GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118301610
From: "robert mclaren" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Keep it simple
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 03:20:10 -0400
I see that John Chandler has provided answers to your questions. If you
are looking for a good help page on genetic genealogy Charles Kerchner has
a very good one. Try http://www.kerchner.com/dna-info.htm. Another good
page is http://worldfamilies.net/
> [Original Message]
> From: Lenny F. Caudill II <>
> To: <>
> Date: 6/8/2005 6:39:39 PM
> Subject: [DNA] Keep it simple
> I'm the administrator for the Caudill DNA Project. By my own admission,
I am not knowledgeable about the science of YDNA and do have the expertise
necessary to accurately assess our results. I have plenty of questions and
could use some help (or opinions). I'd like to better support my
participants (who know less than I do) about the proabilities of
relationship. I can use the calculators to determine TMRCA however I
suspect they are overly simplistic and overly conservative in the results
they provide. I'm looking for a better screwdriver.
> About our project:
> Started in May of 2004.
> We have eight sample results back and five variant spellings of the
surname. Four 25's and four 12's. Other results pending.
> I have some undocumented lineages on most participants showing
relationship. No known connection (yet) between the Cadle's, Cordell's,
and Caudill/Caudle/Caudell's although the DNA suggests a possible
> 1.. Most of our mismatches occur at 390, 19, and 391. The "accepted"
mutation rate, as I understand it, is .002. Is there eveidence that the
markers named move faster than the "average". What's the significance of
these markers? I'm starting to sense that each marker is an indication of
something different. In other words, people from certain regions of the
world tend to have specific values at specific markers.
> 2.. I've been told that the "average" is being reexamined within the
scientific community and that .004 is probably more accurate. Is there
information available where each markers mutation rate has been derived
independantly? It seems reasonable that instead of calculating based upon
an average, you'd be able to calculate based upon each markers historical
rate of mutation.
> 3.. This leads to my next question. If red markers are known to move
faster, how fast is fast? We have mismatches at red markers but I don't
know how to "discount" them in assessing results.
> 4.. Our Haplogroup, R1b, is as common as dirt so I'm told. Western
European. This aligns with the "lore" of our heritage which says we're
from Scotland and/or England. Has anyone developed a good marketing
technique for enlisting European descendants into their projects? How'd
you do it? I'd LOVE to get a few English or Scott participants.
> The link below will take you to our page at Family Tree DNA. I titled
this "Keep it Simple" because this stuff goes over my head more often than
not. I need YDNA For Dummies style answers. Thanks for your tolerance.
> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your
ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn