Mutations are pretty random - they can occur anytime. Two brothers can be tested and have results that are one or two off at 37 markers (this is not usual, but *can* occur). Your results are well within what might be expected for a most recent common ancestor born ca. 1739. ----- Original Message ----- From: swdyrkinnc@aol.com To: wilson@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:08:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [WILSON] Another DNA question > > > > I have a DNA question that I hope some knowledgeable person can answer. This is not a Wilson line, although I have three of those, but I think someone might find the answer valuable, if we can figure it out. > > > My brother had his DNA tested and matched with a male cousin with the same surname. We are 99% certain that both lines can trace back to a common ancestor six generations back. Here are the results of the testing: > For the 12 marker test, there was a perfect match. > For the 25 marker test, there was a perfect match. > For the 37 marker test, there was a genetic distance of 2. > > > This raises many questions. If the Y-DNA was tested and the common male ancestor, born 1739, was found, shouldn't the DNA be identical? If not, what accounts for the differences? Would a genetic distance of 2 be normal for only six generations back? Is a genetic distance of 2 attributable to a mutation, and again would that be normal for only six generations back? Is it possible that my brother and our cousin are not as closely related as we think? > > > Thanks in advance for any help with this mystery. > Sharon

another example of random mutation--have a 3td cousin--our great grandparents were brother's--one born in 1839--the other in 1841--we match 64 of 67 with the 3 non matches off 1 number each--now here's the kicker I match 66 of 67 (and again the one non-match is off only 1)- back one more generation-with a non-surname wilson and the closest common birth I can document is his ancestor was born in 1800 and mine in 1801-(born within 5 miles of each other)--his ancestor's mother was 41 and the "father"was 54 and this was their only child--they had been married 25 yrs (she was 16 when married) when the "oops" occurred--this was in part of now hardy county w va--and at that time there were 12 related wilson adults who could have been the father--(or the "father" could be my ancestor-)- mine was one of a 14 child brood fathered by archibald wilson- (1749-1814)-and an older brother was benjamin wilson (1747-1827) who had 30 children --now if archibald was not the 1800 child's father and another related wilson was--then the common ancestor goes back one more generation--ie--william wilson (1722-1801)( he had a total of 11 children)--father of archibald and benjamin -et al---summary--dna is a great tool--however every now and then a "HUH" occurs---should note that the gentleman I match 66 of 67 wants no further discussion of the issue--I'am kit 8104 at family tree-have 111 marker's tested-- -----Original Message----- From: 18apatti43@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:56 PM To: wilson@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WILSON] Another DNA question Mutations are pretty random - they can occur anytime. Two brothers can be tested and have results that are one or two off at 37 markers (this is not usual, but *can* occur). Your results are well within what might be expected for a most recent common ancestor born ca. 1739. ----- Original Message ----- From: swdyrkinnc@aol.com To: wilson@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:08:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [WILSON] Another DNA question > > > > I have a DNA question that I hope some knowledgeable person can answer. This is not a Wilson line, although I have three of those, but I think someone might find the answer valuable, if we can figure it out. > > > My brother had his DNA tested and matched with a male cousin with the same surname. We are 99% certain that both lines can trace back to a common ancestor six generations back. Here are the results of the testing: > For the 12 marker test, there was a perfect match. > For the 25 marker test, there was a perfect match. > For the 37 marker test, there was a genetic distance of 2. > > > This raises many questions. If the Y-DNA was tested and the common male ancestor, born 1739, was found, shouldn't the DNA be identical? If not, what accounts for the differences? Would a genetic distance of 2 be normal for only six generations back? Is a genetic distance of 2 attributable to a mutation, and again would that be normal for only six generations back? Is it possible that my brother and our cousin are not as closely related as we think? > > > Thanks in advance for any help with this mystery. > Sharon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WILSON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message