GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1128037366
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:42:46 EDT
I completely agree that errors should be kept to a minimum. But they will
happen. However, if there is an error, I don't believe we can call the results
"bogus". That suggests there is a deliberate attempt to give fraudulent or
fake results. I assume that is not what Ed meant.
Sure one marker can make a difference. It happens in my own Davenport
project. But if I have two individuals with paper genealogies to a common ancestor
- and they only match 36/37 (be it error or mutation) - I will not jump to
the conclusion that they are not related. The one marker difference will not
change the "early ancestral place". Their ancestral home 1000 years ago will
not suddenly jump from Western Europe to someplace else on the globe.
That one marker difference definitely helps in defining branches of a line.
But there is usually a much larger difference between two unrelated lines. If
two "unrelated" lines, of the same surname, are close enough, DNA wise, that
a one marker error causes confusion to which line the participant belongs to
- then they need redefine the lines. They are not unrelated.
Anyway - errors bad. The fewer the better.
In a message dated 9/29/2005 5:37:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
I would disagree in that 1 marker off does make a difference in
trying to figure out one's line. We have enough results back now
that in the main group one can see a central point and branches from
it. Having one marker off can really through things off as it could
make a person come off one branch (that it did not) versus another
that it truly did.....
In a message dated 9/29/2005 7:44:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
I doubt that any of the members of this list would want to receive a bogus
result which puts them in a bogus early ancestral place. Some of us really are
depending very heavily on accurate results