Bill, Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test results. Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more about it, please. Doug On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi, Doug, > I appreciate your remarks and your comments are well taken. > We must accept the haplotype strings as they are. I don't think the testing > agencies make too many mistakes, so it is not a matter of "garbage-in", nor > of "garbage-out." > The problems lie in overinterpreting what comes out, and most of the > problem are directly traceable to unknown mutations. > That's why I state many times that the errors are of the order of 180 years > (SD) so the dates could be off by three times that, provided the > distribution is Gaussian, which it probably is. Therein lies the problem if > we overinterpret through genealogy eyes. It is not so bad if you have your > genetic eyes on, because errors in that realm are expected to be high. For > that reason, I feel that the RCC correlation approach may have more > applicability in looking into differences in haplogroups. I think I have > covered all of this in my FAQs but it never hurts to repeat the admonition > about not overinterpreting! > It is usually not the 'facts' of DNA that are on shaky ground; it's the > interpretation! > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, tuulen wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Although I am quite new to DNA-based family research, my background is in > > mechanical engineering, where in my student days I spent several years at > > advanced mathematics and grinding a lot of equations, to a point where > > numerical theories and I became good friends, and on that basis I can > > generally understand what your theory is based on and how it works. > > > > Your theory makes good sense, and could expose many not-so-obvious facts, > as > > of relations among and between various groups of people. Bravo, good > > thinking! > > > > However, there also is the old dictum, Garbage In = Garbage Out, and so > > analysis results are only as good as the data used to generate them. > That > > goes to my earlier comment, that sometimes DNA facts can apparently be on > > shaky ground. The consideration is that DNA itself is apparently not > 100% > > stable, that it could remain stable for hundreds or perhaps thousands of > > years, but then suddenly and unpredictably mutate, such that apparently > it > > is possible for DNA between a father and his son to not be a 100% match, > and > > that the chances for such random mutation apparently tend to increase > > proportionally to time, as the longer the time period considered the > greater > > a chance for random mutation, or that two people could be unrelated but > > could today have a 100% match simply because their DNA had eventually > > mutated into an accidentally perfect match. > > > > In other words, such analysis could be brilliant, but perhaps such > > brilliance should be tempered due to an inherent unpredictability of DNA, > > and should not be considered !00% infallible. > > > > It sounds quite promising, however, and I look forward to learning more > > about it. > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, Doug, and thanks. > >> Every time I dig more deeply into the RCC correlation approach, I find a > >> slightly different and more exciting application for it. > >> I have been notified by the editor of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy > that > >> my next two papers** will be published together in their next issue. I > have > >> done a revision of one but am waiting to reply to referee comments on > the > >> other. > >> I am also hoping that FTDNA will become interested in it and I have run > a > >> test for them recently, generating a 50 testee tree from the haplotypes. > >> So it goes…… and, it's fun. > >> - Bye from Bill > >> > >> ** an analysis of the Gordon Clan and using Mathematica on an RCC matrix > to > >> derive the phylogenetic tree. The first is co-authored by the surname > >> administrator of the Gordons, Tei Gordon, and the latter is co-authored > by a > >> colleague at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Fred Schwab. > >> > >> On Jul 23, 2011, at 2:21 AM, tuulen wrote: > >> > >>> Bill, > >>> > >>> I think I understand how your theory works in general, but let me admit > >> that > >>> goes well beyond all which I have so far considered, let alone > attempted! > >>> > >>> However, your approach does seem promising, and I look forward to > >> learning > >>> more about it. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Doug > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > 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 > > > 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 >