Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog The Behold User Forum
Search Entries, Comments and Posts
231.
Sex in GEDCOM - Blog entry by lkessler - 14 Jan 2016
I have come across a need to check out the SEX tag in GEDCOM. Some of the new DNA features I’m finishing up for the next version of Behold make important use of the sex of the individual. Determining autosomal, X, Y and mitochondrial DNA shares between two individuals is much less accurate when the sex of anyone in the ...
233.
2016 and Looking Forward - Blog entry by lkessler - 2 Jan 2016
... advancements, database advancements, online genealogy databases to connect to, the DNA phenomena, new genealogy services, old genealogy services shutting down, and constant changes in the genealogy software scene which I keep up with due to my monitoring of all the software out there for GenSoftReviews. So please be patient. I will get there. I am getting there. Behold ...
234.
Everything In, Nothing Out - Not Helpful for DNA. - Blog entry by lkessler - 26 Dec 2015
... document your family and lead to new discoveries. Okay. So now you’ve got into DNA. You did a test, or a few tests with one or more companies. You expect your genealogy software to load in this data and process it for you in some useful way. The software should use it to help you document your family and lead to new discoveries, right? … (sound of silence) I was ...
235.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 24 Dec 2015
... of this notation.
But my specific purpose for this notation is to identify the DNA relationship. For that, up and down don't matter. And the husband/wives don't matter either. Only the common ancestors do. With only 4 characters for people (X, Y, ? and -) plus parenthesis for the common ancestors, all the DNA statistics can be ...
236.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 21 Dec 2015
... informal system you all use?.
It is a bit different in goal because I'm aiming at DNA relationship mapping for the purpose of stating just blood relationships and the expected percentage of DNA shared, so only parents and children are needed. There is no need for husband and wife because they break the chain.
And we only need to go ...
237.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
... I did look for, but was unable to find any statistics about the random nature of how DNA combines. If I had some theoretical study that estimated the combinatorial probabilities, then I might be willing to include ranges using that.
But I don't think its right to use ranges taken from samples like the ISOGG Autosomal DNA statistics. ...
238.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by robhoare - 20 Dec 2015
... to see that YY(Y)YYYY (all male descendants both sides from a male MRCA) will share Y-dna, less clear with YY(XY)YYYY.
But since in most cases (other than second marriages etc) there will be two MRCA's, it would probably be best to allow (XY) to avoid the majority of records having two paths.
"every combination of letters gives exactly one set of
239.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
... between two people, so I wasn't thinking of determining the relationship from the DNA.
However, the wonderful byproduct is that this notation could now make that possible. With the addition of the parenthesis refinement, every combination of letters gives exactly one set of DNA percentages. A list of these up to, say, 5 generations ...
240.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by acproctor - 20 Dec 2015
... but there's a part of the proposal that I don't quite understand. Imagine that a DNA test shows that two people have some genetic connection. Obviously, it doesn't imply that either one is descended from the other, but probably indicates that they have a common ancestor somewhere further back. How do you deal with that given that (a) you don't know how far back, and ...
Prev 221-230
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by cp - 5 Jan 2016