Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
thanks for the reply
Again the proof is in the documentation. Unfortunately there is likely very little new documentation that will ever be found. Our best bet is in dna and the mathematical uncertainties of statistics and permutations. I don't like
the stats that the FTdna are using but the probabilities they present are somewhat helpful.
My info on kit 88349 is that mutations are present on site 6 and 21, as in the 3b group,the later being a rare double mutation. Even more rare would be 2 single mutations at one site over such a relatively short time as the Paces in America. Even more unlikely is a reverse double mutation. Therefore FTDNA's permutation indicate that a double occurred and 3a and 3b are related. Mathematical probability cannot be solid proof. We can only accept or reject based on likelihood.
This leaves us in a hopeful dilemma having dna results from three tests: #26541, #21419,@#19490. There is no documentation as to their linage but there are some mathematical probabilities that speak volumes. They are likely to be related to group 3a since they have only a single step mutation at site 6. This mutation increases the likelihood that they are also related to 3b since they share a mutation at that site. Is it proof of either? NO Next we must ask why there is not a double mutation at site 21 as others in 3b? The probability of a reverse double mutation is not very likely according to dna experts. The more likely probability is that the mutations at site 21 had not occurred. Still no proofs, just the uncertainty of mathematical permutations. I am excited that eventually more dna testing will diminish the uncertainties, and hopefully help explain what misinformation and lack of documentation have left us to wonder about.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/pace/messages/4155.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|