GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293680683
From: Jim Bartlett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:44:43 -0500
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1><003b01cba79b$5dbd2f00$19378d00$@dgmweb.net><003101cba7ad$8afe1800$c2482dae@Ken1><005701cba7ba$60e42070$22ac6150$@dgmweb.net><006301cba7bb$82fddfb0$c2482dae@Ken1><005901cba7ca$2913d8b0$7b3b8a10$@dgmweb.net>
In-Reply-To: <005901cba7ca$2913d8b0$7b3b8a10$@dgmweb.net>
Why wouldn't SNPs from living people be pretty evenly divided over the historical timeline, rather than being bunched up in recent generations?
Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime!
On Dec 29, 2010, at 9:35 PM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <> wrote:
> We're not talking about recent generations, who have thousand of private SNPs
> that are of no use for deducing the Y-DNA haplotree. How probable is it that
> any of the "useful" SNPs have appeared in multiple sons of the same father? Is
> it not *far* more probable that the appearance of most, if not all, known useful
> SNPs are separated by many generations? And is this not what Vince was driving
> at? That is, that the number of unresolved SNPs is going down resulting in the
> death of paragroups. On that I agree with Vince.
>
>>
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups by Jim Bartlett <> |