Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155424968

From: "brian quinn" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:22:48 +1000
In-Reply-To: <>

John, I don't understand the g.d. thing doesn't a gd of 10 to 15 include
millions of people?

Like for a possible paper trail would it not need to be something like 5 or

Brian Quinn

-----Original Message-----
From: johnSteve [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, 12 August 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:12:29 -0400, you wrote:

>P.S. The problem here isn't the theory behind the genetics or the
"accuracy" of
>the tests, it's the interpretation and application of the test results. As
>expense, who ever said genealogy was an inexpensive hobby? Not if you want
>make fast progress. When I think of what I've spent on this hobby, I've
>more bang for the buck with DNA testing than anything else, with the
>exception of a subscription to the census online.

so have I,


the person who paid the money, told one thing, pays more money, told
another thing is not getting more bang for the buck. In fact I
imagine a few feel like it is a scam.

I have a 41 of 43 match (c7 with c3, c6, c8, c9, c10 at in our project, I
told this participant and the project some pretty definite things on
my understanding what that means. That he shares a common ancestor
with the other 5. (there is no documentation before 1781)


now I have to come back and say lets hold up here on that hypothesis.
You need to go to FTDNA and spend more moneys, as much as before
again. There is the possibiity that 41 of 43 doesnt mean dick.
(excuse my language). And I may have sent him looking for ancestors in
places where ancestors do not exist. Testing 23 more markers may give
him a g.d. of 10 to 15.

Holy Smokes!

Then If we test a hundred the possibility exists that a 64 of 66 match
has a g.d. of 10 to 15.

so while you and I "understand" this, Peter and I have trouble with
its real world consequences.

At what amount of expense and # of markers can I say this person has a
common ancestor with another person without documentation?

what is the C.I. with those 2 variables?



This thread: