b1c8 is better, then
you do get a pretty good correlation with the relative rates measured by
the method on the Sorenson poster, or with the relative rates known for
a very few markers by father-son measures. If you use coalescant
methods (Batwing) you can get good correlation even if including
different haplogroups, since the mathematics itself will sort
out the haplogroups, given a big enough sample.

All this makes it clear that our current measures of the relative
rates pass all the sanity checks.

Doug McDonald

This thread: