GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1269743446


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Family Finder Test
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:34:54 -0400
References: <971b.3ff82e9.38df5280@aol.com>,<SNT132-w336D1596AD25C9B4A58E28C0220@phx.gbl>,<REME20100327124253@alum.mit.edu><SNT132-w63BBE0B0F2AFF9F2762AE9C0220@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT132-w63BBE0B0F2AFF9F2762AE9C0220@phx.gbl> (message fromElizabeth Bennett on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:36:11 -0200)


Elizabeth wrote:
> I'm sorry if I was unclear. I do not assume that if autosomal results
> show a relationship that it is in the paternal line. IF there is an
> autosomal relationship and IF they are assumed to be cousins in the
> paternal line, CAN these results be used to group Y DNA results in
> smaller groups within a large one.

I thought you were clear enough before, but now I'm at a loss. It
seems to me you are saying that YOU don't assume an autosomally-
detected kinship must be on the paternal side, but that you want
SOMEONE ELSE to make exactly that assumption and build something on
that assumption. The only other possible interpretation I can see is
that you want to assume that, merely because two men have a probable
cousinship of some kind, they must also have a similarly close
cousinship on the paternal side. I'm sorry, but that's so little
different from the first version as to make no practical difference.
Indeed, we have already chosen the men to have nearly the same Y
chromosome, and they are therefore known to be paternally related
somehow, but the conventional genealogy shows us that they can't be
very closely related paternally, or else we would know about it.

John Chandler


This thread: