Actually I think I can respond positively to this posting. If you will send me the 37-marker haplotypes I will do a comparison and try to answer your question. I suggest you do this off-list so that we won't bother the readers with such details. We can always post the conclusion for others to read. It is the variation in STRs that determine the RCC time scale which I have calibrated using over 100 pedigrees. If you can rationally explain what you or Mr. Busby believe to be the problem with this, having first read my papers and the previously posted FAQ, then I will be glad to have a discussion with you. Once I have a group of people that belong to a certain group, like a surname group, M222, or L21, or even representatives of different haplogroups, then I can run a tree and determine approximately when their progenitor lived, give or take a few hundred years SD, depending on the number in the group. In the case of M222, it is membership in the group that counts. Since I have found no difference in the marker strings of M222+ and M222-, then the progenitor will be that of both groups. When I analyze only the M222+, I get the same answer I get when analyzing M222-. That is a point I have been trying to make with you when I mention the duck analogy! - Bye from Bill Howard On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Paul Conroy 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