GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1055270415


From: Philip Ritter <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplotype/Haplogroup surve
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:40:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <OFE0605055.DAC2EE22-ON85256D41.004F00F8-85256D41.005006E6@downstate.edu>


At 10:27 AM 6/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Alan wrote:
> >M170 then develops 5 subclades, M72, M26, M223, M21 and M161. Am I wrong
>in
>thinking that 6000 years is rather too short a time for so many UEPs to
>take
>place ?
>
>Alan you raise a good point here and I don't have an answer, anyone?
>
>
>==============================
>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
>go to:
>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

I'm not sure I have an answer, but I raised a related issue back in
February when I asked "If I am understanding this correctly, one possible
problem with trying to link SNP's to specific family genealogies is that
SNP's mutations may not be common enough for distinguishing specific family
lines....Or am I wrong and theoretically we could keep finding more and
more-recent SNP mutations that would make finer and finer distinctions? "

John Chandler responded,
"Don't forget there are billions of base pairs,
and most of them are junk DNA. There are sure to be plenty of suitable
SNPs. The problem is identifying them and figuring out what group has
the mutation and so on.
> Or am I wrong and theoretically we could keep finding more
> and more-recent SNP mutations that would make finer and finer
> distinctions?
Theoretically, yes, but there are practical limits. The more recent
the mutation, the fewer people would have it and the less likely you
are to realize it even exists."

This suggests that finding five separate mutations within the I (M170)
haplogroup may be saying more about how diligent or lucky the researchers
were in finding the UEP's than about how old the I (M170) haplogroup might
be.

This thread: