Archives Search Engine

Body:
Subject:
From:
(email address of poster)
List:
(limit search to one mailing list)
Date:
(e.g. 10 Jun 2005, Jun 2005, or 2005)
   Search tips

Searching for: +path:genealogy-dna +(+date:jan +date:2003)
Viewing 1-25 of 764 matches from 36,131,523 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next
1. Re: [DNA] Lovelace/Loveless yDNA results [1]
Greg wrote: > I keep looking and looking, and just can't come up > with anything intelligent to say other than "The Maryland group has a > common ancestor" and "The Virginia group has a common ancestor" and "The > Maryland and Virginia ancestors are not the same one". Don't knock it! That's a very profound and useful insight. It's exactly what you were hoping to learn from this project, isn't it? You could add that both patterns are typical of European Y DNA (no surprise there).
2. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Bill wrote: > Are the Y chromosomes values for the Vikings available some place?? There is no "Viking" pattern of DNA. Haplogroups 1, 2, and 3 are all common in Scandinavia, and the combination of 1 and 2 makes up 3/4 of the population in Norway, which can also be said of most of Europe. Hg3 is quite rare outside of Scandinavia, so you can always suspect any hg3 person you find of being of Scandinavian origin, but the chances are still 3-to-1 against a randomly chosen Viking being hg3.
3. Re: [DNA] Y-STR data base purpose [1]
Alastair wrote: > I believe this is the same issue brought up just over a month ago on the = > 20 > Dec. The same answer should still apply Unfortunately, that answer did not really apply in December, and it still doesn't. > just to add that I haven't yet seen a good cut-and-paste > system for online databases. That may be the ultimate answer, but I know that the results from FTDNA can indeed be cut and pasted into a spreadsheet directly from the web, so the proof of concept is already in place. If the
4. Re: [DNA] Ancestry by DNA -- discordant siblings [1]
Peter wrote: > Just to re-iterate my views again, the problem with suggesting that > East Asian is some deep rooted remnant in Europeans (or NA) is that my > guess is that in order to set up the math, AncestrybyDNA have used a > representative example of living Europeans to define a 100% European! > So any deep rooted remnant will be lost in their definition. Not necessarily. It could be "deep" and yet not uniformly distributed, or, more to the point, not appear proportionally in the sample they used for
5. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Alan wrote: > I am thinking that by using a YSTR 11 locus Extended haplotype DNA > signature, against the YSTR d/base, (Europe), a ' 2 step difference' match > with several Scandinadians would indicate a Viking connection. I see a 2 > step difference as about 1100 years, (counting in transmissions), giving a > MRCA at about 900 AD, just about the time of the Viking raids. The math is fine, but there is too little evidence here to form a meaningful hypothesis. Starting with the 2-step difference -- n
6. Re: [DNA] Tallman DNA Project additional info [1]
Nel wrote: > An ancestor between E and Ben III passed on the 2 mutations > at 464C & D. It is my understanding, and the list experts can bring me up > short on this, that 2 mutations between 464 A thru D can be considered as > just one mutation - yes? no? If this is correct, E may be just one marker > off from C & D. Conceivable, but don't count on it. The initial state 14,15,17,19 could be transformed to the final state 14,15,15,17 by one huge jump of 19->15, but a four-step mutation has to be exceeding
7. Re: [DNA] DNAPrint [1]
Joyce wrote: > I- If the results does indicate Native of some %, is there a way to decide > which line would have been the most likely for it to have come from? No, the DNAprint test just tells you the percentages as a whole. You would need to do other tests to pursue it, such as DNAprints for your parents, or a Y DNA test for your father or brother. Since your maternal connection crosses back and forth between males and females, it probably wouldn't help (on this issue) to take the mtDNA test. > 2- If
8. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Gary wrote: > You haven't even watched this show, have you, John? The short segment of the > documentary that deals with this subject (only about five to ten minutes of > the one hour program) is hardly as you've characterized it. The film > basically mentions in passing the fact that populations in Scotland, > England, Ireland and Norway have been tested (and they showed some of them > being tested, bot only via buccocoal swabs, but via blood samples, as well) > in a clinical environment. While you might q
9. Re: [DNA] answering question about AB postive type [1]
Annie wrote: > AB positive originated at the foot of the Himalayas and moved West. Sorry, but AB is not a single (homozygous) type. It is simply the result of a cross between type A and type B (which each originated independently). Moreover, there is no linkage between the ABO blood groups and Rh classification. AB+ is just a shorthand for "AB and incidentally also Rh-positive". In any population, if you take the fraction of type AB (vs A vs B vs O) and multiply that by the fraction of Rh+ (vs Rh-), yo
10. Re: [DNA] Bobb Results [1]
Bobbkat1 wrote: > Thank you John, is there any context for Germany? Yes, there is also a slight gradient of the frequency of hg2 across Germany, but it is very slight compared to the gradient in Great Britain. You might as well take Germany as uniform with respect to hg2. John Chandler
11. Re: [DNA] Questionable East Asian Results in Ancestry by DNA Tests [1]
Peter wrote: > It surprises me that the >company offers this as an explanation, as it doesn't seem to fit with >the techniques they are using. Although we have made some guesses at their techniques, we do not know any of the details. Several features of the results they turn out have already proven surprising, so we cannot really expect that our guesses are particularly accurate. (Needless to say, it is difficult to have confidence in a process that is kept secret.)
12. Re: [DNA] Y-STR data base purpose [1]
Chris wrote: >I like the easy search format of ybase.org, just use my record number >instead of having to reenter the data. Unfortunately, even using 3 >mismatches I return zero matches. The database is still very small. If you wait a while and try again when it has several thousand haplotypes, you should find more "company". Note that one of the reasons it is still so small is that the data entry process is designed for the individual testee and is decidedly inconvenient for group administrators who mig
13. Re: [DNA] Questionable East Asian Results in Ancestry by DNA Tests [1]
Ann wrote: > I think each person has a different "confidence interval" for his results. I > say that in quotes, because they don't present it as confidence intervals per > se. Rather, they plot a single point for the Maximum Likelihood Estimate, > then 3 rings for estimates which are 2, 5, and 10 times less likely than the > MLE. Assuming the distribution is Gaussian, that means the inner ring is a bit more than one standard deviation out, and the outer ring is a bit more than two standard deviations out.
14. Re: [DNA] Lovelace/Loveless yDNA results [1]
Greg wrote: > Well, yeah, I guess so! One of the things that I'd like to know, though, > is the significance of the two 1-step mutations in the Maryland group. Can > any conclusions be drawn from those 1-allele differences? Not at the moment, but the payoff may come if one or more additional test results come back with the *same* mutation (either one, but not both, you hope). If that happens, you can conclude that the ones with the matching mutation *probably* share a more recent common ancestor than th
15. [DNA] An interesting feature turns up in the Rice study [1]
This is not exactly unexpected, but it's a novelty anyhow. As "everybody" knows, DYS464 occurs in four copies, labeled a, b, c, and d. In previous discussion, Max mentioned that FTDNA is set up to keep track of those rare individuals who happen to have more than four. Well, we have now scored a first -- one of the test subjects in the Rice DNA study has only *three* measurable peaks in the DYS464 band. The folks at the U of A lab were so surprised that they ran the analysis three times to be sure of this
16. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Gary wrote: > One wonders how this escaped the attention of the researchers mentioned in > the "Blood of the Vikings" program, then. This may have been intended as purely rhetorical, but it is not. For one thing, it starts with the highly unlikely assumption that any serious scientists would be unaware of the simple facts of life in their own fields. I don't think so. It is necessary to view television shows in the proper perspective -- they are not peer-reviewed scientific presentations and are not hel
17. Re: [DNA] Who is best to test? [1]
George wrote: > Due to the probablities and the enormous time spans involved in DNA > testing for family information, it would seem to me that in a surname > group, the best (nearer term) information could be obtained by testing > the youngest generations now living in each family line. Is this so, or > am I missing something critical? As Grant already indicated, it depends entirely on what you want to accomplish. If you want to pin down the average mutation rate, for example, you do indeed want to test
18. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Donald wrote: > Then, is it correct that Hg3 folk are fairly common in the British Isles & > Vicinity? No, the only place in that vicinity where hg3 is common is Scandinavia (and, to a lesser extent, the Scandinavian outposts Orkney and Iceland). John Chandler
19. Re: [DNA] Why is RH negative proto-European so hostile to RH positive rest of th [1]
Bailey wrote: > Is there some evolutionary adaptive function that the two > type of RH blood types has on the general population...? Don't try to read too much into the Rh syndrome -- it may be just another hazard of modern life that didn't matter much in the Stone Age. First, note that there is never a problem for the first child, and there isn't any problem for the second, either, unless the first birth was a "difficult delivery", and so on. By "difficult", I mean that something happens to introduce so
20. Re: [DNA] Y test - random samples [1]
George wrote: > > but doesn't a 9/12 match imply 3 mutations, not 2? Without conveying any > > info about the number of steps in each? Grant replied: > I think that is making assumptions about how another person reports results. > I don't know if that would always be true. Let's get clear on the notation. George was correct. A "9/12 match" means literally that 9 loci match exactly between two samples while the remaining 3 loci do not match. No more and no less. It does not refer to mutations and it d
21. Re: [DNA] Y-STR data base purpose [1]
Alastair wrote: > I'm pretty certain it is NOT possible to cut/copy data from a cell-range in > a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) INTO multiple fields on a web-page. I imagine that's true. What I had in mind, though, was copying into a SINGLE field on the web page, which then automatically gets parsed into the component data. Obviously, the parser would have to recognize and handle several different formats, but the number of them is finite. It might require working with the source table in HTML form (the origi
22. Re: [DNA] Journey of Man -- questions from another mailing list [1]
Concerning the questions from Dick: >2. Concept of a single man (Y chromosome) fathering all men. > >This concept gives me the greatest problem. We have discussed this point here before. Part of the problem is the tendency to use the labels "Eve" and "Adam" for these conjectured progenitors, giving rise to a misleading perception of these people as the one-and-only woman or man living at some point in time. Nothing of the kind is suggested by this concept. Y DNA is just like a surname in the sense that
23. Re: [DNA] Questionable East Asian Results in Ancestry by DNA Tests [1]
John N wrote: > Also, keep in mind that the 15% is really 15% +/- 10% as I read the > tri-graph that was supplied by AncestrybyDNA. That's encouraging. Earlier reports gave the uncertainty as +/- 5%. It sounds as if they are acknowledging some of the previously neglected error sources. I suspect that, when the dust clears, the uncertainty will be pegged at +/- 20%, and then the furor over "surprising" results will go away. In any case, note the implications of the 10% figure: the test can reliably detec
24. Re: [DNA] Vikings [1]
Gary wrote: > I didn't think so. Here, again, you've mis-characterized the show you didn't > bother to see (why don't you just admit you don't know what you're talking > about?). It's very simple. What I've been talking about all along is elementary statistics. The conclusions are inescapable. Gary has said on some occasions that he believe the TV show disagrees with those conclusions, and on other occasions that he personally agrees with me, but dislikes my style of delivery. Well, none of that is r
25. Re: [DNA] Vikings series on The Learning Channel [1]
Richard wrote: > Hg3 is rare outside Scandinavia? It seems to be quite common in eastern > Europe and in the countries that made up the former Soviet Union. Have I > missed something? Yes, you have. We were talking by implication about the population of the British Isles and vicinity -- sources of early settlers in what became the US. I should have been explicit. Sorry about that. John Chandler
Viewing 1-25 of 764 matches from 36,131,523 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next

CPU seconds used 0.569914