Archiver > SCT-ISLEOFMULL > 2006-11 > 1162732876

From: "frank mcgonigal" <>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 08:21:16 -0500
References: <><><BAYC1-PASMTP101833D84536949DAEBAB7F7FC0@CEZ.ICE><>

Hi Judy
You're absolutely correct of course on the 12 marker test,and that people
would have to go for the 25 marker if they match in the 12 to be of any use.
Maybe a geographical one would be too cumbersome,but I still believe that
DNA testing would be valuable in many individual cases.
There are many success stories in this type of genealogical research.

I brought this up to stimulate discussion and see if it would be useful to
our Mull group.
Maybe it's best left to the individual rather than having a geographical DNA
I'm not trying to close this subject,I'd still like to see as many Mull
Listers as possible have the DNA tests done,it opens up the 'Big Picture',to
use a modern BUZZ word,and gives us an insight into our ancestry,plus it may
answer some questions about connections that can't be proved by a paper

Frank McGonigal Ont.Canada.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy A. (MacPhee) LeDrew
To: frank mcgonigal
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: DNA

Hi Frank:

Although I am not 'up' on the 'scientifics' of how this works, it has been
explained to me that an 'exact' match on a 12 marker test means nothing,
unless the two persons share the same surname (or any spelling variation of
the surname).

I (or technically, my brother) have had in excess of 300 'exact matches',
and almost all of them are for different surnames, so these 'matches' do not
mean anything. The following is just a short excerpt from the Family Tree
DNA website:

If you compare the 12 marker result to someone else who does not have the
same surname, but the scores match, you are most likely NOT recently
related. When we use the term recently related, we are talking about a time
frame within the last 1000 years or 40 generations, a time depth that
accommodates the earliest known use of surnames.

Because of the above, I would think that a geographic DNA project would have
to EXCLUDE any 12 marker tests, and should probably to limited to 25+
marker tests. I must admit that I still do not understand how a geographic
project would work, but the idea is certainly intriguing.


This thread: