GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211054542


From: Larry Vick <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer fromAncestorsMagazine
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT)


Peter,
I did not speak to your experience.  I commented based upon my experience in the VICK project.   Our haplogroup Q1 participants' results, as well as the results for other VICK clans (haplogroups), can be found at the following link along with our pedigrees.
http://worldfamilies.net/surnames/v/vick/results.html
In our project we use our Y-DNA results to compare to the traditional genealogical research done by the authors of "Joseph Vick of Lower Parish, Isle of Wight County, Virginia and His Descendants."  Joseph1 first appears in the Virginia records in the 1670s.  We have a lot of great traditional research that we are checking to see if our Y-DNA results support.  Joseph was the first VICK to show up in records in Virginia.  There is no evidence of his father being in the colonies, or that he had any brothers, uncles or other close relatives here.  Let me know where you believe the 12-marker Q1 results have fallen apart at more than 12-markers.  I am very interested in learning any weaknesses in our coupling of Y-DNA results with our traditional research.  If you compare the pedigrees to the results you will see how mutations in markers like DYS452, DYS436, and GATA-A10 track with the participants' pedigrees.
 
The 12-marker test has also supported the authors' conclusions that some VICKs believed to be patrilineal descendants of Joseph1 are not his patrilineal descendants.  As it turns out these men are in haplogroup R1b1b2.  Likewise the 12-marker test has ruled out a claim that another VICK that tested is descended from an English recent common patrilineal ancestor of Joseph1’s.  This man is also haplogroup R1b1b2 (although he has a large genetic difference with other VICK R1b1b2’s in our project).
 
Again, I would not say that FTDNA is selling a 12-marker test that is "pretty useless."  I started with 12-markers.  I was quite happy with the results, and I was quite happy to upgrade (as have been others in our project - including those that have found Y-DNA results don't match their pedigrees).
 
Regards,
 
Larry
 
James Larry10, James Ralph9, Robert Emory8, Edward Elmo7, Jacob Mercer6, Stephen5, Jacob4, ?Isaac3, William2, Joseph1
 
YCC2008 Y-DNA Haplogroup Q1b (P36.2+; M378+)
Full Sequence mtDNA Haplogroup H2a2
 
Ysearch & mitosearch: XXGV9
Ymatch: jlvick
Facebook: James Larry Vick
 
Guild of One-Name Studies Member 4679
http://www.one-name.org/profiles/vick.html


----- Original Message ----
From: Peter A. Kincaid <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:42:35 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer from AncestorsMagazine

Well I doubt it if you had the experience that most
other group project managers have had.  Many
in our project match at 12, and 25 markers and it
is only after 37 markers that some of these expand
out to reveal the different lines.  How can you say
that you identified those descended from an immigrant
ancestor (the term implies a person who immigrated
to the New World in the last 400 years) with 12
markers?  Have you expanded all of them out to
show they remain close?  We have had distinctly
different immigrant lines only one or two mutations
apart after 67 markers.  One can not say whether
the ancestor for these two lines was their father or
a gag grandfather.

Further selective testing of a couple of markers does
not give you any further conclusive result because
you are projecting your preconceived notions on the
results.  The ones you passed over could reveal
mutations marking new distinct lines you were not
previously aware of.

I found 12 markers of no help in recruiting.  If someone
comes on board at 12 they are not likely to expand
further because cost was the issue.  So you end up
with tease results which, in a number of cases in our
project, others will have to pay to upgrade to get any
value from.  I can see the benefit to ETNA but I
stand stand by my notion that 12 marker tests are a
complete waste for genealogical purposes.  There is
just too much of a risk of false positives.

Peter

P.S. Remember that genealogical value is, for the
most part, different from anthropological value.




This thread: