Now, I am anticipating .... this immediate question. WHY IS HE (Robert PAGE) GIVING ME (In Islamorada) THIS LONG STORY ABOUT A TOPIC .. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN. That is the beauty of the "Delete' button . Over the years, I have met many in Islamorada and the tremendous Genealogical research material available at the Islamorada Library, that almost nobody knows about, if they are interested in their family history. Not by design, but, I have become an "expert' by others", based on my long years of research, and am very willing to share my research experience in this area and help anyone not sure on how to research their family background. Now to the purpose of this email. I find this very interesting, this email, from our base newsletter about Y-DNA, Many of us with "my PAGE family "C" line" can get back to the 1700's in Virginia, pretty easy, and a few of us, are able to try and get back to the late 1300's in England and then "guessing" further back, than that (based on historical records), to use and coincide with Y-DNA timelines gets us back to the Viking time period, of 800 A.D. or probably before. Please see very important, (in the below discussion) is the more current birth/death time for generation time periods, run in current times (1900's) around 25-35 years, but a hundred or so years back, the longevity of a person, was much shorter, so I got from that, the further back you go, (that you are to show a paper trail), one must remember that people did not live that long, the further back you go. In England, a 40 year old person, was soon to die, for many reasons. There were many times the "Plague" hit Europe and half of Europe died. My research on my mothers line (from Minn), then jumped to her fathers line, line back to Germany, and I was living very near that the Yackee (Jacky) line and searching church records (in hundreds of years old documents, in the Alsace/Lorraine area that had not been looked at for a long time, (where I finally found my documents) by clearly how many died, (shocking) within a year or two. This is why you need to pay close attention, to the so called birth dates, and not jump a generation, just to force a connection, hoping you are right. Reasons for the short lifespan was many, like bad water, disease, plagues, pollution, lack of food, etc. Now, I must admit some amazing FACTS about longevity. I am also deep into Creek/Seminole genealogy and I have "one" individual named James McQueen, a British subject, born in 1683, in Coleraine, Ireland - d. 1811 (age 128) who was a Scottish sailor, who jumped ship in St. Augustine, in 1716, because he "struck a British officer". He then entered the Creek Nation and became a trader and a very influential person. In 1756, McQueen moved to Tallassee town, near Tuckabatchy, on Line Creek, (now Montgomery Co, Ala), where Osceola was born. He had already married Polly Milford, before 1730, because his first daughter, Ann was born 1730. Polly Milford was a Tallassee daughter of Louis LeClerc Milford, who had married Jeanette McGillivray, a daughter of Lachlan McGillivray/Sehoy II, who was also Scottish, with an important Indian wife of the Wind Clan. This Sehoy and McGillivray connection, later tied into the McQueen and Milford line, who was French, and close to the McGillivray line, connection, is another long and complicated story, but most interesting if you interested in Creek/Seminole genealogical history. So to say, that in the 1700's, the average life expectinancy is less than 40 years, might be true in the large cities, where there was easy access to diseases and pollution was becoming a problem, is to be considered. Please see the below for more comments on my interpretation of their on-going discussion. Robert Page ----- Original Message ----- From: <genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com>To: <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:31 PMSubject: GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 5, Issue 130 > Today's Topics: > 1. Re: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated > (Lochlan@aol.com) > 2. Science Daily article: Universal DNA Reader Will Advance > Faster, Cheaper Sequencing Efforts (Carol Vass) > 3. Re: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated > (Diana Gale Matthiesen) > 4. Re: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated > (Irish III DNA) > 5. Re: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated > (John Mclaughlin) > 6. Re: DYS395S1 (followed) (Michael Walsh) > 7. Re: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated > (Irish III DNA) > 8. Re: Y Tree SNPs can not be counted (Sasson Margaliot) > 9. Re: TMRCA assessments (Anatole Klyosov) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:40:26 -0500 > From: "Anatole Klyosov" <aklyosov@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA assessments> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>> > Dear John, > > I am glad that we are making progress in mutual understanding as well as > in your understanding of my approach. Whether or not I share your concerns > (aka understand their ground) remains to be seen from my responses below. > >>(John) BACK MUTATIONS: In "most cases" in the genealogical time frame, >>back mutations and parallel mutations may (gut feeling plus a little basic >>maths) have less than 10% impact on TMRCA estimates. Less than 10% impact >>is not significant, unless there are several other factors which might be >>adding 10% errors. > > (Anatole) John, it is nice to have guts, and maybe even nicer to have gut > feeling. However, let's strike them out in context of this discussion. > Let's stick to "a little basic maths". Frankly, I doubt that you have used > it here. I am not sure that you have "in your hands" a math equation > showing a contribution of back mutations compared to "forward" mutations > on a time scale. Because, if you would have considered it, you would have > known that 10% "addition" due to back mutations occur far beyond the > family study time periods. Here is a little table for your information, it > is simple and handy. It shows a contribution of back mutations versus > time: > > below 575 years bp - less than 1-2% > 625-950 ybp - 2% to 3% > 1000-1200 ybp - 3% to 5% > to 1500 ybp - 6% to 7% > to 2000 ybp - 7.5% to 8.1% > to 3000 ybp - 9% to 12% > to 4000 ybp - 14% to 17% > to 5000 ybp - 17% to 20% > to 10,000 ybp - 21% to 39% > to 20,000 ybp - 40 to 75% > > As you see, even until 3000 ybp it is within a typical margin of error > (with 95% confidence). > >>(John) Given how you have explained you "calibrated" your average >>generation time/mutation rate, I don't believe your choice of 25 years for >>generation time has caused any significant errors. Given this, back >>mutations alone are not typically a serious problem in the "genealogical >>time frame" if they are mostly have less than 10% impact. > > (Anatole) You got it right. > > If fact, a choice of 25 years per generation causes NO error whatsoever, > since for 30 years per generation, or ANY other number the mutation rate > should be just adjusted. The final TMRCA will be exactly the same. > > >>(John) GENERATION TIME/ MUTATION RATE CALIBRATION: When I said your >>calibration bears no relationship to father/ son mutation study data, >>perhaps I did not word that very well. What I meant was that you "did not >>use" father son study data to arrive at your calibration, and that appears >>to be correct. > > (Anatole) Yes, it is correct. Because in fact I saw right away that I got > the same numbers as those around of father-son data. Except the father-son > data are all over the place. The accuracy is not there, and on an obvious > reason - too few mutations there in a large number of father-son pairs. > Those data cannot be used for TMRCA calculations. However, they are very > valuable, since provide a kind of a "mental comfort". They showed that my > calibration was principally correct. > >>(John) However, it appears that your calibration of mutation rates/ >>generation times is probably coming up with similar average results to >>father son studies. So although your process is different and does not >>rely on father/son studies, your mutation rate would be similar (if >>adjusted for a 30 year generation time). I have not checked them in detail, but they do look generally similar. > > Generally, yes. However, if you make a table with all father-son data, and > there are not many of them, your will see that they cover quite of a > range, from 0.0013 to 0.0040 (a ballpark values). Some of them are clear > outliers, and the core is around 0.0020 mutations per haplotype per > generation. You do not need to adjust it for a 30 years per generation (is > it a kind of a religious number? Why not 29, or 33, or 35, or 27, or > whatever?), since my "calibrated" (with 25 years per generation, which is > a fixed, a "mathematical" number) are in the same ballpark, but more > accurate ones. > >>(John) If you used 700 year pedigrees like the MacDonald one to calibrate >>your system, on the one hand you might have some advantages in that if >>there are any non random aspects to occurrence and survival of mutations, >>your system would automatically make allowance for them. But on the other >>hand, perhaps we don't know for sure if all of the haplotypes in the >>MacDonald project "descend from" the clan founder. > > If I would have blindly restricted myself with MacDonald haplotypes and > the Lord John story (and the respective dates), you would be right. > However, I did not. I did multiple verifications with other systems and > datasets. Just a simple example, one of many. When I have obtained - on > the first (about) 60 MacDonald haplotypes - the average mutation rate > constant of 0.022 mutations per 12-marker haplotype per generation, I took > a look an John Chandler's table. It came up as 0.02243 mutations per > haplotype. The difference of less than 2%. This is, of course, well within > a margin of error. This showed that my calibration at least did not > conflict with John's data on the first 12 markers. > > However, lately MacDonalds added many more people to their table, who > brought many more mutations, and the TMRCA immediately went deeper in > time. From the initial 650 years bp (to John, presumable) it went to about > 800 ybp. So now it cannot be used for calibration anymore per se. However, > it is already calibrated and verified. > >>(John) It is interesting to have your different approach to compare to >>other approaches. > > It makes two of us. However, some other folks do not share your (and mine) > attitude. They follow some kind of a negative pattern, which essentially > is (a) You shall not compare, (b) If you compare, if you wrong, and (c) If > you do not compare, you are wrong anyway. > >>(John) In the example of mine which you looked at, you said you counted a >>4 step difference on one haplotype at DYS607 as a single 4 step mutation. > > (Anatole) Not exactly. I do not do things like that. I have calculated > both variants, with 4 and with 1 mutation, and showed that the difference > is within the margin of error. However, it was obvious that it was a > single 4-step mutation, since the rest of the long haplotype was the same > and of the other long haplotypes from the dataset. > >>(John) However, given that I think this person may be the most distantly >>related Marsh to all of the other Marshes, it is not impossible that his 4 >>step difference on the very fast mutating marker is the result of either >>1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or more separate mutations. > > (Anatole) John, you are making the same mistake as before. Do not rely on > your "eye" and the "given that I think" stuff, when you try to sort out > haplotypes. You are going to fail. And you did fail in this particular > case. You have divided your dataset wrongly, I have commented on it > earlier. This person (named D in your dataset) is not "the most distantly > related" at all. It shares his mini-branch with "B" and "C" which are > equally "distant" (in fact, close). > >>(John) Hypothetically, this arbitrary decision to count it as one could >>contribute to a margin of error. You arbitrarily decided to read a 4 step >>difference as one mutation, when it could possibly be 4 individual steps, >>or even 6. You are probably right, it may be one single 4 step mutation, >>but if you are wrong, then you may have underestimated the mutation count >>by up to 3 or 5 mutation events. > > (Anatole) I repeat, I have considered both cases. Did you miss this part > in my comment on your data? > > It would have been VERY unlikely for the haplotype to make all the way > with four consecutive mutations, being the only member of the extended > family with "14" in that locus, what other have only 18 and 19 in the same > locus. Where are 15, 16, 17 and their offspring? Furthermore, with 4 > on-step mutations in one locus there must be plenty of other mutations in > the haplotype. There are none of them, which would make it different with > other haplotypes. Finally, in that situation I cannot exclude an erroneous > typing in the locus. Did you ask the person to repeat his test? > >>(John) In the case of back mutations, you say you do not count them >>because you can't see if they occurred or not. > > It is incorrect, and its is a misunderstanding. I do not count them in the > first 26 generation because their contribution is negligible, not because > I do not see them. If do not see them because they do not exist in terms > of their contribution. What I said is that - why do you insist on their > existence when you do not see them anyway? On what ground you believe that > they "do exist". A shear belief? A kind of religion? Because someone told > you that? > > A back mutation is a mutation you do not see anyway. When you see "13" how > do you know that it is back mutation in a first place? Back mutation would > be 12-->13 and 13--> 12 again. You can stare at all 12s in the dataset all > day long, but you cannot possibly know which 12 is the original one, and > which is a returned one. So I wonder when people here say that they "see" > back mutation, how do they manage to "see" them?? > > I "see" back mutations ONLY mathematically. And the math tells me - > "forget about them in the first 26 generations". > >> (John) Regarding back mutations, if you study a cluster of related >> haplotypes closely, you can sometime prove that a back mutation or >> parallel mutation has taken place. > > (Anatole) Wow! Disclose your secret, please. How do you see them? How can > you "sometimes prove"?? > >>(John) So it is not quite as you said in a previous post that a back >>mutation can't be counted because you can't see evidence it occurred. > > (Anatole) Please read again above. > >>(John) If I could prove to you, as I may eventually be able to do, that 2 >>mutations on the example I gave you to analyze were back mutations, would >>you still refuse to count them, even if I could prove they had taken >>place? > > (Anatole) Prove, please. I would love to learn something VERY unusual > (whispering to a side: no chance with those "back mutations"...) > > Regards,> Anatole Klyosov> End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 5, Issue 130 > ********************************************* >