Gedmatch:. Are your parents related

[Melkiirs]

In my case obviously not. In the case of my father not surprisingly yes.

"Largest segment = 12.8 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 12.8 cM

This analysis indicates that your parents may be distantly related."

There is some evidence (Risch et al. 2003) that Litvak Jews went through a unique founder event around when they were allowed back into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1503. So Litvaks would be likely even more closely related than Ashkenazim at large.

[#Oda#]

In the 1930s there was an examination of the population of the Elbe river island of Finkenwerder. From the church records you could see that there was a strong endogamy for centuries. They were surprised to find them not more and not less affected by wrongs than the average population.

I guess that strong endogamy by provoking suffering by severe wrongs individuals that then are excempted from further procreation can make the genepool even healthier then the everage one. If you have a strongly endogamic population with the same health condtions like the common population, this from logics implies that their gene pool will have somewhat less wrongs.

I remember you writing this on fb. However that would be kind of cruel indeed. In any case the negative effects of endogamy are overrated nowadays by lets say about 90% of the people of modern countries.

[Labriego]

My dad is Spaniard (Castilian) and my mom is Jewish (Ashkenazi)... so not related.

[rothaer]

here are results for my mother's ex boyfriend who died. He was from small village in remote region where are literaly less than 10 houses, and his both parents are from that village, so no surprise his parents are related. He was PhD in mechanical engineering and pro footballer who teached in Norway. His brother is assistant coach of Norwegian handball national team.

Largest segment = 43 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 77.4 cM

Important Notice: The traditional charts used by genetic genealogists to predict the relationship between two people who share DNA are not relevant to, or accurate for, interpreting the results from the AYPR tool. The amount of shared DNA between the parents of a person who receives a positive result is approximately four times higher than the total ROH inherited by the user, the result displayed in cMs here, however an accurate and comprehensive interpretation of the data and prediction of the relationship between the parents of the user is complex, and this calculation alone is not a reliable indicator of the parents' relationship.

Interpreting your result:

This analysis indicates that your parents are probably related.

Wow, this is correct. How did you know? I once had a longer public dispute with a notable DNA genealogist that stated that is was double and not fourfold as I stated. He ignored my friendly explanations. My conviction is that logic alone matters in such questions, not reputation. So I went on to explain instead of referring to authorities. He then maybe even felt more secure in rejecting my explanations. I let him go on to defend his wrong view. And ultimately I quoted an unquestionable and much accepted authority that had the same "wrong understanding" like me. He was extremely not amused and it took about 5 years till he lately again responded to something that I wrote.

So this is the small anecdote I have in mind regarding the relation of the result of the are-your-parents-related tool and the statistically expected shared cM figure of the parents.

77.4 cM means that more than 300 cM can be expected as for the parents' mutual match, which is enormously much. As a rough take, you can say that if you are well into your family and relatives, you can be expeted to know all relatives with more than 100 cM, not necessarly know them in person, but know who it is. I have repeatedly got below 100 cM with well to me known relatives that I even tested.

[Rædwald]

Largest segment = 0 cM
Total of segments > 7 cM = 0 cM

No shared DNA segments found

[#Oda#]

Wow, this is correct. How did you know? I once had a longer public dispute with a notable DNA genealogist that stated that is was double and not fourfold as I stated. He ignored my friendly explanations. My conviction is that logic alone matters in such questions, not reputation. So I went on to explain instead of referring to authorities. He then maybe even felt more secure in rejecting my explanations. I let him go on to defend his wrong view. And ultimately I quoted an unquestionable and much accepted authority that had the same "wrong understanding" like me. He was extremely not amused and it took about 5 years till he lately again responded to something that I wrote.

So this is the small anecdote I have in mind regarding the relation of the result of the are-your-parents-related tool and the statistically expected shared cM figure of the parents.

77.4 cM means that more than 300 cM can be expected as for the parents' mutual match, which is enormously much. As a rough take, you can say that if you are well into your family and relatives, you can be expeted to know all relatives with more than 100 cM, not necessarly know them in person, but know who it is. I have repeatedly got below 100 cM with well to me known relatives that I even tested.

Let me guess: His initials are NB?

As to that: My parents get 0 cM in this gedmatch tool, but I know by genealogy that they are at least 3 times related farer back.

[rothaer]

I recall someone having had an unknown great-grandfather and the respective grandfather was alive and was tested. There were years of research and speculations. When the individual I speak of later just for fun put the grandfather's kit in this tool she couldn't believe what she saw. The grandfather got a very high result and it ended up in solving the case. Iirc it was an uncle that had impregnated his niece and could thus not be told. I don't recall whether he even had been married.

[rothaer]

Let me guess: His initials are NB?

Yep. His answer was still very brief and not a letter longer than necessary.

As to that: My parents get 0 cM in this gedmatch tool, but I know by genealogy that they are at least 3 times related farer back.

Yeah, it's really not simple to exceed the threshold of 7 cM at that tool.

The parents of a pre DNA testing deceased grandmother of mine had been 1C1R to each other. But whatever homocygocy my grandmother may have had, it's all tracelessly dissolved in the next generation.

[#Oda#]

Yep. His answer was still very brief and not a letter longer than necessary.

Yeah, it's really not simple to exceed the threshold of 7 cM at that tool.

The parents of a pre DNA testing deceased grandmother of mine had been 1C1R to each other. But whatever homocygocy my grandmother may have had, it's all tracelessly dissolved in the next generation.

NB, well...

Is that your maternal or paternal grandmother?

[rothaer]

NB?

Unfortunately it was again in a thread with a disputed question where he first lectured all commentators with exclamation marks and eventually turned out to be wrong and all others right. But he finally presented his wrong himself as the result of an additional examination by him, lol.

Btw. he's not often wrong.