Bill, I'm not interested in your 73% criteria - that's just plain nonsense. Again, you are using the acronym SNP incorrectly, it stands for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, which is a boolean event, and not a collection of STR values. If you don't understand this basis fact, then stop posting here. I don't care what you do with your study, I won't be reading it, as it premises are flawed and so it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I mentioned on this list previously, that due to the non-linearity on STR values, there were systematic problems using them as the basis of any calculations of TMRCA, and only a short while later the Busby paper was published which proved I was right. Can you say the same? What predictions have you made that were subsequently validated? Why not take up Sandy's challenge and prove your controversial RCC calculations?! The way forward is to adopt the approach of the R-L21 Project and ferret out sub-clusters of matching off-modal member, and then when a definitive signature is found, to do a WTY test to check for a SNP. SNP's mutate linearly, and do not back-mutate. Cheers, Paul On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> wrote: > Reply to Paul Conroy, > > I stand by my posting. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and > quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. > Moreover, if the analytic results using the tested SNPs are identical to > the analytic results derived from non-tested SNPs when the latter conforms > to the 73% criterion, it also behaves like a duck. > > This is not a false definition as you suggest - it is a realization that > there is virtually a 100% correlation in the analytic results of using > tested and non-tested M222 as long as the markers meet that criterion. It is > a fact that if the haplotype string for a non-tested group of M222s that > otherwise meet the 73% criterion and if they give the identical analytic > result, it just plain doesn't matter if the group has also been tested, as > long as it meets the 73% criterion. > > I don't want to be pedantic here, but deeper and more careful thought will > show that, aside from mutations, the M222 SNP itself has not changed. Its > existence is a fact. It is our definition of it, starting with only a small > number of markers, and evolving to where we are today, that has changed. If > you are a purist, you may confine your thoughts only to M222 haplotypes that > have been SNP tested but you are missing an opportunity that may be > uncovered if more haplotypes (that cannot be told apart operationally) are > not used to refine the analyses based on a larger set of statistics. My > point is that when a haplotype meets the 73% criterion, it just plain > doesn't matter. You get the same set of analytic results using either set. > That's what we find, and that is a fact, not an opinion. > > I think the way to alienate opinion on this list is to use capital letters > as a shout and not realize that this is a discussion board where people can > express their own opinions and compare their results. If you wish to confine > yourself to tested SNPs, you can do so, but I think you are missing a bet. > We are publishing our results in a refereed journal, so it will be a part of > our scientific legacy. Can you say the same? > > - 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 >

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