GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1165422177


From: Jim T <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 67 marker GDs in the R1b project
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:22:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.757.1165392695.26478.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


The spreadsheet is now downloadable from the page:
http://www.dnaheritage.com/rootsweb/default.asp


Pat, No more than 1 mismatch per 10 markers seems to be a
reasonable rule of thumb for recent common ancestry, although
there will no doubt be exceptions to the rule.

I have a 64/67 match named Welfare on my FTDNA page who
unfortunately has not joined the R1b project or uploaded his
results to Ysearch. As far as I can tell, Welfare and I do not
have recent common ancestry.

In Kerchner's R1b project there is a group of three men,
Yurasits (57982), Jurasits (57983), and Stevens (57985) who
match each other 67/67 or 66/67. Their kit numbers are very
close together, so they were ordered at about the same time, and
I suspect that these men were trying to verify a suspected close
connection.

Jim Turner


Pat Tagert wrote:

>Jim, what did you discover about 67 marker haplotypes with
>a genetic distance of 6 or less between them? I only found
>one near match with different surnames at that resolution
>McLellan & ELder, with a genetic distance of 66/67). The
>remaining near matches were all with identical or very
>similar surnames. Enough to suggest that a genetic
>distance of six or less indicates recent common ancestry.
>For the McLellan/Elder match, the most distant ancestor
>listed for the Elder participant was born in Scotland in
>1785. It might be reasonable to suggest at this point that
>we would expect a maximum genetic distance of about ten
>for any two known relatives tested on 100 markers.
>Maximum genetic distance between those with recent common
>ancestry seems to be fairly consistent at a distance of
>one per every ten markers tested, so long as the markers
>are picked randomly (for example, using DNA Heritage's
>cafeteria menu). Selection of markers with known higher
>or slower mutation rates would of course alter the outcome,
>but for most packages currently being offered, I think that
>a maximum genetic distance of one per every ten tested is
>a pretty fair rule of thumb. Pat Tagert



____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

This thread: