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 >

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