GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1128050674
From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:24:34 -0300
I sincerely believe that there are professionals in this field that are
very bright, admirably informed and well intentioned. Even so I took
the position, and advised participants on this, that this is a young area
of study with a lot yet to be learned. Thus, while some of the experts
are firm on their views, I am sure that some will be proven to be
off in some aspects. The reason being is that scholars 1) like all
humans have preconceived notions that may affect their judgment
and 2) tend to make future decisions relating to studies based on
past findings that may not get evaluated again. You also see this in
the historical field where in the 1800s a lot of things were taken
as proven thanks to the scientific advances of the day. Yet here
we are today with more scientific advances (carbon dating, DNA,
etc.) that is changing old views. Imagine what 100 more years
of advances will do.
In terms of 23/25 matches I certainly wouldn't cast this out.
You have a common ancestor with two branches with one
mutation in each. They are only one mutation from the ancestor
but could be two from each other. If there were two mutations in
each branch then they could be four mutations apart. Still possibly
closely related. Then it is a matter of time frame. Here we get
into the realm of mutation rates. What is reasonable? Well there
are some great statisticians here who can calculate this. However,
as I noted as number 2) above these mutations rates were initially
based on one study. Others add their fudge factor to help get closer
to their number 1) above. In the end we will have to wait for more
broader based studies before one can really be firm on this. This
is part of the newness factor.
Thus, I keep an open mind. We have one large group in the Kincaid
project who are all reasonably close to each other. They are grouped
together because when you check their DNA matches almost all of the
close matches are the other Kincaids in the group. Some could be eight
mutations away from each other. However, they are only four from a
common point. Is four mutations from a common ancestor possible? I think
so in our case as there is about 700 years of family history and most of the
mutations are on the more volatile markers (DYS 464 and especially CDY).
To me the Fluxus software is great for finding the common point
of origin and as a visual check on how close one is or is not related.
Until the scientific numbers are beyond question I would not make
someone unrelated if they have a solid paper trail and they are
closer to each other than any other. My advise is to plot the results out
with software like Fluxus and let this guide you in terms of relatedness.
I know some on this list have their own strong views on this. However,
time will eventually provide the more correct answer.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1
> Bill and Peter,
> Your last couple of messages brings me the novice but a member of a good
> surname genealogy group for my maternal line to a couple of questions and
> some concern on results. I need some help now with interpertation of
> for 25 and 37 marker results for 4 Y tested males which includes one SNP
> that came out R1b just like the "estimated" did for them. For two of these
> males, a known common male ancestor born in 1801 exists and then two sons
> of that
> male had separate branched lines in which two of todays males.. one in
> of those lines were tested at 25 markers. Our novice dna group and
> paper genealogy group was surprised that we saw only a 23 of 25 match in
> comparison of those two. What does this suggest to you or others on the
> The 3rd male tested is in a known genealogical branch to a common known
> ancestor born in 1761. He also had a 23/25 comparison to the others but we
> the varying values at different DYS ID's. These are all posted at ysearch.
> last male matched perfectly to one of the others.. the 3rd one who has
> branching away in 1761. This last one shows his ancestry genealogically
> to Scotland in 1700's. The other 3 are dead-ended in genealogical research
> the 1761 date not knowing country of our Stephens immigrant after years of
> document searching online and on site at local courthouses and libraries
> etc...and at Archives. Some documents were burned in Civil War etc.. and
> some may not
> exist that would prove earlier lineage. So presto we deceded to use the
> route to try to find out our earlier ancestry location. Family tradition
> says we
> are Scots-Irish as does one of the males genealogy we match to but with
> rock solid documentation (in fact not well enough documentation). Other
> research seems to point pretty strongly to England or Wales etc..
> Thus our research group is looking for a dna route now or in the future
> that may help us at least know more than we are likely from Western Europe
> We hear that R1b subclade tests may not so far in the future may be
> and we are hopeful of that and that they will provide more useful inf that
> just R1b designation does.
> P.S. I should have used a better word than "bogus" in the earlier message
> sent maybe like "incorrect" instead.
> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
|Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results by "Peter A. Kincaid" <>|