On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:01:51 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > No Joe. I'm not going to argue statistics with a pidgeon. Full Stop. > > I have no idea what you mean by "pidgeon", but I have no doubt I have taken a great quantity more statistics classes than you. > > I'm not asking to argue statistics. I'm asking you to offer a single example that proves or illustrates your point. Currently you are just stating it is possible, and offered not one example how. > Joe I seriously doubt that you are a better mathematician than am I. As to your example of two men, brothers, who have a paper trail back to a man in 1450, and identical Y results. It is meaningless. At *any* time in the past six hundred years one cuckold could have supplied two children. Or it could simply be that the paper trail is worthless, and yet the genealogy is not affected, they just belong to some *other* family. There is really *no* way to tell these cases apart from each other. None. Zero. The Y does not tell you at all, in any way whatsoever, whether the descendants are sixth cousins, second cousins, or fourteenth cousins. You really get almost no genealogical *evidence* from it at all :) And to your point of whether Autosomal DNA can tell you anything about medieval genealogy, you're wrong. I have already stated the reason earlier. Instead of asking the odds for whether a particular snippet of DNA gets passed down intact to *one* person, you need to look at whether that snippet will get passed down to *any* descendant. And then extrapolate that over the entire DNA My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. You just need to test every one

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:10:28 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:01:51 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > No Joe. I'm not going to argue statistics with a pidgeon. Full Stop. > > > > I have no idea what you mean by "pidgeon", but I have no doubt I have taken a great quantity more statistics classes than you. > > > > I'm not asking to argue statistics. I'm asking you to offer a single example that proves or illustrates your point. Currently you are just stating it is possible, and offered not one example how. > > Joe > > I seriously doubt that you are a better mathematician than am I. > > As to your example of two men, brothers, who have a paper trail back to a man in 1450, and identical Y results. It is meaningless. > > At *any* time in the past six hundred years one cuckold could have supplied two children. Or it could simply be that the paper trail is worthless, and yet the genealogy is not affected, they just belong to some *other* family. > > There is really *no* way to tell these cases apart from each other. None. Zero. The Y does not tell you at all, in any way whatsoever, whether the descendants are sixth cousins, second cousins, or fourteenth cousins. > > You really get almost no genealogical *evidence* from it at all :) > > And to your point of whether Autosomal DNA can tell you anything about medieval genealogy, you're wrong. I have already stated the reason earlier. > > Instead of asking the odds for whether a particular snippet of DNA gets passed down intact to *one* person, you need to look at whether that snippet will get passed down to *any* descendant. And then extrapolate that over the entire DNA > > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. > > You just need to test every one I have no basis to judge "goodness" of a mathematician, or any basis to know how good of one you are. I don't know why you have an opinion on the matter either. We are going to have to agree to disagree on both your points above which, for the reasons stated, I disagree with entirely. --Joe C