GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-11 > 1037789909


From: Patrick Guinness <>
Subject: [DNA] Earth's Age Under 6000 Years?
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:58:29 +0000


At 8:10 pm -0600 19/11/02, Doug Turner wrote:
>Allowing a timeframe less than 6000 years would dictate that:
>
>1. The variations may not be due to mutation.

Of course not, an interfering UFO alien may well have come down and
altered some of our ancestors with a ray gun.


At 8:10 pm -0600 19/11/02, Doug Turner wrote:
>2. If mutations, the rate of change must have varied, perhaps even being
>inversely related to population growth.

It is variable, but it is seen in thousands of father-son pairs.


At 8:10 pm -0600 19/11/02, Doug Turner wrote:
>3. Some other alternative.

Such as.....?


At 8:10 pm -0600 19/11/02, Doug Turner wrote:
>For a couple of points of information, are you saying that the three of you
>are known to be related genealogically, with the expectation that you would
>match exactly, which you do with the exception of one marker?

Yes.

At 8:10 pm -0600 19/11/02, Doug Turner wrote:
>How did you arrive at 51 markers? My understanding is that 12 and 25
>markers are typical, and it sounds like you are looking at one lineage and
>not collateral relationships.

We tested at 17 loci, which x3 =51. That's the sort of maths we use
over here in Europe. Unfortunately none of our ancestors have reached
the age of 969, but we live in hope....

PG

This thread: