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:sep +date:2002)
Viewing 1-25 of 698 matches from 36,014,699 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] DNA results [1]
Phil wrote: > I see 12 numbers in each row, and the names of the markers match FTDNA's > set and order (why do they use this odd order?). I was going to suggest > that this is a case where 25 marker upgrades would be worth the money. I think it depends greatly on what the study was hoping to prove and on relative rarity of the surname in question, as well as the number of potential other test subjects. For little more than the same price to extend all four tests to 25 markers, the group could test four
2. Re: [DNA] Probability of same surname and same DNA [1]
Arthur wrote: > Has anyone looked at the probability of two random individuals having the > same surname and the same DNA signature? The usual probability calculations > for a common ancestor appear to ignore the effect of the two individuals > having the same surname, That's because, in general, we have only very sketchy knowledge of how many different families share the same surname. For rare surnames, we might assume there is only one, but an old surname can accumulate unrelated families through centu
3. Re: [DNA] EU study on switching forensic databases from STR to SNP [1]
Nancy wrote: > While surfing around tonight, I ran across the article below. > > "Hierarchical high-throughput SNP genotyping of the human Y Chromosome > using MALDI-TOF Mass Spectroscopy, Nucleic Acid Research", Vol 30, > Number 6, e27. > > http://nucleus.cshl.org/agsa/Papers/snp/maldi_SPN.pdf > > The authors claim to have developed a reliable, cost effective and > automated method for Y genotyping. They also claim to have used 118 > markers to define 116 haplotypes and that the typing was organized in a
4. Re: [DNA] Strickland DNA Project Completed [1]
Ron wrote: > Just a note that the Strickland Y-chromosome DNA project has been completed. Excellent! > 4. The only thing that I had hoped would happen would be that we would have > more people with a mutation which might pair people together instead of so > many perfect matches. We had a half dozen matches based on mutations which > might help break down some of the walls which many members have. The other side of the coin is tallying up the numbers of independent transmission events and mutations among
5. [DNA] DNA study report [1]
I am pleased to announce that a case study based on the results of the Rice/Royce DNA study is now published in the Fall issue of _New England Ancestors_ (a quarterly publication distributed to members of the New England Historic Genealogical Society). The article deals with the disconcerting discovery we made, that two of our original set of DNA volunteers (all with well-documented lineages from the same common ancestor) turned out to be related to each other, but not to the rest. Due to space limitations
6. Re: [DNA] Fw: Mutations [1]
Bill wrote: > I have been trying diligently to understand the concept of mutations and > I > an still struggling.Is it to be assumed that at one time all males had >the > exact same DNA markers but that over time the changes we call mutations > occured. It's not that simple. At the same time mutation gradually introduces new variations of the DNA, there is a counter-process that tends to prune away uncommon DNA patterns. This is NOT "survival of the fittest", but rather the result of natural fluctuation
7. Re: [DNA] Y-DNA Results to Country Question - Poland [1]
Toni wrote: > Do the "Y-DNA Results to Country" indicate that my TURK lineage is in fact > Jewish? No, it merely suggests that as one of many possibilities. The two-step differences could be the result of convergence (i.e., pure coincidence) or divergence (i.e., some relationship). If there is a relationship, you still can't tell from just this list of "hits" which way the relationship goes -- ethnic groups that exist side-by-side for centuries will inevitably begin to include more and more members whos
8. Re: New ? Re: [DNA] 3rd test result - What does this mean? [1]
Kay wrote: > Locus DYS# Alleles (only where our 4 scores differ) > 2 390 D - 24 -- the others 23 > 5 385a D - 11 -- the others 12 > 9 439 A&C - 12 -- B - 13 -- D - 11 > 10 389-1 A, B & D - 13 -- C - 14 > 12 389-2 A, B & D - 29 -- C - 30 > 13 458 A -15 -- B&C - 18 -- D - 16 > 15 459b D - 9 -- the others 10 > > Does this make a difference in what would be thought about either A or D's >
9. Re: [DNA] Russian Connection to HG1? [1]
Gary wrote: > Yep, it could be. HG1 also includes Scandinavians, though > they're mostly in HG2, I believe. Well, no. Look at Wilson's pie charts of haplogroup frequency -- fewer than half of the Norwegians are hg2. About a quarter are hg1, and another quarter hg3, plus small numbers of hg9, hg16, and hg21. As I keep saying, Viking does not imply hg2, and hg2 does not imply Viking. John Chandler
10. Re: [DNA] Toba bottleneck [1]
Gregg wrote: > Consider the American human population as a whole. Imagine the > sub-population that is routinely having 5 children. Now imagine the > sub-population that is having 2 children. Need I point out that it's more complicated than that? Among other things, family size is primarily cultural rather than genetic, as long as basic nutritional needs are met. > And finally, about antibiotics, I must agree with the original sentiment. > What is the alternative - not prescribe them? What is the point o
11. Re: [DNA] Allison/Ellison DNA matches & mutations [1]
Mary wrote: > A and C share the same ancestors during the first four generations. > In the 5th generation they descend from two different sons born ca 1700 in VA > of another John Ellison. A has a score of 13 and C has a score of 14 (a one > step difference) on DYS 439. This mutation would necessarily have occurred > sometime between the fifth generation and their generation. Since B also has a > 13 on DYS 439 and D has a 14 on DYS 439, is it correct to assume that A and B > descend from one son i
12. Re: [DNA] DNA study report [RICE] [1]
Ann wrote: > I suppose the article > is copyrighted, but might permission be granted to copy it on your Edmund > Rice web site? We'll probably just organize the facts into a new presentation, including details that wouldn't fit into the space limits of the published article. John Chandler
13. Re: [DNA] good article on Y chromo [1]
Ann wrote: > Some have asked about how the terminology in this article (haplogroups) > relates to results from genealogical testing (haplotypes). I've tried to > explain this many times in many different ways, but I guess I'm not getting > though, so maybe somebody else could take a stab at it. I believe you really are getting through, but the constant growth of the list is bringing a constantly fresh audience. There is just one thing I'd like to add. Even though haplogroups are mostly of interest just i
14. Re: [DNA] can anyone define this? [1]
Annie wrote: > Can anyone define this statement? "This demonstrates that the unusual > pattern observed among the Jewish populations is not associated with the > geographic areas from which they (the women's mtdna) derive, but rather with > their unique demographic histories. It would appear that the founder effects > on the maternal side have been so severe that mtDNA frequencies in the > Jewish populations are very different form those found in any non-Jewish > population." > This appears in the article "
15. [DNA] administering a surname project [1]
Dear listers, I have been reading the list for a while as I ponder trying to set up and administer a surname project for people surnamed Carey/Cary and variations. I am wondering what the key/critical tasks will be as I try to set this up and administer it. Any advice for people who are starting to think about organizing a surname project? Thanks, Jay Cary Lyme, NH, USA jay.a.cary.68@alum.dartmouth.org http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jac/cmc/AT_TOC.HTM
16. Re: [DNA] DNA study report [RICE] [1]
"gcooper" wrote: > Can you tell me if the Rice DNA study will cover the Rice family in > VA. in the 1600's ? That depends on what you mean by "cover". We already have some DNA submissions from people who trace back to Virginia RICEs of that era, but not many. The results won't be conclusive unless we get a few more. If you know of some possible subjects, tell them they a great opportunity here. John Chandler
17. Re: [DNA] Two Paleolithic Y groups in Europe Before the Third/Neolithic [1]
Phil wrote: > That makes it much clearer. I presume the 60,000 is subject to change as we > expand the number of samples, but might approximate the time of the > y-chromosome Adam. Now Annie's original question makes more sense, but > rephrased as: why did all but one of the male patrilineal lines die out > between 60,000 years ago and the present, while several female matilineal > lines survive from 170,000 years ago down to the present? I presume the > answer is mainly chance, No, this is a global parame
18. Re: [DNA] Newbie with tons of questions [1]
Linda wrote: > The common ancestor is their 4X Great Grandfather per paper > documentation. But, their scores were not a perfect match. They were 2 > step mutations away from each other. > > DSY 390 Darrell had a 23 and Ralph had a 24 > DSY 439 Darrell had a 12 and Ralph had a 11 > > What does that mean? Could our paper documentation be wrong? 4th great grandfather would be 6 generations back. That's 12 transmission events in all, counting from Darrell to Ralph. 12 x 12 markers is 144 mutation opportu
19. Re: [DNA] populations of humans and bacteria [1]
Gregg wrote: > it is irrelevant HOW or WHY the > difference arises. What is important is that it does, and that it is > perpetuated. I guess I should have pointed out the obvious: cultural factors are highly mutable. Main text is still: "it's more complicated than that." > Bacteria ... The "snip" removed the important lessons on antibiotics, as well as the parentheses that made the message on-topic. We mustn't lose sight of the name of this discussion group. > ---]]]And again, the alternative is
20. [DNA] Blanchard DNA study results [1]
I would like to announce publicly yet another family DNA study. I have been working on this one since April, but have not discussed it outside of the restricted circle of interested people until now. My experience with this project is highly relevant to the recent discussions of cooperation with mailing-list owners. Let me describe how I proceeded. The first thing I did was settle on a research question that could reasonably be attacked via DNA testing. (In this study, it was the often-asserted-but-nev
21. Re: [DNA] EU study on switching forensic databases from STR to SNP [1]
Steve wrote: > The following article may be of interest. How would the Genetic genealogy > community respond to the possible change? > > European Forensics Labs to Study Viability of Large-scale SNP Analysis > > http://www.genomeweb.com/articles/view.asp?Article=200295111956 I deduce that the proposed forensic SNP analysis would be devoted to autosomal SNPs. As such, it would be useless for genealogy. Each individual could be distinguished from other individuals, but the relationships among people would
22. Re: [DNA] Blanchard DNA study results [1]
Melinde wrote: > The only thing I have a problem with is the way you chose the subject. > You did not elaborate on why you chose this surname for the Y comparison, > and I'd really like to know. There are dozens of tantalizing questions out > there, with real evidentiary bases, but this wasn't one of them. How did > you settle on this research question? If anyone here is really interested in New England Blanchard genealogy, you can visit the BLANCHARD-L web
23. Re: [DNA] Two Paleolithic Y groups in Europe Before the Third/Neolithic [1]
Phil wrote: > The following statement puzzled me. I understand that the Y chromosome is > found in nearly all mammals so must be much older than 60,000 years. Yes, that's true. However, the statement refers just to the level of diversity in the present-day human population. In other words, if you take into account the mutation rates (known or assumed) for the Y chromosome, all presently occurring samples could be explained by random mutation from a single individual about 60,000 years ago. This does NO
24. Re: [DNA] Johnston-results of upgrade to 25 marker [1]
Grant wrote: > One additional fact may be of interest to researchers. If our 24/25 match is > acceptable proof of a family relationship, we also have a proven two step > mutation at DYS 388 in 7 transmission events. It seems like that would be of > interest in establishing the true mutation rate for DYS 388. Yes, it's of interest, and not just for DYS388. The important thing is the accumulation of accurate counts of mutations vs opportunities. To get the overall average rate definitively, we probably need
25. Re: [DNA] RG's Calibration for DYS385a and b [1]
Colleen wrote: > 1) I recently received another participant's result relating to our > Fitzpatrick DNA test. The results indicate that RG has calibrated their > measurements for DSY385a and b. This new participant shows values of 11 and > 14 in these markers, respectively. How do these numbers correspond to RG's > old alphabetical system? It's a straight code: A is 10, B is 11, C is 12, etc. (It's the same code for both 385a and 385b, naturally.) > 2) As far as DYS389I and DYS389II, I understand tha
Viewing 1-25 of 698 matches from 36,014,699 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 0.659899