GENMTD-L Archives

Archiver > GENMTD > 2002-10 > 1034012501


From: (PROF A. R. Whitaker {FEC FAC})
Subject: [GM] Re: Kinship
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:45:13 -0700
References: <anq4bf$7s9$1@askin-17.linkpendium.com>


Zada and Lewis Browder <> wrote:
>
>> Yes, in studies based on mathematical, probabilistic kinship - not
>> the "degrees of consanguinity" under the civil and canon laws. I
>> (PROF A. R. Whitaker {FEC FAC})
>
>But, is not mathematical, probabilistic kinship a function of Civil
>"degrees of consanguinity" which is equal to generation away from a
>common ancestor?
>
>Lewis B.


No, not exactly. Probabilistic kinship (the proportion of genes
that two people are expected to have in common) is a number between
zero and 1 which can be worked out for the descendants of
half-siblings and double cousins and other multiple-connections.
Even if you stick to the degrees which are given by the civil and
canon rules, they are not always consistent with a ranking of the
probabilistic kinships.

I can't give an example, because I can't find my copy of the
only book I own which has both systems clearly laid out.

One problem which interests me is What do we mean by zero
kinship? Inasmuch as we have roughly 95 percent of our genes in
common with chimpanzees, I suppose we would take some figure just
above that and arbitrarily call it zero. Or maybe arbitrarily
define as zero anything less than the expected kinship of, say,
seventh cousins.

(By "expected" I mean mathematical expectation - the arithmetic
mean.)

A. Royall Whitaker, Gent.
Often in erorr, never in doubt

(PROF A. R. Whitaker {FEC FAC})

This thread: