GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-02 > 1171588423


From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:13:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <REME20070215200659@alum.mit.edu>


Hi John,

I have worked with the genealogy of Abraham for nearly 30 years, and I do
assure you, this is not a matter of one mutation and confusion about
grandchildren. These childen are documented through wills, chancery suits,
Bibles and such, and well documented. I eliminated the ones I considered to
be fuzzy already.

It may be the simplest explanation, but is not the correct one.

Roberta


> I surely have to wonder why these alleles are "predisposed" (or maybe
> "inclined" for lack of another word) to mutation downward, in the case
> of 391.

To me, this slide looks like evidence of *one* mutation in a son of Abraham,
plus a massive confusion over the parentage of Abraham's grandchildren. I
know that is an unpalatable suggestion, but it is the simplest explanation
of your chart. Another possibility, which you may have already explored, is
that your Estes allele is really 11.2 (i.e., exactly halfway between 11 and
12), and the rounding off to the "nearest" whole number gave mixed results.
If you haven't asked Bennett about this possibility, you should.
If the parentage of the grandchildren is documented by explicit,
contemporary birth or baptism records, then the confusion idea probably
won't fly, and that would leave the roundoff ambiguity as the next simplest
explanation.

John Chandler

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: