GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118291884


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Participation in Genographic Project (Inconsistencies)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:38:04 EDT



Yes, David, I went back to explore and the interesting thing is that there
is little to explore. I did find that I was still logged in on my return to
the website.

I will hold out hope that as they get more and more participants and begin
to learn more by piecing together all the results with the Ancestor origins,
they will let us know if we have matches and what those matches might tell us.
The only ray of hope is this paragraph:

"Your haplogroup's story may evolve as the Genographic Project collects
thousands of DNA samples during the next few years. When it does, tantalizing new
chapters will be added to this Web site and your information will be
updated."

Julia


In a message dated 6/8/2005 11:31:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

An odd paradox isn't it Julia. For R1b and G2 they go back upstream and
call everyone by the ancestral marker from many thousands of years ago; but for
R1a they are making the correct and current call that is well downstream but
entirely consistent with the data.

I wonder if all haplogroup I will be M170 - whats your bet - or I suspect
someone has the answer. How much can we learn about migrations if everyone is
designated as I* when the haplotypes are generally robust enough to tell us
if they are I1a, I2 or I1b. I simply don't understand their rationale, nor
the routes of say R1a shown on the maps (they simply don't correspond with what
is found in the literature). For example R1a is found as the majority
haplogroup in parts of Central Asia and Pakistan but apparently dead ends above
the Caspian Sea.

Perhaps this will all be explained to us and the maps will be amended to
reflect a route that takes into consideration of the work of other authors.

David F.






This thread: