Hi Paul You say that Ewing kit number 32942 has been SNP tested and was found to have been M222-. If I go to the Ewing FTDNA public site, I find that his haplotype is given as R1b1, shown in green. To me this means that he's undergone an SNP test and was found to be positive for P25. I can't see anything to indicate that he was found to be M222-. Can you explain why you believe him to be M222-? I can see that he's not been tested M222+, but that's not the same as being tested M222-. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy Sent: 11 October 2011 19:13 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series Here's another example: 105696 Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 24 15183115-16-16-18111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-2116101212 1681225201312111311111212 37180Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231716181735-371112 32942Ewing R1b1 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181735-381112 26860Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-381112 54199Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-23161012121681 225201312111311111212 136564Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181738-381112 59136Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 3115-16-16-1791119-231816181737-381112 69700Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 3115-16-16-17111119-231816191737-381112 All these Ewing members are mostly the same, but only one has been SNP tested (32942), and his result is M222- (negative), so it's possible that all the others are M222- as well. So they are not in fact part of the M222 clade at all. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > I have read your description of your methodology and found it was based on > STR variation, both myself and Busby pointed out the problems with this. > > But if you won't defend it, that's fine - enough said. > > Maybe you can answer this then, here are some people from the M222 group, > which were SNP tested and came up negative for M222 (or M222-), their > haplogroup is marked in GREEN: > > 25105 McLaughlin R1b1 > 27071 McCord R1b1 > 14740 Cowen R1b1 > 32498 Doherty R1b1 > > These people are close matches to others who have NOT been SNP tested, so > these others could also be M222-. Why would M222- people be used in > calculating the TMRCA of M222+ people????? > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > >> I stand by all my postings. You say you are not reading my papers and >> naturally you won't understand my approach. >> My papers are being published - two already and four more in the works; >> others are reading them. >> I have written Sandy privately about the challenge and have given him >> reasons why I don't want to participate -- mainly because there is no >> reciprocity in discussions of differences. Let's not continue this fruitless >> harangue. >> - Bye from Bill Howard >> >> >> >> 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

Sandy, The Ewing in question has his haplogroup in Green, that tells me he has been SNP tested and that's his result. But, John is now saying that he has been SNP tested, but not for M222 - the critical SNP for our project - so that changes things. I then can't say he is M222-, but can say his M222 status is untested/unknown. As you know, for statistical analyses of M222+ people, It's preferable to include people who have actually tested positive for M222 - that was my point. Cheers, Paul On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Sandy Paterson < alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com> wrote: > Hi Paul > > You say that Ewing kit number 32942 has been SNP tested and was found to > have been M222-. > > If I go to the Ewing FTDNA public site, I find that his haplotype is given > as R1b1, shown in green. To me this means that he's undergone an SNP test > and was found to be positive for P25. I can't see anything to indicate that > he was found to be M222-. Can you explain why you believe him to be M222-? > I > can see that he's not been tested M222+, but that's not the same as being > tested M222-. > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > Sent: 11 October 2011 19:13 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Here's another example: > > 105696 Ewing R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 > 24 > > 15183115-16-16-18111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-2116101212 > 1681225201312111311111212 > 37180Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231716181735-371112 > 32942Ewing > R1b1 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181735-381112 > 26860Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-381112 > 54199Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181737-38111211915-1681010810101221-23161012121681 > 225201312111311111212 > 136564Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816181738-381112 > 59136Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 18 > 3115-16-16-1791119-231816181737-381112 > 69700Ewing > R1b1a2 13 25 15 10 11-13 12 12 13 13 14 29 17 9-10 11 11 25 15 19 > 3115-16-16-17111119-231816191737-381112 > > All these Ewing members are mostly the same, but only one has been SNP > tested (32942), and his result is M222- (negative), so it's possible that > all the others are M222- as well. So they are not in fact part of the M222 > clade at all. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy <pconroy63@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > I have read your description of your methodology and found it was based > on > > STR variation, both myself and Busby pointed out the problems with this. > > > > But if you won't defend it, that's fine - enough said. > > > > Maybe you can answer this then, here are some people from the M222 group, > > which were SNP tested and came up negative for M222 (or M222-), their > > haplogroup is marked in GREEN: > > > > 25105 McLaughlin R1b1 > > 27071 McCord R1b1 > > 14740 Cowen R1b1 > > 32498 Doherty R1b1 > > > > These people are close matches to others who have NOT been SNP tested, so > > these others could also be M222-. Why would M222- people be used in > > calculating the TMRCA of M222+ people????? > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> I stand by all my postings. You say you are not reading my papers and > >> naturally you won't understand my approach. > >> My papers are being published - two already and four more in the works; > >> others are reading them. > >> I have written Sandy privately about the challenge and have given him > >> reasons why I don't want to participate -- mainly because there is no > >> reciprocity in discussions of differences. Let's not continue this > fruitless > >> harangue. > >> - Bye from Bill Howard > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 >