On Dec 11, 9:23 pm, Sherlock Holmes <hawke_eye_da...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > hdpth-DNA wrote: > > On Dec 10, 10:26 am, Sherlock Holmes <hawke_eye_da...@yahoo.com.au> > > wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> So in actual fact DNA Genealogy is guess work at the best and thus can > >> not be relied on concerning the number of generations involved due to > >> the AssUMed mutation rate. > >> Some one is trying to sell us a Pig in a poke, con job, scam, rip off, > >> lie, cheat us out of our hard earned income. > > >> As Benny Hill once said never Assume as you make an Ass out of U and Me. > > >> Now lets get back to some real Genealogical detective work. > > >> David > > > hey Sherlock - > > > did you not read the subject line of this thread "/ > > > obviously you took a left turn into an area you are not interested in, > > and/or it doesn't jive with your ... can we ASSUME shotty > > investigative endeavors :) > > > this type of genetic research is an AID with proven results, weather > > you want to believe it or not ... the facts are, DNA doesn't lie nor > > does it support fictitious research efforts :) > > > Ken - > > hdpth-DNA > > Hi Ken, > The point I was getting at is that some one posted the following: > "The markers used in these sorts of tests are in the junk DNA. Since > they don't code for genes, there is no selection pressure on them, so > they make better molecular clocks. If they did code for genes, then > some mutations would be lost because they were fatal. But with junk DNA > all the mutations stick around, because they don't matter, so you can, > with an assumed mutation rate, measure when two lines diverged." > Now take note in the last line it clearly says Assumed that means it is > not exact it is guessed at and has not been proven in any way shape of form. > On that bases you may as well pick an entry at random that is listed on > the IGI and assume that they are directly relate and that they are > assumed to be related with in the last ten generations. > Get real. > > As for what Huntersglenn has to say for FamilyTreeDNA I am glad that > some companies have some scruples and do value their client, based on > this If I do decide to test the DNA side of my family then I am likely > to use FamilyTreeDNA's services based on the experience that > Huntersgleen has had. > > Cheers Big Ears. Sorry David :) the second part of your post [that I originally replied to] and the closing comment is what I had an issue with :) you have a choice to participate or not ... but this is NOT a scam ... that probablly all I should have said :) Typically when people get into talking about mutation rates ... I sort of skip over them somewhat, as the "assumed" formulas don't always fit every profile, and there are lots of variables that "can" come into play ... just like, what is the length / time frame of a generation ? depends on if your ancestor from each generation was the first born or last born child from the previous generation ... those that came from prolific families, i.e. some one with 10-16+ children over 20-30+ years as apposed to another family unit with 2-4 children within 5-10+ years ... and then those that wait to marry and/ or don't have children until later in life :) I myself, have several cousins of various degrees that are actually in the generation of my dad and/or grandfather that are closer in age to me and/or younger that I ... one to two plus generations skip/added :) To add / clarify what I think Thomas was alluding to :) Gene DNA material, commonly referred to as an "admixture" .... it recombines with each subsequent generation, which can be a process of repairing and/or eliminating damaged segments along the way in each generation / individual ... where as the so called "junk" DNA the sex-chromosome is passed on as is, with only "slight" modification every now and then, basically an antique relic from the past :) The "every now and then" mutation rate ... can and "does" very from one family line/unit to the next ... some more frequently than others :) using FTDNA's tip report ... I have a 1st cousin 3x removed in my hdpth-DNA project, he is 2 generations down from our [MRCA] most recent common ancestor, where as I am 5-generations down :) comparing our test results from 37-markers, we are an exact match ... the Tip report show a probability of a MRCA at 59.37% within 2- generations and 89.48% within 5-generations ... with another participant in my hdpth-DNA ... we know we don't share a MRCA within 10-generations "/ he and I have one mutation on a marker in the 3rd panel, and the rest of the 66 markers we match exactly :) the FTDNA tip report shows the probability of a MRCA at 97.76% within 10-generations :) in our documented paper trails, we are both stuck in VA around the mid 1750's so far ... oh and we both have a variant spelling of our surname, his line has the extra E in the middle :) just one of the goal of our project, to prove that the variant spelling are in fact related and "not" to discard them :) Yes Cathy's experience shows just one of the finer exceptions that FTDNA has shown, as apposed to those that appear to just be in this business to turn over a bigger profit, with a smaller product line, and little support :) Ken - hdpth-DNA .

hdpth-DNA wrote: > > To add / clarify what I think Thomas was alluding to :) Gene DNA > material, commonly referred to as an "admixture" Admixture is something entirely unrelated. > .... it recombines > with each subsequent generation, Except for the X and Y chromosomes, everyone carries 2 of each chromosome, one from each parent. While not identical on the molecular level, each chromosome of a pair is functionally identical to the other. That is, if you line them up, the neighboring bits are the same gene (but possibly different alleles). During normal cell division, each chromosome is simply copied, and the daughter cells get one identical copy of each (barring mutation). During the cell division that creates eggs or sperm, however, the two copies of each chromosome get together and swap corresponding bits of DNA. This is called recombination, or jumping genes, and was discovered by Barbara McClintock. What it means is that neither of the eventual child's chromosomes exactly the same as either parent's DNA. This mixing is what gives rise to the great diversity of individuals, and is what makes sexual reproduction so successful. The X and Y chromosomes are different. They are different from each other, and behave differently. Only the tips of the smaller Y chromosome undergo recombination; the rest is passed intact to the eventual son. > which can be a process of repairing > and/or eliminating damaged segments along the way in each generation / > individual Repair of damaged DNA is a different process from recombination. > ... where as the so called "junk" DNA the sex-chromosome is > passed on as is, with only "slight" modification every now and then, > basically an antique relic from the past :) It turns out that only a fraction of our DNA is actually involved in coding for proteins (which is what DNA does). The rest is just nonsense, such as multiple repeats of short sequences, such as ATATATATATATATAT... . This is called junk DNA. It occurs on all chromosomes, not just the X and Y. > The "every now and > then" mutation rate ... can and "does" very from one family line/unit > to the next ... some more frequently than others :) The mutation rate is the same for everyone, and does not vary by family, as far as I know. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@nj.net -- AB2SB