Without knowing any details about the RASEY-RAZEE non-match subject, I am sorry for that, but looking at it from a general perspective; if two testers does not match, while having the most distant paternal sharing familyname, to outrule that the distant ancestors is not related one must test atleast two descendants on separate lines from each of the ancestors and the individuals share the same ancestor must match with each other while the pairs does not match each other. Is that the logic to use? Atleast 4 tests to secure both ancestors Y-DNA and the line to the descendants. I guess if two testers sharing ancestor does not match but one of them match the other pair, then we both have verified the the distant ancestors where related and also have identified one line that does not have a correct father somewhere Skickat från min iPhone 8 jun 2014 kl. 18:34 skrev "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <DianaGM@dgmweb.net>: > > The rub is that appeals to authority are a logical fallacy to begin with, > something I would assume an educated person would know, so not use one. The > issue has to be whether the conclusions drawn from the test results are valid - > and if not, why not - not over the credentials of who made them. He didn't > address the actual issue, at all. I mean, if he thinks a GD of 16 at 67 markers > (30 at 111 markers) is a match, he needs to give the basis for such an > assertion, not just tell me I'm wrong. > > Diana > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree, so I, too, consider two a minimum as we need to rule out a possible NPE. Of course, more would be even better, but at least I do have two of each family (scroll down a bit for the data tables): http://dgmweb.net/DNA/Rasey/RaseyDNA-results.html Each member of the two pairs descends from a different son of their respective progenitors, so I'm confident none has an NPE. The alleged paper connection between the two families never did exist, so I don't suspect either progenitor has an NPE. And, of course, the absolute certainty is that neither of these Hg I2 families can possibly connect to the Hg R1b MacLEODs of the Isle of Raasay, which was the "big myth." Diana > From: Peter Larsen > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:37 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Am I in error regarding RASEY-RAZEE non-match? > > Without knowing any details about the RASEY-RAZEE non-match subject, I am > sorry for that, but looking at it from a general perspective; if two testers > does not match, while having the most distant paternal sharing familyname, to > outrule that the distant ancestors is not related one must test atleast two > descendants on separate lines from each of the ancestors and the individuals > share the same ancestor must match with each other while the pairs does not > match each other. > > Is that the logic to use? Atleast 4 tests to secure both ancestors Y-DNA and > the line to the descendants. I guess if two testers sharing ancestor does not > match but one of them match the other pair, then we both have verified the the > distant ancestors where related and also have identified one line that does > not have a correct father somewhere > > Skickat från min iPhone