GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-11 > 1133210378
From: charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] YSNP testing, hobby scientist forces, convergence, andback mutation issues -- to YSNP or not to YSNP
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:39:38 -0500
References: <IGEOKAGLHNEKPCKPADIGCEHBKOAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <438B6294.email@example.com>
All on this YSNP thread:
In furtherance to the resolving power issue and traditional genealogy
merits of YSNP testing, here is what Dr. Butler of the NIST,
Gaithersburg MD, USA, has to say about YSNP markers and tests in one of
his scientific papers in regards to paternal lineage determination using
"Biallelic markers, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
.......... provide a low-resolution view of a paternal lineage much like
a satellite picture of a continent instead of an image taken by a
low-flying aircraft that is capable of picking up higher resolution
See page 100, right column, "A. Available Markers" of this report for
the source details and the full paragraph I "partially snipped":-) and I
am quoting from above. In regards to YSNP markers, and YSTR markers,
while this paper is a bit old in this fast moving field as to the list
of available YSNP and YSTR markers, this is a good paper to read to get
a better grasp of the differences between YSNP and YSTR markers and
As you know I like analogies too. :-)
Charles Kerchner, P.E.
> John Chandlers salient advice you refer to applies even more so with YSNPs.
> With the current resolution of YSNP testing, and for the foreseeable
> future in my opinion, YSNPs can only be used to prove who is NOT related
> to and cannot be used to prove any genealogically recent kinship (the
> last 500-1000 years) whatsoever for a genetic genealogy surname project.
> People who share the same "haplogroup" and YSNP test results at this
> point are typically in a group of people shared by many millions.
> High resolution genetic genealogy YSTR tests, 37/43 markers, and other
> traditional genealogy evidence are needed to prove kinship in a
> traditional genealogy sense. I know that and I think most people who
> have run a surname project for the last few years know that too.
> Right now its plain and simple. If you want to learn about your "Deep
> Ancestry / Anthrogenealogy" take a Y-SNP test. If you want to learn much
> greater details about your recent traditional genealogy kinship, take a
> 37/43 marker Y-STR test and combine it with your traditional evidence in
> a surname project.
> The differences in the uses of these two tests are like apples and
> oranges because the two tests are as different as apples and oranges,
> both scientifically and in resolving power.
> Newbies need to be told the differences and what information is gleaned
> from each type of test and who is benefiting the most by taking such
> tests. With full disclosure of these test purposes to newbies and
> surname project participants, I am all for more Y-SNP test to further
> our scientific knowledge. I even started a Y-SNP database to put the
> results in:
> But we don't want to confuse newbies and have them think that a Y-SNP
> test can definitely prove kinship, either. It cannot. And it is even
> less effective at that than any typical modern YSTR test is.
> Charles Kerchner
> Lowe DNA wrote:
>> I always remember John Chandler's salient advice to me... STRS can NOT
>> determine kinship, however the can determine who is NOT related.