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:oct +date:2002)
Viewing 1-25 of 702 matches from 36,222,914 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] HATCHER results - need help [1]
Nel wrote: > 4781 Sons of Wm .................13.24.15.11.11.14.12.12.12.13.13.29 - 1 > mute > This test matches 5 others, all proven descendants of Wm bn c1613, of VA > with a mutation at marker 3 (15) as opposed to JFH who shows a 14. > > 4790 John/Eve Hatcher ..........13.23.14.11.11.14.12.12.12.13.13.29 - 1 mute > but! > John is a proven descendant of Wm (4781) with an excellent paper trail If John is a proven descendant, why didn't you say which son of William is John's ancestor? The paper trail from
2. Re: [DNA] Mutations [1]
All, There is a widespread tendency to use the term "two-step mutation" very loosely. Its strict meaning is a particular event in which the length of a particular marker changed by two repeats, but a lot of people also use the same term when referring to a total distance of two steps anywhere between two haplotypes. You cannot assume that the term has been used correctly by someone asking for help in interpreting new DNA results. Please make allowances for this uncertainty when offering such assistanc
3. Re: [DNA] Matches with People of Different Surnames [1]
Nel wrote: > And the mutations are fascinating because we have perhaps a better shot than > many of finding where these occurred simply because of our paper trail and > the number of people in our group. I guess it's time to put in my usual plea for mutation-rate data. If you make a point of tallying up the number of transmission events reflected in your pool of William descendants (and updating that tally as you add new testees), the results can be combined with other family DNA projects to make a meta-s
4. Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations [1]
John W wrote: > John C - In doing this did you count the un calibrated steps > of say 351 to 355 as one mutation or as 4 four mutations? > I would assume it is one but I just need to confirm that. Yes, I counted 351->355 as ONE mutation for DYS449. > Looks to me like we are beginning to see that 449 may be a bit different > than the others. Maybe, but I note that the Rice study has five people tested at 25 loci and no variation in DYS449 among them. 47 transmission events are involved, so the probabili
5. Re: [DNA] Mutations [1]
Gary wrote: > John, isn't the change of a particular marker that repeats twice a useful > means of determining the time between events? For example, Bennett Greenspan > (of FTDNA) has told me that my match, by two step mutations, to someone in > the FTDNA database having Russian ancestry probably means our MRCA lived > "many thousands of years ago," to quote Greenspan. This is an example that shows the need for precise wording. I cannot tell from the above whether your phrase "two step mutations" means "t
6. Re: [DNA] Do daughters inherit any paternal genetic markers of significance? [1]
Iris wrote: > I've read that the father passes along the Y-chromosomal DNA to son and > the mother passes the mitochondrial to daughter and to son (with the > son's going no further); however, is their any paternal DNA of > significance passed to the daughter? Yes, there is. The Y is just one chromosome among 46 (and a short one, to boot). The mtDNA is much shorter. Half of every person's nuclear DNA comes from each parent -- 23 chromosomes out of 46. John
7. Re: [DNA] DNA Costs [1]
Crystal wrote: > Hmmm.. maybe some of girlz should get a group together > and say we are checking for an Eve link .. I > sure wouldn't mind a $169 price...sigh. men. bah. > (just kidding :) This is actually a serious point, and, unfortunately, there is a serious explanation of why it doesn't work that way. The key to making a go of group rates is the presumption of increased sales BECAUSE OF the lower price. For Y-DNA studies, it is quite true that group administrators beat the bushes for test subj
8. Re: [DNA] How could the Celts have come from the Iranic-speaking Scythians? [1]
Bert wrote: > I just would like to make one quick point here, that the Iranic peoples > are Indo-european and thus related to the Pashtu, Scythians, Balts, Slavs, > the Celts, the Teutons, Latins, Greeks etc. However, the Iranic languages belong to the eastern branch of the Indo-European family, while the Celtic languages are western. Thus, the very thing that relates them also irrevocably puts them on opposite sides of a great divide. It's very much like the haplotype vs haplogroup situation -- if you a
9. Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations [1]
Jim wrote: > I can't imagine the DNA retailers pooling resources anytime in the near > future. Not likely... I wasn't pinning my hopes on that. > Maybe "someone" could encourage each of the retailers to pool their data, > and provide it to one person, who could develop mutation rate for each DYS. Indeed, the retailers do not have the necessary information, except for the Special Cases at BYU. In fact, the experience of the Rices with BYU/Sorenson suggests that the retailers can't be expected to get the
10. Re: [DNA] 8 out of 12 - any significance? [1]
Gary wrote: > Mine: 13 26 14 10 12 15 13 12 12 13 13 29 > > His: 13 24 14 11 11 15 12 12 12 13 13 29 > > My question is, how significant (if at all) is an 8 out of 12 marker match? Keep > in mind we have the same surname (same spelling, as well). Obviously, we > probably don't share a common ancestor, unless he lived thousands of years > ago, True. For genealogical purposes, you are "completely" unrelated in your paternal lines. Using the random-walk approximation, you are 7 steps apart (adding the sq
11. Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations [1]
Jim wrote: > Additionally, I was told that the fastest moving markers are #464, 449, 439, > which I do not completely understand the reference of "fastest moving markers." > Are there other DYS numbers in a 12-marker test that fall into this category > or only 439? Are there "slow moving markers [all of the rest?]? And what is > the purpose for the classification of slow and fast? This is just a picturesque way of saying that some markers have a higher mutation rate than others. There are several w
12. Re: [DNA] Forensic markers [1]
Patrick wrote: > "Individualization and adventitious matches. One in 50 million means > that once you have > a database of 10,000 samples, you'll start to get pairs. You'll get > pairs of individuals > with the same profile. Similarly, one in 260 billion pairs occur at 500,000. ... > Ahem! So the probability maths says 1-in-50,000,000 but the observed > reality is 2-matches-per-10,000 unrelated donors. This is not widely > known. > > What happens is that they multiply all the possible combinations of > rep
13. Re: [DNA] Expected Comparisons if Hypothesis is True [1]
Larry wrote: > Seven generations ago, I have two people with my surname in the same village in > Northern Ireland that I think but cannot document were brothers... > If the two people seven generations ago were in fact brothers, what results > might one expect on a 12 marker test? In that case, the common ancestor is 8 generations ago. For each testee, there have been 8 generations time 12 markers = 96 mutation opportunities since then. For the nominal mutaion rate of 0.002, that adds up to an expecti
14. Re: [DNA] 7 Steps? [1]
Gary wrote: > John, actually, according to Family Tree DNA, we're 5 steps apart, not 7. Of > course, they could be wrong... Returning to what I said before: > >Using the random-walk approximation, you are > >7 steps apart (adding the squares of the differences at all markers). Yes, you were two steps apart on one locus and one step apart on three other loci. FTDNA simply adds those numbers together: 2+1+1+1=5. They can get away with that because the only cases where you really care *exactly* how many s
15. Re: [DNA] Strickland DNA Website [1]
John W wrote: > In looking at the chart I did some rough calculations > Each column should have 0 mutation steps ( 85%) or 1 mutation (14%) > This assumes the .002 and 13 births for the 40 people > (yes that is wrong but it is an approximation) There's an inconsistency here. If the number of transmission events is 13x40=520, the probabilities should be 35% for 0, 37% for 1, 19% for 2, and so on. Thus, the only locus that stands out is DYS449. > DYS449 is very different with 13 steps in the changes (
16. Re: [DNA] 3 mis-matches at 25 markers [1]
John wrote: > And wondering if one could take that and figure out a mutation rate > from the mode of each Haplogroup assuming the migrations of circa > 20,000 YPE The crucial event is not any migration, but rather the creation of each haplogroup. By definition, each haplogroup started as one individual with a new UEP. If you could isolate a *representative* sample of any one haplogroup, then the distribution of alleles for each STR locus would show the corresponding relative symmetric mutation rate (not
17. Re: [DNA] Forensic markers / Ms. Cornwell on the BBC [1]
Patrick wrote: > Yes, but the jury sits up when told by a scientist that the odds are > astronomical - implying unique. The odds of a match seem to work in > both directions, but a prosecutor will only mention the long odds. > The perception of most non-scientists and non-mathematicians is - > it's 100% unique. In court, perception is all. In fact, it's not 100% unique, but more likely 99.99999999% unique. If there are enough 9's, then the distinction between reality and 100% is negligible. As I remarked
18. Re: [DNA] DYS Numbers and Mutations [1]
Gary wrote: > DYS464 is of interest to me in that my cousin differs from me on only one of > FTDNA's 25 markers. This difference is on DYS464b, he is a 18 and I am a 17. > Our common ancestor is 6 generations back for me and 5 generations for my > cousin. > > Since we match on DYS464a,c & d the difference at "b" does not appear to > shift the other numbers. Correct. These four markers are four separate copies of the same original sequence of DNA, complete with context, so that the same primers amplify all
19. Re: [DNA] Forensic markers [1]
Patrick wrote: > All the results at all loci show bell curves. My point is that they > should take these into account, or more 'adventitous matches' will > occur. Indeed, they should. You seem to be saying that they don't, but others have said that they do. It seems pointless to argue over what the "usual" practice is, since the composite frequencies should *always* reflect the actually observed individual allele frequencies. Any "expert" who doesn't do the calculations properly is unworthy, to say the l
20. Re: [DNA] HATCHER results - need help [1]
Nel wrote: > All of the descendants of William have shown a 15 at marker 3 except John > (descent from son Edward) who shows a 14 which Ann has labeled a "back > mutation." Not really. It would be a "back mutation" only if you could show that JFH's haplotype was indeed the ancestral Hatcher pattern. That remains to be seen. With JFH now shown to lie on a path between William and John/Eve's descendants, it would seem to be a good bet to search diligently for a link from William to JFH. Of course, there
21. Re: [DNA] Family Tree DNA numbers [1]
Larry wrote: > it does not address the needs of the > people who pay money for DNA tests. Most of the participants in our project > don't know an allele from a fly swatter...and they don't need to know that > detail. They need to know how DNA test results will help them: > 1) find out more about their ancestors through the identification of common > ancestors > 2) find out more about the country of origin for their ancestors That's the problem. The DNA test results by themselves will most assuredly NOT id
22. Re: [DNA] Blanchard DNA study results [0.972979]
Good. Thank you for a concise statement of how you choose questions to test. The whole discussion has motivated me to go back through my files and do some counting. In the past 26 years, I have dealt with just over 5,000 identifications. I whittled away at these, discarding many because they were too recent (your third cut), but paying particular attention to your second cut and substituting a client's interest for your first and fourth cuts. I was stunned to find almost 80 great questions from 17th ce
23. Re: [DNA] Databases? [0.972979]
In a message dated 10/09/02 12:42:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pastor@jblair77.fsnet.co.uk writes: > New to the list, so hope I'm not repeating a topic well covered. Is there > any databases with the DNA markers so I can compare, my Family Tree > results shows 2 25 marker tests with just one mutation, but of course > whoever the person is, is not listed. The person is also not of my surname > DNA so am quite keen on finding who the person is. Thanks for any help, > John One of our list membe
24. RE: [DNA] DNA Costs [0.972979]
If you go to my Rader DNA project you will see Y chromosome http://www.rader.org/dna/indexM.htm 12 marker Project Price of $99 25 marker Y-DNA test $169 I hope you are having a fine day ! I am Jim Rader jim@rader.org Are you a Rader male? Join our DNA project, look on my website at www.rader.org I hope to hear from you again soon! -----Original Message----- From: Orin R. Wells [mailto:OrinWells@wells.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:54 PM To: GENEALOGY-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA]
25. Re: [DNA] Admixtures (Annie's questions re Signals article) [0.972979]
In a message dated 10/05/02 6:45:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writingteacher7@hotmail.com writes: > The article in Signals at a this Website: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.signalsmag.com/signalsmag.nsf/657b06742b5748e888256570005cba01/799c47cdcd7a924788256609004e0503?OpenDocument > &Highlight=0,jewish > Can anyone explain why genes are almost always visible in any population > after "2,000 year
Viewing 1-25 of 702 matches from 36,222,914 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 0.499924