Originally posted by benowicz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The science behind Big Y 700 mutation rates
Collapse
X


Originally posted by benowicz View Post. . . The end results of my revisions are not too differentI figure the estimated birth year of the MRCA for FGC23343 at the 50% confidence level was about 718 A.D. But I had to make a few judgments and manual adjustments . . .
3. I think it's possible to revise downward any rate adjustments due to the likelihood of convergent mutations by analyzing more than 2 donor haplotypes. My independent attempts to calculate these adjustments and compare them to the adjusted rates used by several other popular TMRCA calculators came pretty closetypically within 3% of the rates implied by those calculators' results. I consider those differences to be insignificant, and currently think they're due to some highly dubious algorithms weighting the impact of specific loci. Anyhow, confident that I can reasonably approximate the expected impact of convergent mutations for any observed genetic distance, it follows that the probability of those convergent mutations with respect to the constructed ancestral modal haplotype decreases proportionately to the number of independent donor haplotypes examined. . .
Unfortunately, there aren't enough independent donor haplotypes available to do this at any level other than the parent level of this subclade, FGC23343. Anyhow, now examining 5 rather than 3 haplotypes, I have to revise backward the estimated birth year at the 50% confidence level for the MRCA to 636 A.D., about 2 or 3 generations earlier than my last estimate. That's just slightly closer to the estimated value under the SNP analysis using what I call the Xue rates (i.e., 876 A.D.), vs. the Adamov rates (i.e., 333 A.D.).
Comment
Comment