Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118178086

From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Lancaster Project
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:01:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>

It is clear from the discussion that you did not pick out any particular
marker in advance. Instead, you focused on whichever marker(s) turned out
to be different. Therefore, all markers were in play, and we *are* talking
about the whole signature.

I still think that we are not talking about the chances that the whole
signature remains the same, because it obviously has not. We are talking
about, signatures which we know are both similar to each other and we can
also triangulate with a broader group which gives a clear indication about
the likely haplotype of the distant ancestor of that whole group. To go back
to my analogy, given that you have 2 related aramaic based alphabets, the
one with beta in second place is likely to be the oldest one (because we
know that beta in second is the ancestral sequence to the "MRCA" of the 2
new alphabets).

By my calculations, using an average mutation rate of 0.0023 for 1-step
mutations and 0.000115 for 2-step mutations, the 95% confidence
interval for TMRCA of a 37/37 match is 0 to 21 generations. You can scale
that inversely for other rates, and you can convert to years
in your favorite demographic system.

Sounds in any case like there's a very good chance that the (unspecified,
"unproven") link was within the time of parish registers and probates in
England. Worth chasing more Satterfields and Lancasters, as well as any
paper trails that come up, as I am sure you agree.

True, but genealogy is a hobby for most people. Indeed, I suspect that most
genealogists already have genealogical "to do" lists that
they can't expect to finish in their lifetimes. If it comes to adding one
more item that, all by itself, is more than they can expect to
finish in their lifetimes, I predict such an item will go at the bottom of
the list.

I think the size of the "to do list" depends on the particular problems in
your tree. In some places it is easier to track a family than in others. But
on the other hand, what do you mean by the word "hobby"? I think people who
study genealogy beyond about the 19th century are always playing with
distant history - by that stage it is probably more driven by an interest in
history, which is merely supported by the feelings that you have a link to
the data, and a worthwhile goal. Do you agree?

Best Regards

This thread: