To the list: Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right. But, he misunderstands the power of correlating groups of strings not just one. So, he is falling victim by over-interpreting a result that comes from just one pair of haplotypes. The comparison that Sandy is making is equivalent to taking just one pair in an intercluster and trying to draw conclusions about the whole makeup of the intercluster. To show this explicitly, go to the URL that presents individual values of the intersections of Howles and McGoverns that I sent to the list earlier. You can see it at: <http://mysite.verizon.net/weh8/Howle-McGovernIntercluster.pdf> Look at the intercluster RCC numbers and consider the calculations below: 15 25 18 18 15 15 17 15 25 17 17 15 15 17 12 17 14 14 16 16 18 15 19 17 17 14 14 16 12 12 14 14 11 11 13 12 18 15 15 12 12 14 12 18 15 15 13 13 10 Average: 15.18367347 SD 2.990773795 SD/Avg: 19.7% A value of 20% of the average, like this one, is typical of the SDs of intercluster regions. Expectation of the SD from an intercluster using Sandy's numbers : 19.7 % of 97.11 is 19.12804854 19.7% of 113.26 is 22.30916258 Sandy gets: (113.26-97.11) =16.15 for his difference which he thinks is higher than it should be. But, 16 is less than one SD expected, since the value of 20% of the average for an SD is very representative of intercluster results. This is well under the one SD expected of 19 to 22. Sandy's comparison is normal. Q.E.D. My conclusions: Don't use anecdotal "evidence" — use averages and large haplotype comparisons like the ones that comprise large clusters and intercluster regions. Mathematica averages the numbers in the Howle-McGovern intercluster above to compute the junction point on the phylogenetic tree, but it does it using not only that intercluster, but the entire set of haplotypes. Refer to the junction point between Howles and McGovern clusters and you will see that the junction is at RCC ~ 15, exactly where it should be. - Bye from Bill Note to Sandy -- no need to redo your calculation. It was done correctly, but your interpretation was not correct. On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > I've set up an Excel spreadsheet at > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2733445/EWCON.xlsx > > > Column A is Paul Conroy's 37-marker haplotype. Column B is the 37-marker > haplotype of Ewing 26605. The CC and the RCC are in cells C37 and D37. The > RCC is 97.11. If you change the CDYb value in column B from 38 to 37, the > RCC changes from 97.11 to 113.26. > > Changes of 1 at other markers result in smaller changes in RCC. > > I think it would be worthwhile if someone were to check this independently > from first principles. Having said that, I get the same answer of 97.11 > using my own software, working from first principles. > > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Paterson > Sent: 11 July 2011 06:48 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree > > [I've done that myself. If a marker (it doesn't make any difference which > one) with the value of 12 is altered to 13 you will always get the same > CC. Change another marker with a value of 29 to 30 and you will get a > different CC. In genetic distance computations the result would be > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And this statement? <Finally, about the association of genetic distance (GD) with RCC -- I have run many strings of haplotypes and have changed various marker values by 1, 2, 3, and compared many sets with each other. They show that a change of 1 in GD can cause a change in RCC of about 3, depending on which marker (low vs high) is changed....> A change in GD of 1 can be as high as 16? Maybe even higher? Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 11 July 2011 14:46 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree To the list: Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right.

Really? Actually, they are garbage. In correlation, the numerator is the sum of the products of (person A value of attribute - mean attribute value of population) x (person B value of attribute - mean attribute value of population). In what I set up in the spreadsheet, this is not the case. So they are not correlation coefficients at all. They may have some meaning, I don't know, but they look like garbage to me. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 11 July 2011 14:46 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree To the list: Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right.

Sandy, One of us is confused and I don't think it is I! The Excel function for correlation is the one I used. Since Excel does it within its own 'black box', I have checked it out with statistical algorithms and find it to be correct. Enough of this! I think we are wasting the list readers' time. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Really? > > Actually, they are garbage. In correlation, the numerator is the sum of the > products of (person A value of attribute - mean attribute value of > population) x (person B value of attribute - mean attribute value of > population). > > In what I set up in the spreadsheet, this is not the case. So they are not > correlation coefficients at all. They may have some meaning, I don't know, > but they look like garbage to me. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard > Sent: 11 July 2011 14:46 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree > > To the list: > > Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right. > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message