COUCH-L Archives

Archiver > COUCH > 2003-01 > 1041726446


From: Bill Couch <>
Subject: [COUCH] dna
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:29:33 -0800


here is some messages from the DNA-l group.
These are some of the better messages that are not over my head that
have come out lately.
BC
=================================
Subject:
GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest V03 #3
Date:
Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:00:11 -0700
From:

Reply-To:

To:



Subject:


GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest Volume 03 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
#1 [DNA] Who is best to test? ["George A. Petticrew"
<petticrewga]
#2 Re: [DNA] Who is best to test? []
#3 Re: [DNA] Who is best to test? ["John F. Chandler"
<]
#4 Re: [DNA] Who is best to test? [OrinWells
<>]

Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from GENEALOGY-DNA-D, send a message to



that contains in the body of the message the command

unsubscribe

and no other text. No subject line is necessary, but if your software
requires one, just use unsubscribe in the subject, too.

To contact the GENEALOGY-DNA-D list administrator, send mail to
.

______________________________


Subject:
[DNA] Who is best to test?
Date:
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:57:16 -0700
From:
"George A. Petticrew" <>
To:



Due to the probablities and the enormous time spans involved in DNA
testing for family information, it would seem to me that in a surname
group, the best (nearer term) information could be obtained by testing
the youngest generations now living in each family line. Is this so, or
am I missing something critical?

George Petticrew
Apache Junction, AZ

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

______________________________


Subject:
Re: [DNA] Who is best to test?
Date:
Sat, 4 Jan 2003 01:28:37 EST
From:

To:



In a message dated 1/3/03 9:57:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

> the best (nearer term) information could be obtained by testing
> the youngest generations now living in each family line. Is this so, or
> am I missing something critical?
>
What are you attempting to prove and are you testing people with a good
paper
trail? MY cousin and tested to prove or disprove if we had a common
ancestor. There was reason to suspect our ancestors might have been
half-brothers, each having a different father. I'm four tansmission from
that
ancestor and my cousin is only three transmission from our comon
ancestor. On
a 12 marker test we differed by 2 at DYS 388.

If each of us had tested a grand child there would have been 5
transmission
from my grandchild to the MRCA ancestor and 6 to his. There would have
been 4
additional chances of having a random mutation. However, if we had found
one
more mutation we might just have concluded our ancestors were
half-brothers.

We upgrade and at 25 markers we still had just one difference, a
difference
of 2 at DYS 388. I think testing closely related people might give
better
results since there is less time for mutation.


Grant W. Johnston, Chico, CA
Ask me about DNA, the genealogy tool for the 21st Century.

______________________________


Subject:
Re: [DNA] Who is best to test?
Date:
Sat, 4 Jan 2003 12:42 EST
From:
"John F. Chandler" <>
To:



George wrote:
> Due to the probablities and the enormous time spans involved in DNA
> testing for family information, it would seem to me that in a surname
> group, the best (nearer term) information could be obtained by testing
> the youngest generations now living in each family line. Is this so, or
> am I missing something critical?

As Grant already indicated, it depends entirely on what you want to
accomplish. If you want to pin down the average mutation rate, for
example, you do indeed want to test the youngest members of the family,
provided that they have solid paper trails back to the common ancestor.
The more transmission events, the better statistics you get for the
mutation rate calculation. However, if you want to determine whether
two lines are related at all, you definitely want to go to the oldest
representatives. Each transmmission event not only gives a chance for
additional random mutations, but also leaves room for previously
unsuspected non-paternity. Of course, if you want to find out
everything you possibly can from DNA analysis, you need to test
*everybody*, but there are cost considerations.

John Chandler

______________________________


Subject:
Re: [DNA] Who is best to test?
Date:
Sat, 04 Jan 2003 08:12:34 -0800
From:
OrinWells <>
To:



At 10:57 PM 1/3/2003 -0700, George A. Petticrew wrote:


>Due to the probablities and the enormous time spans involved in DNA
>testing for family information, it would seem to me that in a surname
>group, the best (nearer term) information could be obtained by testing
>the youngest generations now living in each family line. Is this so, or
>am I missing something critical?

From our (Wells) study it is apparent to me that if you have
individuals
in a surname study who are related it probably does not matter whether
you
test the oldest living individuals or the youngest available. Some of
our
lines show absolutely no mutations over a span of 400+ years while in
some
cases we saw two mutations in a single individual and a different
mutation
in his brother. These two thus differ by three but are unquestionably
brothers. There is not good way to predict the mutations in a specific
family. It appears there are some influences other than transmissions
that
play into this.

After 177 samples my opinion is you don't need to concern yourself with
whether to take the grandfather or grandson. Most of the time it won't
matter. Take the one most willing, IF you can find one.



Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<>
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

This thread: