Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Resolution matches?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • High Resolution matches?

    So what does High Resolution matches mean?

  • #2
    Not much, it seems.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, thats not good.
      I finally had a few show up for me.

      Has been really hard to find answers to many of my Questions.

      Comment


      • #4
        It reduces the estimated time to your most recent common ancestor and "eliminates" your more distant cousins. However 600-700 years ago is not that recent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by josh w.
          It reduces the estimated time to your most recent common ancestor and "eliminates" your more distant cousins. However 600-700 years ago is not that recent.
          How many years/generations back are we talking using standard Y-12 test or mtDNA HVR1 if you dont have the same random/last name and get exact matchces?

          I get plenty hits on Finns in Finland with the 12 marker test.

          Comment


          • #6
            Noaide, I very well might be incorrect and would appreciate clarification myself, but I interpret a 50% most recent common ancestor curve to mean that 50% of one's possible matches will be at or more recent than the specified generation and the other 50% of one's possible matches will be less recent than the specified generation. The statements about surname are unclear because I don't think surname match was included as a variable in the Bayesian statistical analysis. I think that the surname comments are just a reasonable suggestion that without a common surname the matches are more likely to fall in the "less recent" category. Again, I am very uncertain about this.
            Last edited by josh w.; 6 December 2005, 03:15 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              P.S. Ignore my previous post. Just checked Walsh's article. My understanding is that the statistics simply assume a common surname. Thus the graphs may not be meaningful with the lack of a surname match. The statistical adjustments that would have to be applied (e.g. changing population size) should push back the generation of the most recent common ancestor. That is, the most recent common ancestor would be older.
              Last edited by josh w.; 6 December 2005, 03:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                P.P.S. Sorry for all this confusion. Checked Walsh again. If I understand correctly, the the statistics probably should have been adjusted for common surname but in fact were not. Thus, if I am now correct (a very big if), the tables apply irrespective of surname. I hope this is the end.

                Comment

                Working...
                X