GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1157040947
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [GENEALOGY-DNA] can we do better for genetic distance?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:15:47 -0600
Amen! I second your thoughts. Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Arnold" <>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: [GENEALOGY-DNA] can we do better for genetic distance?
> Why should 10/12 matches and 65/67 matches both be designated GD=2? Is
> there a better convention out there? Perhaps the use of proportion or
> percentage match or mismatch could provide a more precise index of genetic
> distance. So a 10/12 match would be an 83% match while a 65/67 match
> would be a 97% match (or respectively 17% and 3% mismatches). I'm sure
> there could be something even better than this suggestion, perhaps
> weighting the value to account for individual marker mutation rates. But
> in any event it seems the standard use of GD in unnecessarily crude.
> Often I have seen posters here and elsewhere refer to a GD value without
> reference to the number of markers compared. Isn't there something
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
|Re: [GENEALOGY-DNA] can we do better for genetic distance? by "Ken Nordtvedt" <>|