Hi, David, I did see your posting and I apologize for being a bit tardy in my reply. I got into this when a friend suggested looking into the M222 SNP and to see if there is a connection between it and Niall and his descendants. My look at the situation indicates that, while Niall and the UiNeills may have carried the SNP, it cannot be proved that they did so. My date determination (see below) indicates that the SNP did not originate with them. In the process I became aware that one of the things that the DNA folks wanted to do was to try to date the origin of the M222 SNP. Since my RCC approach could do that estimate, I wanted to analyze haplotypes that were in the M222 family. To prepare for the analysis, I was given a large list of M222 folks, and later found that only some of them had been SNP tested. I found that only slightly in excess of 320 had actually been tested, so I collected them as a second database. Next, there was a list exchange that suggested that the M222 group should be separated into plus and minus groupings, with minus not being well-defined except that they had not been tested. Before that exchange I tried to see if I could separate the plusses and the minuses by their haplotypes alone, and I found that they were statistically the same. If there was a separation by SNP testing they certainly did not stand out as being separate from their haplotypes. That analysis has already been posted. Now, since they looked to be the same, I separated my analysis into the two databases, the ones that had been called M222, a mixture of those tested and untested, and only those that had been tested. I ran a TMRCA for both groups and found that the answers were the same within the estimated error of about 300 years SD. It is a bit premature at this stage to give the answer I got since it has not been fully discussed with my potential co-author, but it was considerably earlier than Niall and was more like the dates that John McEwan got in the BC era. More on this later. To address your question about how I can calculate a time for the mixture, I say that if I cannot distinguish the difference from the haplotypes and since Mathematica works only on those haplotypes (without any knowledge of which group it is being given to analyze), I should get the same answer if I use either the large or the small sample. And that's what I got, again within the uncertainty of the errors involved. The answer for the M222 plus sample is statistically the same as the answer from the larger database. That's because the haplotypes inputted to Mathematica in the two samples were statistically the same. So, if you want the answer to dating M222 plus alone, it is the same date. I think that my analysis has been professionally rigorous given the statistical equalities within the two databases. I hope this answers your questions, David. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:10 PM, David H. MacLennan wrote: > Dear Bill, > Yesterday I posted a note concerning the M222 SNP status of your data > (see below), but you have not responded. Can you please comment on what I > said. I am particularly concerned about your dating of the time of the M222 > mutation. If you are looking at samples of M222+ that are mixed with M222-, > how can you calculate a time of the mutation? > David > > Dear Bill, > As a biological scientist I find it distressing that you and others are > trying to convince us that it doesn't really matter if your SNP test does or > does not show that you are M222+, you can still be included in the M222 > project on the basis of your STR haplotype. Data based on such an assumption > would not be acceptable in a rigorous scientific journal. > It would seem to me that the benchmark of the M222 project should be the > presence of M222+. At some stage in our background two brothers may have had > an identical or nearly identical STR haplotype, but brother one had a de > novo mutation that created the M222 SNP and brother two did not. The > descendants of brother one would be M222+ and the descendants of brother two > would be M222-. This de novo mutation occurred at a specific date and we > would all be very interested in that date. However, if the samples used to > measure that date are a mixture of = and - SNPs, then you can't measure the > date of appearance of M222 accurately because common STR haplotypes would > predate the appearance of the M222 SNP. > Let's focus on the rigor of the analysis, not the cost of SNP testing. > David > > -- > Dr. David H. MacLennan, > Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, > University of Toronto, Charles H. Best Institute, > 112 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G1L6 > Tel:1-416-978-5008 Fax:1-416-978-8528 > http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan > >

Bill, Once again M222- does NOT mean untested, it mean TESTED NEGATIVE. Unknown means untested. You're getting tiresome. On 7/10/11, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi, David, > > I did see your posting and I apologize for being a bit tardy in my reply. > > I got into this when a friend suggested looking into the M222 SNP and to see > if there is a connection between it and Niall and his descendants. My look > at the situation indicates that, while Niall and the UiNeills may have > carried the SNP, it cannot be proved that they did so. My date determination > (see below) indicates that the SNP did not originate with them. > > In the process I became aware that one of the things that the DNA folks > wanted to do was to try to date the origin of the M222 SNP. Since my RCC > approach could do that estimate, I wanted to analyze haplotypes that were in > the M222 family. > To prepare for the analysis, I was given a large list of M222 folks, and > later found that only some of them had been SNP tested. I found that only > slightly in excess of 320 had actually been tested, so I collected them as a > second database. > > Next, there was a list exchange that suggested that the M222 group should be > separated into plus and minus groupings, with minus not being well-defined > except that they had not been tested. Before that exchange I tried to see > if I could separate the plusses and the minuses by their haplotypes alone, > and I found that they were statistically the same. If there was a separation > by SNP testing they certainly did not stand out as being separate from their > haplotypes. That analysis has already been posted. > > Now, since they looked to be the same, I separated my analysis into the two > databases, the ones that had been called M222, a mixture of those tested and > untested, and only those that had been tested. I ran a TMRCA for both groups > and found that the answers were the same within the estimated error of about > 300 years SD. > > It is a bit premature at this stage to give the answer I got since it has > not been fully discussed with my potential co-author, but it was > considerably earlier than Niall and was more like the dates that John McEwan > got in the BC era. More on this later. > > To address your question about how I can calculate a time for the mixture, I > say that if I cannot distinguish the difference from the haplotypes and > since Mathematica works only on those haplotypes (without any knowledge of > which group it is being given to analyze), I should get the same answer if I > use either the large or the small sample. And that's what I got, again > within the uncertainty of the errors involved. The answer for the M222 plus > sample is statistically the same as the answer from the larger database. > That's because the haplotypes inputted to Mathematica in the two samples > were statistically the same. So, if you want the answer to dating M222 plus > alone, it is the same date. I think that my analysis has been professionally > rigorous given the statistical equalities within the two databases. I hope > this answers your questions, David. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:10 PM, David H. MacLennan wrote: > >> Dear Bill, >> Yesterday I posted a note concerning the M222 SNP status of your data >> (see below), but you have not responded. Can you please comment on what I >> said. I am particularly concerned about your dating of the time of the >> M222 >> mutation. If you are looking at samples of M222+ that are mixed with >> M222-, >> how can you calculate a time of the mutation? >> David >> >> Dear Bill, >> As a biological scientist I find it distressing that you and others are >> trying to convince us that it doesn't really matter if your SNP test does >> or >> does not show that you are M222+, you can still be included in the M222 >> project on the basis of your STR haplotype. Data based on such an >> assumption >> would not be acceptable in a rigorous scientific journal. >> It would seem to me that the benchmark of the M222 project should be >> the >> presence of M222+. At some stage in our background two brothers may have >> had >> an identical or nearly identical STR haplotype, but brother one had a de >> novo mutation that created the M222 SNP and brother two did not. The >> descendants of brother one would be M222+ and the descendants of brother >> two >> would be M222-. This de novo mutation occurred at a specific date and we >> would all be very interested in that date. However, if the samples used to >> measure that date are a mixture of = and - SNPs, then you can't measure >> the >> date of appearance of M222 accurately because common STR haplotypes would >> predate the appearance of the M222 SNP. >> Let's focus on the rigor of the analysis, not the cost of SNP testing. >> David >> >> -- >> Dr. David H. MacLennan, >> Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, >> University of Toronto, Charles H. Best Institute, >> 112 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G1L6 >> Tel:1-416-978-5008 Fax:1-416-978-8528 >> http://www.utoronto.ca/maclennan >> >> > > > 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 > -- Sent from my mobile device