GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155521096


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:04:56 -0400 (EDT)
References: <002201c6bd5f$1dfa3f00$6401a8c0@HP> <002c01c6bd71$4e346ad0$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid>
In-Reply-To: <002c01c6bd71$4e346ad0$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid>(7kincaids@auracom.com)


Peter wrote:
> Any hypotheses is based on the assumption that the resolution was
> high enough that reasonably closely related people stay reasonably
> closely related as more markers are added. It has been suggested
> that since the panels are not selected randomly then this should not
> be expected.

Actually, although the panels were obviously not selected at random,
they were also not selected with foreknowledge of the results of
Sharon's testing, or yours or mine, for that matter. Thus, as long
as we can assume mutations occur independently, the selection
effectively *is* random because it's the mutations that do the
"selecting" as far as the test results are concerned.

John Chandler


This thread: