GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-03 > 1331083303


From: Paul Wright <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA matching of cousins
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:21:43 -0600
References: <BLU151-ds190A56016515ABC1A5C3EAB5510@phx.gbl><BLU151-W35763CE4A5E290CA4EEB92B5510@phx.gbl><CAGPjrU9t35iB1hd+fQ9Wg9OBeNdmG+DcS2xsrpxq0jbRfX9_Mw@mail.gmail.com><CAJet0tpRZ1BcZ6d6wNe72VD7p56PPg1Wd5+xKeN+110Pc6WThw@mail.gmail.com><44E93A88-FD70-4542-834B-00CCEDCB5A3E@gmail.com><CAJet0trTcsBYwS-E7wZueZi+2fe9Y2dOWXpERoOFZxQ9j5jj9w@mail.gmail.com><B384DD2F-1387-4F8F-B329-D8FCC182041C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B384DD2F-1387-4F8F-B329-D8FCC182041C@gmail.com>


Again, by definition any sample taken from my personal collection, or
CeCe's or Tim's or any one else's (and many more have shared their data
over in 23andMe forums over the last couple years), is not a statistically
representative sample of the population. I'm not arguing with the value of
the data, just pointing out it's still a very limited view of the total
population.

In this case the 6% and 9% results could fall into either, or if there are
multiple relationships at play, may also be impacting the results.



On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Wilcox Lisa <> wrote:

> All you know is that the sample is too small to rely upon. It *might* be
> perfectly representative.
>
> CeCe and Tim and other folks who are extensively testing family members
> with known relationships are helping to provide the best data we have so
> far.
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
>


This thread: