GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-07 > 1120267040


From: "Lowe DNA" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:17:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <00d701c57e9d$6ba5a430$c4ca2f50@Masterbedroom>


Gareth...

Only if the the haplogroup has been SNP verified....

If we have two men with different haplogroups guesstimated by
an algorithm, and they are very close on genetic distance, I would
want to request each to take the SNP test.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: gareth.henson [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH


John

genealogical applications of SNP testing:

If two men are verified as being in different haplogroups they cannot be
related in a traditional genealogical timescale. There is no need to
calculate genetic distance, argue about mutation rates for fast and slow
markers etc etc.

If two men are verified as being in the same haplogroup then you will have
an idea of whether a match at a particular marker is significant or is just
the modal value for the whole haplogroup.

If you are a project admin presenting results for a large number of
different family lines, haplogroups give you a ready-made means of
organising the data in a way which anyone familiar with another project can
relate to. I have seen lots of projects which do this (mostly on estimated
groups I assume), testing just adds a little more robustness to the
analysis.


Gareth


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH


> David wrote:
> > I beg to differ
> > with you and most vehemently at that.
>
> You are welcome to differ, but I must ask why. You wrote a whole
> paragraph of what should have been an explanation of why you differ,
> but you did not get around to citing any genealogical applications of
> haplogroups therein. Ok, so you are R1b1c (along with maybe 100
> million others, probably including me). That might have been
> genealogically useful 10,000 years ago, but how does it help us now?
>
> John Chandler



==============================
Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx




This thread: