Single DNA segment - 28cM: Passed Unchanged Since 1600's.

[Geneadict]

Agree with those who state highly unlikely and more likely originating with multiple ancestors or ancestor(s) not identified in pedigree, especially if complete pedigree for all ancestral lines for both individuals going back to the 1600s are not available.

[katerennie4]

I have several of that size myself in that timeframe (200 years). However, your case is (roughly) half as many generations as the original question.

In the manner of all random and arbitrary events, it could happen, but I would think it very, very rare when a segment that large is passed for 400 years. The chance of it happening in a separate line as well in order to be comparable now seems astronomically small.

He did say they'd be 10th cousins though, and my "cousins" and I are at the very least 6th cousins, but more probably 7th+ cousins. I agree, they should explore every other line first, before they settle on this couple as the source of their shared DNA. Trees can be deceiving. My father & another man are likely (95% certainty) 6th cousins thru one Palatine German/English family. I was well beyond ready to declare this the source of the match, especially knowing that this person did not match my grandmother (the 6th cousin designation is thru my father's father) but then I was thrown a boulder when he came back and told me the relationship was thru his father and not his mother (the source of the 6th cousin match on his end). Needless to say I was crushed. I was left to chalk him up as another one of my unknown, likely forever, Irish relatives.

[sjadelson]

I don't think it's that impossible.

My dad & I share a single 23cm segment with a woman, her brother, and her son. We know the connection is pre-1800 because of our trees.

I have several of that size myself in that timeframe (200 years). However, your case is (roughly) half as many generations as the original question.

In the manner of all random and arbitrary events, it could happen, but I would think it very, very rare when a segment that large is passed for 400 years. The chance of it happening in a separate line as well in order to be comparable now seems astronomically small.

[katerennie4]

I don't think it's that impossible.

My dad & I share a single 23cm segment with a woman, her brother, and her son. We know the connection is pre-1800 because of our trees. And even if the connection is just one more generation back from where my tree ends (or roughly to someone born circa 1760-1770), I'd be a 6th cousin to her/her son. And I doubt it's just one more back.

[nwgen]

Genetic Genealogy and the Single Segment

http://ongenetics.blogspot.com/2011/02/genetic-genealogy-and-single-segment.html

[mkdexter]

The 36 year difference was an error in my tree before I corrected it.

Here is a link to a tree with both siblings: http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/12381...son/-123074758

Thanks
Steve

Ok yes that makes more sense.

The problem is we can't say that is it not possible, it would be up to a lot of recombination occurring in just the right places though.

[shandy4473]

John and Richard Goode

Well unless you can go the link itself (which I can't) and show that Richard had two wives, no they are not siblings. My problem is that I can't see all of the info you are seeing, so I'll take your word for it but still I wonder... about the Ancestry info because a generation back, in one tree, a Richard Goode born 1600 had a wife that was 36 years younger than him. It doens't look right.

Anyway... I also don't think that a 28cm segment would last long. You may want to see if this perrson is on gedmatch and see if the segment if half or full identical. If full then there's an issue. If half then I'd look for a 3rd to 5th cousin connection in this case..


Maybe when I get off of this iPad and to a real computer later I'll see what you are talking about..

Matt.

What I am seeing on Ancestry is that John Goode (1620-1709) and Richard Goode (1630-1719) are siblings. Their parents are Richard Goode Sr (1600-1650) and Wife Whitley (1598-???).

The 36 year difference was an error in my tree before I corrected it.

Here is a link to a tree with both siblings: http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/12381...son/-123074758

Thanks
Steve

[shandy4473]

Scratching Head

Well I am scratching my head to trying to understand. Unless the shared cM number from 23andMe is incorrect and is actually lower than what is reported? Nevertheless our paper trails match up to Richard Goode (1600-1650).

Who knows!!!!!

Thanks for the input

Steve

[mkdexter]

The trees appear to be the same. It appears to be the same Richard Goode. Here is the link to my matches tree as his tree is public.

Match Tree - http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/15917544/family

His Richard Goode is 1629-1719 is the son of Richard Goode (1600-1650)

In my tree - John Goode 1620-1709 is his sibling.

Steve's Tree - http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/22708735/family

Thanks
Steve

Well unless you can go the link itself (which I can't) and show that Richard had two wives, no they are not siblings. My problem is that I can't see all of the info you are seeing, so I'll take your word for it but still I wonder... about the Ancestry info because a generation back, in one tree, a Richard Goode born 1600 had a wife that was 36 years younger than him. It doens't look right.

Anyway... I also don't think that a 28cm segment would last long. You may want to see if this perrson is on gedmatch and see if the segment if half or full identical. If full then there's an issue. If half then I'd look for a 3rd to 5th cousin connection in this case..


Maybe when I get off of this iPad and to a real computer later I'll see what you are talking about..

Matt.

[Taz85]

There is no way a segment that large would date back 400+ years. 400+ years would be like 10 generations. A segment that large would prob fall under 4th cousins

[shandy4473]

Appear to be the same

Dumb question but how do the two trees match? Those are not the same Richard Goodes are they?

I wouldn't trust Ancestry too much.

The trees appear to be the same. It appears to be the same Richard Goode. Here is the link to my matches tree as his tree is public.

Match Tree - http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/15917544/family

His Richard Goode is 1629-1719 is the son of Richard Goode (1600-1650)

In my tree - John Goode 1620-1709 is his sibling.

Steve's Tree - http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/22708735/family

Thanks
Steve

[MFWare]

Good Day Everyone,

I would like to request some input. I have a match which we will call David A. Via 23andMe - David A and I share a single DNA segment of 28cMs. This DNA segment resides on chromosome 3. It turns out that via investigation performed by myself, our last common ancestors are Richard Goode (1600-1650) and Wife Whitley 1590.

Would one agree that a single DNA segment of 28cM can pass unchanged (via recombination) since the 1600's to present day descendants?

Thanks
Steve

JOlson is correct. The matching segment is much too large for your MRCA to have lived 400 years ago. Neither double-dosing, triple-dosing, or even quadruple-dosing is sufficient to account for your matching segment. Your MRCA with David A. was about 4.5 generations ago. You should be looking at contemporaries of Adam Huntsinger, not Richard Goode.

[LynCra]

That looked like two completely different Goode lines to me.

[shandy4473]

10th Cousins

From the paper trail - it looks like both David A and my father are 10th cousins. Richard Goode (1600-1650) is their shared 9th great-grandfather. Looks like there is a shared cM of 25.1cM - as reported by GedMatch.

Thanks
Steve

[mkdexter]

Dumb question but how do the two trees match? Those are not the same Richard Goodes are they?

I wouldn't trust Ancestry too much.