Thank you for the suggestions. In case I didn't make it clear, this man has already tested at FTDNA but did not join our project for some reason. I plan to mention discounts on further testing, but he has already tested 37 markers. I'll mention the support of a project administrator and the simplicity of joining. Also if he will tell me about his earliest paternal ancestor, I can compare that information with other project members, and introduce him to any who have a common ancestor or at least ancestors in the same locations. This is an improvement over writing to several matches about whom he knows nothing except their surnames and Y-DNA. Carol B.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/what ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lolene" <lolene3599@sbcglobal.net> To: <Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:07 AM Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Reasons to join > Maybe you could ask in a survey type e mail why your current members chose > to join. Get input from them, then use some without names on a letter as > "some of the reasons to join". > > Lolene > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4602 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Maybe you could ask in a survey type e mail why your current members chose to join. Get input from them, then use some without names on a letter as "some of the reasons to join". Lolene

Carol asked, "Does anyone have a list of reasons to join a project, that you would like to share? Or a good reason or two?" Reasons to join a project boil down to focusing further research into one's ancestral family. Someone who knows all he or she wants to know (a doubtful prospect) has no need of a DNA project (or any other aid). Most of us, however, have unanswered questions and "brick walls". DNA doesn't provide all the answers to the genealogical questions, but it does help show us where to look for the answers. FTDNA's language is -- by necessity -- objective, general (i.e., vague) and impersonal. (They could use better writers.) OOTH, you're free to translate generality into specifics and personalize it. In the instance you cited -- a man matching project members, but not a member himself -- it might be good to point out that he already has matches within the project and his joining (at no additional cost) could help him realize payoff from the investment he made when obtaining the test. You could emphasize the support that a project offers to members but is not available to non-members because project admins don't have access to non-member results. You could describe how simple it is to join the project, a few clicks on the website or an affirmative reply to your invitation letter. -rt_/)

Does anyone have a list of reasons to join a project, that you would like to share? Or a good reason or two? I administer a surname project at FTDNA. Some of the members match a man who has the project surname but is not a member of our project. He does not have an email address listed but FTDNA gave me his hardcopy address. I plan to write to him and invite him to join the project. At http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers/default.aspx?faqid=6#393 FTDNA has: 5. Why should I participate in a project? Projects are designed to help individuals who may have similar ancestry connect with one another. You should consider participating in a project if: * You are looking for relevant matches. * You are interested in comparing against others. * You are open to sharing information and working together. I'd like to say something more specific and friendly than that. (I wish I could say that he could get into useful email discussions with the men who match him, but I have tried to get them to discuss their ancestors and they don't seem to want to. Feh.) Suggested reasons welcome. adTHANKSvance! Carol Botteron (that's French Swiss)

> -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] Logic vs. Statistics > > I must dissent from "A logical proof is 100% true. It always trumps a statistical > proof." It is a gross over-statement. Not at all. It's true by definition. > A logical proof can be certainly (100%) true only: > 1. When all the underlying premises are absolutely, unconditionally true; and 2. When > the logical process is flawless. Yes, of course, that's the definition of a logical proof. > Logical proof trumps statistical inference (We don't say "proof"; all such inferences > must recognize the element of doubt.) only when those rigid conditions are met. Call it what you like, but the point of logical deduction is that -- if the premises are true and the logic is valid -- the conclusion has no element of doubt. That's the reason it trumps a statistical conclusion. > This, it turns out, is a rare phenomenon and often exists only in the abstract. For very > many real things in this world, underlying premises are - at best - fuzzy and rife with > unknown qualifications. Logical deductions are not rare, at all. We all make logical deductions every day, hundreds of them in fact. To use my computer, it must be turned on. My computer is not currently turned on (no pun intended). Currently, I cannot use my computer. > Here is an example of logical proof gone awry: > o Men are taller than women. > o John is a man; Carol is a woman. > o Therefore, John is taller than Carol. > > However, it is quite possible that John is not taller than Carol; he might be 5'2" tall > and she 6'4", as might be if he were a jockey and she a professional basketball player. > This is not an instance of "exception proves the rule"; it is a case of an inadequate > rule (premise). You have deliberately constructed a syllogism with a premise that is untrue and, thus, a conclusion that is untrue. That doesn't mean valid logical deductions can't be made, it means you have to follow the rules for forming them. I'm talking about conclusions that fulfill the requirements of valid logical deductions. > A statistical inference or prediction applies when only some things about the subject > of interest are known and those with less precision. Statistical inferences & > predictions reach into places where logic can not go. I never said statistics weren't valuable research tools. I said statistical proofs/inferences/deductions/conclusions/whatever (things that are "true" only to some degree of probability) are weaker than valid logical ones (which are, by their nature, 100% true). > Damon Runyon stated the principle as "The race goes not always to the swift.., but > that's the way to bet." Yes, of course, if you're a rational person you bet the odds -- and you don't go to Vegas with the expectation of returning rich. But when the odds are 100%, it ceases to be a betting matter. I'm going to be a little unfair here and call an end to this thread with my having had the last word (listadmin's prerogative). We are off topic for the list; and, in any case, we're just repeating the same arguments in different words. There's nothing constructive to be accomplished by a prolonged "Yes, it is" - "No, it isn't" exchange. Diana

Yes my shorthand was a bit short :)))) I have reworded it below bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > I'm not certain I understand you, Bob. What is a "pretty close mirror" at > 37? > Demes 2 and 3? Depending on how you count CDYa/b, which is prone to > multi-step > mutations, the genetic distance between Deme 2 and Deme 3 is *at least* 13 > at 37 > markers, which is a decided non-match. > > http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=37 > > Diana > >> Interesting run down >>at 12 Markers Deme 1, 2 look to be very closly related, Deme 3 fairly >>closley related and Deme 4 not related at all at 25 markers Deme 1 moves away from Deme 2 and 3 start to shift away from each other at 37 the 4 groups are split apart within Deme 1 is they are still close to each other and within Deme 2 are failrly close at 37 Both groups are still a pretty close miror of the 37 marker results >> >> bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> >> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:51 PM >> -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4473 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

I must dissent from "A logical proof is 100% true. It always trumps a statistical proof." It is a gross over-statement. A logical proof can be certainly (100%) true only: 1. When all the underlying premises are absolutely, unconditionally true; and 2. When the logical process is flawless. Logical proof trumps statistical inference (We don't say "proof"; all such inferences must recognize the element of doubt.) only when those rigid conditions are met. This, it turns out, is a rare phenomenon and often exists only in the abstract. For very many real things in this world, underlying premises are - at best - fuzzy and rife with unknown qualifications. Here is an example of logical proof gone awry: o Men are taller than women. o John is a man; Carol is a woman. o Therefore, John is taller than Carol. However, it is quite possible that John is not taller than Carol; he might be 5'2" tall and she 6'4", as might be if he were a jockey and she a professional basketball player. This is not an instance of "exception proves the rule"; it is a case of an inadequate rule (premise). A statistical inference or prediction applies when only some things about the subject of interest are known and those with less precision. Statistical inferences & predictions reach into places where logic can not go. Damon Runyon stated the principle as "The race goes not always to the swift.., but that's the way to bet." -ralph_/)

I believe that's true, and probably ancestry.com did pick up some business, it wouldn't surprise me. After all they made the business decision to repeat. But the DNA research is an additional separate hobby which is not only complicated but expensive. The project part of it is another component, simple on the face of it but can be more complicated. I'm not surprised that there is not an immediate pick-up in the projects. That may however be a spillover effect in the future once people get more deeply involved. Fred On 8/13/10, Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> wrote: > At Ancestry? It was pretty much a one-hour infomercial for them. I guess I > shouldn't have expected to see anyone join my projects because of it. I > wish > FTDNA could afford to do something similar. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:25 PM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Repeats >> >> During the first run, the show averaged 6.8 million total viewers per >> episode. > Surely a >> few of those folks signed up to test somewhere!?@#$%! >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Yes, your 35/37 and 65/67 matches in your HUMPHREY Project are good evidence to support a connection -- and just about the genetic distance you would expect with 9th cousins. *On average*, if you are testing 67 markers, you will get *about* one mutation every seven generations. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mikenhumphrey@aol.com > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:14 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > I interpreted the " Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37" > > to have typos & the intended sentence to be: > > " Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 67" > > i.e., close at 37 markers, & still clse at 67 markers. > ------------- > > In my Humphrey project at FTNDA I have a 35/37 --> 65/67, maintaining a genetic > distance of 2. The 2 participants are proven 9th cousins. > > Mike ... > ================================ > > > I'm not certain I understand you, Bob. What is a "pretty close mirror" at 37? > Demes 2 and 3? Depending on how you count CDYa/b, which is prone to multi-step > mutations, the genetic distance between Deme 2 and Deme 3 is *at least* 13 at 37 > markers, which is a decided non-match. > > http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=37 > > Diana > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bob May > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:36 AM > > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > > > Interesting run down > > at 12 Deme 1, 2 very closly related 3 fairly closley 4 not related > > at > 25 dem1 > moves > > away and 2, 3 start to shift at 37 the 4 group are split apart demem > > 1 > still > close > > Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37 > > > > bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> > > To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > > > > > > > > > You don't say how many markers, but an 11/12 match means very little. > > > Even a > > > 12/12 match means very little if you're talking about the WAMH. A > 24/25 > > > match > > > may hold up at more markers, but not necessarily (I've seen a 23/25 > match > > > drop > > > to 28/37). A 36/37 match will probably hold up at 67 markers. > > > > > > Look how closely two of these family are at 12 markers, and even > > > 25, > but > > > how > > > they fall apart at 37 and 67: > > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml > > > This is the reason I press all R1b's to test *at least* 37 markers. > > > > > > I was told by FTDNA that there are four 12-marker R1b haplotypes > > that > will > > > cause > > > a WAMH logo to be placed on a project member's page. I've identified > > > three of > > > them: > > > > > > 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 > > > > > > Does anyone know the fourth? > > > > > > Diana > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message

Yes, now I understand. Thank you, Bob. And, yes, the members of Deme 1 are well matched with each other, and the members of Deme 2 are well matched with each other, all the way to 67 markers. That's what you're looking for in R1b. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bob May > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:13 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > Yes my shorthand was a bit short :)))) > I have reworded it below > bob > > <snip>> > > >> Interesting run down > >>at 12 Markers Deme 1, 2 look to be very closly related, Deme 3 fairly > >>closley related and Deme 4 not related at all > at 25 markers Deme 1 moves away from Deme 2 and 3 start to shift away from > each other > at 37 the 4 groups are split apart > within Deme 1 is they are still close to each other and within Deme 2 are > failrly close at 37 > Both groups are still a pretty close miror of the 37 marker results > >> > >> bob

At Ancestry? It was pretty much a one-hour infomercial for them. I guess I shouldn't have expected to see anyone join my projects because of it. I wish FTDNA could afford to do something similar. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:25 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Repeats > > During the first run, the show averaged 6.8 million total viewers per episode. Surely a > few of those folks signed up to test somewhere!?@#$%! > >

I interpreted the " Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37" to have typos & the intended sentence to be: " Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 67" i.e., close at 37 markers, & still clse at 67 markers. ------------- In my Humphrey project at FTNDA I have a 35/37 --> 65/67, maintaining a genetic distance of 2. The 2 participants are proven 9th cousins. Mike ... ================================ I'm not certain I understand you, Bob. What is a "pretty close mirror" at 37? Demes 2 and 3? Depending on how you count CDYa/b, which is prone to multi-step mutations, the genetic distance between Deme 2 and Deme 3 is *at least* 13 at 37 markers, which is a decided non-match. http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=37 Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bob May > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:36 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > Interesting run down > at 12 Deme 1, 2 very closly related 3 fairly closley 4 not related at 25 dem1 moves > away and 2, 3 start to shift at 37 the 4 group are split apart demem 1 still close > Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37 > > bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> > To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:51 PM > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > > > > > You don't say how many markers, but an 11/12 match means very little. > > Even a > > 12/12 match means very little if you're talking about the WAMH. A 24/25 > > match > > may hold up at more markers, but not necessarily (I've seen a 23/25 match > > drop > > to 28/37). A 36/37 match will probably hold up at 67 markers. > > > > Look how closely two of these family are at 12 markers, and even 25, but > > how > > they fall apart at 37 and 67: > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml > > This is the reason I press all R1b's to test *at least* 37 markers. > > > > I was told by FTDNA that there are four 12-marker R1b haplotypes that will > > cause > > a WAMH logo to be placed on a project member's page. I've identified > > three of > > them: > > > > 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 > > > > Does anyone know the fourth? > > > > Diana ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I was hoping, after the first time the series ran, I would see an influx of new members into my projects. Didn't happen. Maybe this time. Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:09 PM > To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Repeats > > Friday the 13th, 2010, 8/7c >

Interesting run down at 12 Deme 1, 2 very closly related 3 fairly closley 4 not related at 25 dem1 moves away and 2, 3 start to shift at 37 the 4 group are split apart demem 1 still close Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37 bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Taylor >> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:23 PM >> To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA >> >> Regarding the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype (or, more precisely, the >> "Super >> Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype"), what would be the presumption of a >> common >> male ancestor within the genealogical time frame for men sharing this > haplotype? >> What, if any, would be the presumption for men who differed from this > haplotype in >> only one marker? >> >> Any opinions? >> >> According to FTDNA's FAQ, "The WAMH is a group of the most common results > found >> in the most common European haplogroup, R1b." Somewhere, I remember >> reading >> that the original WAMH was only 6 markers, but was extended to 12 and the > "Super >> WAMH" extended it further. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> -rt_/) > > You don't say how many markers, but an 11/12 match means very little. > Even a > 12/12 match means very little if you're talking about the WAMH. A 24/25 > match > may hold up at more markers, but not necessarily (I've seen a 23/25 match > drop > to 28/37). A 36/37 match will probably hold up at 67 markers. > > Look how closely two of these family are at 12 markers, and even 25, but > how > they fall apart at 37 and 67: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml > This is the reason I press all R1b's to test *at least* 37 markers. > > I was told by FTDNA that there are four 12-marker R1b haplotypes that will > cause > a WAMH logo to be placed on a project member's page. I've identified > three of > them: > > 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 > > Does anyone know the fourth? > > Diana > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4451 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Richard, > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of RT > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:30 PM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > Thank you for the insights, Diana > > You mention "It is possible to build a useful STR cladogram for individual families in > genealogical time because the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the > mutations, provided you can test enough cousins to "triangulate" on the location of > all the mutations in the family. " > > That is, provided that the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations. Assuming the paper genealogy is correct and you have tested enough cousins, the paper genealogy will give you the polarity. The only case where it won't is where the progenitor had just two sons and one has a mutation. And, of course, that's a plus, not a negative, because you now you can distinguish the two branches of the family. > This is very often not the case in real life, and I assume it is not the case in Ralph's > example. He did not suggest a logical cladistic analysis. What example? Did I miss a message? I'm recovering from a computer failure, so it's possible I missed something... but, I just checked the archive, and I don't find a message from Ralph that would be an example. Please explain. > Re "However, I would take exception to your statement that a "mathematical" (i.e., > statistical) basis is stronger than a logical one. The situation is quite the reverse, " I > didn't actually say that. Rather, (clearly) both are helpful. A logical proof is 100% true. It always trumps a statistical proof. Yes, statistical proofs are helpful -- most conclusions of most research are statistical -- but a cladogram is a logical proof. > But the more obscure > mathematical treatment has been ignored by most. It's not that Ken's work is "obscure," it's that it's largely not relevant in genealogical time. This list is about STR testing for Y-DNA surname projects, which makes discussion of his work on topic for the GENEALOGY-DNA or Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I lists, but off topic for this list. > In particular, I think that you are > implicitly relying on statistics in your logical argument. It's OK, no big deal. Forgive me, but I don't understand that statement. Please tell me where the statistics are in my example of a logical proof (see backquoted below). I wouldn't press the point, except that that the difference was the point. Diana > thanks! > Richard Thrift > > ---- Diana Gale Matthiesen <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> wrote: > Richard, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of RT > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:59 PM > > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com; rt-sails@comcast.net > > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > > > I can't say anything specific, other than that there's a HUGE possible > > range > for > > TMRCA. > > I agree with you that the confidence intervals on TMRCA's are huge, so huge that, > IMO, they are useless for genealogical purposes, as I discuss on this web > page: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/y-dna-projects/TMRCA.shtml > > > This article by Ken Nordtvedt is very relevant, but people have tended > > to > ignore it. I > > feel it presents a mathematical basis for the "purely logical" process > > many > people use > > of looking at off-modal markers to identify a lineage. > > http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Nordtvedt.htm > > However, I would take exception to your statement that a "mathematical" (i.e., > statistical) basis is stronger than a logical one. The situation is quite the reverse. If > you can arrive at a conclusion based on established facts and a valid logical > deduction, it's a far stronger proof than a statistical one. As a simple example... > > Logical argument: > A is taller than B. > B is taller than C. > Therefore, A must be taller than C. > > Statistical argument: > A has a 90% probability of being taller than B. > B has a 90% probability of being taller than C. > Therefore, A is probably taller than C, but might not be. > > Cladistic analysis is a matter of deducing the polarity of traits (ancestral vs. > derived), then finding the most logical order of their appearance to form a cladogram > (a phylogenetic tree). The most common method of determining the polarity of traits > is through outgroup comparison, though there are other ways. > > There is a fundamental difference here between trying to construct a haplotree based > on SNP mutations and one based on STR mutations, mainly because the polarity of a > SNP mutation is much easier to deduce. They are easier to deduce because they > usually have only one of two states and they are relatively rare. > In contrast, it's difficult to determine the polarity of an STR mutation because, not > only are they relatively common (so choosing the right outgroup is difficult), they can > have many states (e.g., just because someone is 12 at a marker doesn't mean the > ancestral value was 11 -- it might have been 13), and reversals are largely > undetectable. > > It is possible to build a useful STR cladogram for individual families in genealogical > time because the paper genealogy can tell you the polarity of the mutations, provided > you can test enough cousins to "triangulate" on the location of all the mutations in > the family. > > Ken is using (or appears to me to be using) statistical haplotype "resemblance" > to form his groups, without reference to trait polarity, which means he is not engaged > in cladistics and his trees are not cladograms, except when confined to SNPs alone. > (Ken and I have been arguing this point *for years*, both on GENEALOGY-DNA and on > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I.) You may find his statistical results useful, and I do, but > statistical results based on resemblance cannot be as reliably true as a logical > cladistic analysis would be. > > Diana >

I'm not certain I understand you, Bob. What is a "pretty close mirror" at 37? Demes 2 and 3? Depending on how you count CDYa/b, which is prone to multi-step mutations, the genetic distance between Deme 2 and Deme 3 is *at least* 13 at 37 markers, which is a decided non-match. http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=37 Diana > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bob May > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:36 AM > To: y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > Interesting run down > at 12 Deme 1, 2 very closly related 3 fairly closley 4 not related at 25 dem1 moves > away and 2, 3 start to shift at 37 the 4 group are split apart demem 1 still close > Deme 2 failrly close at 37 still a pretty close miror of 37 > > bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net> > To: <y-dna-projects@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:51 PM > Subject: Re: [Y-DNA-projects] WAMH vis-a-vis CMA > > > > > > You don't say how many markers, but an 11/12 match means very little. > > Even a > > 12/12 match means very little if you're talking about the WAMH. A 24/25 > > match > > may hold up at more markers, but not necessarily (I've seen a 23/25 match > > drop > > to 28/37). A 36/37 match will probably hold up at 67 markers. > > > > Look how closely two of these family are at 12 markers, and even 25, but > > how > > they fall apart at 37 and 67: > > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Biddle/BiddleDNA-Results-R1b.shtml > > This is the reason I press all R1b's to test *at least* 37 markers. > > > > I was told by FTDNA that there are four 12-marker R1b haplotypes that will > > cause > > a WAMH logo to be placed on a project member's page. I've identified > > three of > > them: > > > > 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 > > > > Does anyone know the fourth? > > > > Diana

During the first run, the show averaged 6.8 million total viewers per episode. Surely a few of those folks signed up to test somewhere!?@#$%! On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > I was hoping, after the first time the series ran, I would see an influx of new > members into my projects. Didn't happen. Maybe this time. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:09 PM >> To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Repeats >> >> Friday the 13th, 2010, 8/7c >> > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Maybe we should think of it as "softening them up." ;-) On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > I was hoping, after the first time the series ran, I would see an influx of new > members into my projects. Didn't happen. Maybe this time. > > Diana > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-projects-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-projects- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Wilcox Lisa >> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:09 PM >> To: Y-DNA-PROJECTS@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [Y-DNA-projects] 'Who Do You Think You Are?' Repeats >> >> Friday the 13th, 2010, 8/7c >> > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-PROJECTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Friday the 13th, 2010, 8/7c