Peter, that's a good explanation of it. They are still studying our "junk" DNA to figure out if there is any certain frequency or pattern to the mutations of each marker and if there is, what it means and can it be predicted. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA Question > While DNA determines many of your physical > characteristics (ie. hair color, etc.) and potential > health risks, most of these are on the other > chromosomes. On these other chromosomes, you > are getting a mix of your mother's and father's DNA. > Your children would have a mix of all four of their > grandparents' DNA. Thus, it doesn't take long before > we really differ from one direct line of ancestors; that > is outside of close inbreeding. The part of the Y > chromosome we are testing did not get mixed and, for > that part, all of us match pretty close to our ancestor's > DNA 800 years ago. For the most part, these are in > areas which they call junk DNA because there is > no apparent or significant reason for the DNA. Some > of it could be genetic material from another source > (ie. a virus) added in. Some came from copy areas > (ie. the DNA looped and duplicated itself). There > was once commentary that certain mutations in the > DYS 464 series of markers could be an indicator of male > fertility. However, I have not read about anything that > can really be interpreted for certain from one's Y > chromosome profile as we currently test for our project. > It is simply looking at very small sections of our DNA > that we share with our direct male ancestor and finding a > genealogical utility for it. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > >