> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also appears parallel to > CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably L1439+, but not necessarily, so at > least > one of them needs to test it: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So anything > downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer to prove it. > I see your conclusions, but your "database" showing the 37 individuals isn't > online. If the data aren't published, no one else can work with them. The > only > visible (published) data are at FTDNA and they show just five individuals > who > are DF29- and Z131-. > > [[ Most of those 37 are in the clades AS12123 and AS1212110. People can > look up in "I1 Modalities" to see if they are in those clades, or any other > clades for that matter. KN]] I'm not interested in the STR "modalities," I'm interested in the Kit numbers and SNP test results. Speaking in general, here - not directed at you, Ken - is there going to be any way these comprehensive SNP test data will be made available online, without depending entirely on personal sharing via email? Diana

Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Diana Gale Matthiesen Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also appears parallel > to > CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably L1439+, but not necessarily, so at > least > one of them needs to test it: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So anything > downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer to prove it. [[With that attitude you will have to assume every dna sample is unknown for any snp not tested. You will have no tree beyond your explicit tested dna samples. For the next dna sample could always have a back mutation no matter how improbable and violate the tree structure, making your "... so at least one...." proviso useless. In fact your constructed tree does not even fulfill your attitude, because you do not test each sample for every upstream snp back to Adam. Who knows, any particular dna sample could have had one or more back mutations on upstream snps. There seems nothing productive about such an attitude. KN]]

> From: Kenneth Nordtvedt > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] L1439 moves upstream but....... <snip> > > > > > > > > Yes, PF49 is apparently downstream of DF29, but it also > > > > appears parallel to CTS6364, Z58, and Z63. It's presumably > > > > L1439+, but not necessarily, so at least one of them needs > > > > to test it: > > > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/matrices/HgI1/HgI1_matrix_M253.html#PF49 > > > > > > [[But L1439 was yesterday shown to be upstream of DF29. So > > > anything downstream of DF29 will be L1439+ KN]] > > > > Yes, Ken, it *should* be L1439+, but it hasn't been *proven* > > L1439+. You are willing to accept the assumption. I prefer > > to prove it. > > [[With that attitude you will have to assume every dna sample is unknown > for any snp not tested. You will have no tree beyond your explicit tested > dna samples. For the next dna sample could always have a back mutation no > matter how improbable and violate the tree structure, making your "... so at > least one...." proviso useless. In fact your constructed tree does not even > fulfill your attitude, because you do not test each sample for every > upstream snp back to Adam. Who knows, any particular dna sample could have > had one or more back mutations on upstream snps. There seems nothing > productive about such an attitude. KN]] It's not an "attitude," Ken, it's a methodology. It's called, "cladistics": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics I believe you have stated several times over the years that you are not engaged in cladistics, and each time I have agreed with you that you are not. But I am. In a cladistic analysis you *do* need to test, not assume. Technically, every individual should be scored for every character in the matrix, but I'm not remotely suggesting that level of rigor. What I am suggesting is that at least *one* person in each clade test their SNP patrilineal line, which is certainly not a stringent requirement, but surely a minimal one for a well supported cladogram. As for not going "back to Adam," I have set the starting point arbitrarily at M253. M253+ is a manageable clade and of interest to me because my maternal grandfather is I1. It's a perfectly legitimate approach to take. If one couldn't set a limit to the analysis, how could you stop at "Adam"? Why not include all the primates or all the mammals? Everyone has set some kind of arbitrary starting point for their analysis. Yours appears to be just one level higher, at Hg I. I'm sorry you can't see the "productivity" in a classic cladistic analysis. It's a long-accepted, fundamental methodology in phylogenetic analysis. Diana