I thought this was very interesting in a scientific sort of way for those of you who have
considered DNA for genealogy. Just thought I'd pass it along but without the
sender's addy.
Hello, all.
I've owed this update for quite some time, having received the results of
my latest DNA testing back in February. However, due to being busy with
other responsibilities, going on two out-of-state trips, and some good
old-time procrastination, I am just now getting this update sent out.
(Also, as I'll explain in a moment, the discouraging results of the
testing did not exactly provide much enthusiasm for following up).
As a re-cap to bring everyone up-to-speed (if interested), I've attached
my previous message below, which outlines the process leading up to the
latest results.
The latest DNA tests involved bringing in another test subject, Mike
Hardcastle, for comparison against Tom Hardcastle and myself, since the
previous test indicated that Tom and I were not connected within the
specified number of generations that the oral family history, etc had
indicated. By testing Mike's DNA against the DNA of Tom and myself, this
could help establish whether or not there might be an error in Tom's
lineage versus my own.
The outcome of the latest test--on Mike's DNA--was expected to provide one
of three results:
1. If Mike matched Tom*, but not me, then this would--for all intents and
purposes--"prove" that I was most likely not a biological Hardcastle.
2. If Mike matched me*, but not Tom, then it would indicate that Tom
likely had an "illegitimacy" or flawed lineage in his paternal line, and
that he was therefore likely not a biological Hardcastle.
3. If Mike matched neither me NOR Tom*, then we would be back at square
one, indicating an "illegitimacy" or flawed lineage would have occurred in
any TWO or all THREE of our lines. (And we would then be beset with the
option of getting yet ANOTHER Hardcastle test subject for further
comparison).
* [within the specified number of generations]
Well, can you guess which one of the above was the result?? You got it:
#3.
The results stated that the probability of a shared common ancestor
between myself and either Tom or Mike was "very very low," and that the
probability of a shared common ancestor between Tom and Mike was "very low"
with a separation of somewhere between 42 and 154 generations, with an
average likely separation of approximately 93 generations. (As compared to
the expected 17 generations).
So, at this point, there is no conclusive evidence one way or another.
Anyway, I just thought I'd send this one, for anyone who may have been
curious about the outcome.
Thanks,
John