Talk:Haplogroup G-M377

Standard deviation on tMRCA ?

Can you give a citation for the G5 tMRCA calculation ?

Estimating error-bars for multi-individual tMRCA calculations is a pretty subtle calculation. The methods used in some of the earliest papers - eg the original Cohen Modal Haplotype paper - simply working through the total average squared differences (ASDs) have, I believe, been pretty much completely rejected, for failing to take into account how much of the uncertainty is systematic between different data-points (not random), reflecting the unknown length of the period of shared common ancestry between each pair of data points. AFAIK, any sensible estimates need a pretty full-on wholescale Monte Carlo approach, sampling over different possible tree structures and different possible mutation dates for each step.

Do you know whether that was done in this case?

There is also a wide-open question of the appropriate 'correction factor' (often taken to be about x3) that should be applied to tMRCAs estimated by ASD methods. Disagreement about the size and rationale for this factor is huge. -- Jheald 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm assuming that this network is the basis for the tMRCA claim. There are a number of things wrong here:

1. It ignores the very different mutation rates at different markers.

2. It appears to use a naive ASD-based calculation to estimate the age of the network.

3. The error-bar estimate relies on all the deviations from the mean being independent. They aren't.

In reality, there is probably room for debate of the actual age of this network over an uncertainty of I would guess about one to three thousand years away from the "best" estimate, if a naive ASD calculation indicates an age of the order of 1000 years. Jheald 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These emails appear to show that the methodology is even more non-standard, and even more suspect, than I had thought. Jheald 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngdro2 - another Historylover4 sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Cramer

John G. Cramer is G2c. I'm not sure if this requires correction, given that the names for the haplogroups change. Pleasantville (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G-M377: G2b or G2c?

Hello, pardon my low level of knowledge about this subject, but I see a discrepancy that I do not understand. The article lists the G-M377 mutation as being G2b, but the phylogenetic position chart shows M377 as being G2c, with the more recently discovered M283 mutation as being a branch, called G2c1. According to this chart, G2b is a different branch of G from mutation M287. Perhaps this is due to changing terminology in the field, but I would appreciate clarification from someone who has more knowledge in the field. If this is all correct, then the article needs to have many mentions of "G2b" changed to "G2c". Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Haplogroup G-M377. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]