GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-07 > 1215689739


From: Nelda Percival <>
Subject: [DNA] Anatole - calibrating for common ancestor - QUESTION?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:35:39 -0500
References: <mailman.84002.1215587580.8264.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><001301c8e253$3cd6c450$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak>
In-Reply-To: <001301c8e253$3cd6c450$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak>


Anatole,
Maybe I'm hard headed or I'm misunderstanding the verbage used.

Your "Therefore, a group of, say, 100 of his descendants nowadays, > say, 1000 years after a lifetime of their common ancestor, will still have > 38 haplotypes exactly the same as one of their common ancestor."

My: What do you mean here by the word haplotypes? My understanding (Granted I'm not a genetists) is that this word's only meaning was to indicate the result of a test. So are you saying 38 men will match the haplotype of the common ancestor? and the rest will be off by how ever many? Or are you saying that there will be as many as 38 matching results amoung the 100 men tested. 100 men times 12 markers = 1200 markers, divided between the 1200 markers thats a lot of mutations isn't it? or not very many matches.

YOUR: "I repeat, after 1000 years 38% of haplotypes in a set will be the ancestral haplotype. Of course it can be not exatly 38%, but in this ballpark. And only in a case if the ancestor was only one for the given set of haplotypes. Often there were a whole bunch of them.

MY: I'm truly not understanding this: And only in a case if the ancestor was only one for the given set of haplotypes. Often there were a whole bunch of them." HUH? How can there be a whole bunch of them. By them you mean different ancestors? A group of related males can only have one comon ancestor to a group, unless you mean the next comon ancestor above the first common ancestor? Then I guess, to be totally correct you could have a bunch of them.
Example:
John, Thomas, Donald and William's father is Thomas 1 his father is William and his father is Walter. Thomas 1 and William and WAlter would all be common ancestors to John, Thomas, Donald, and William. So is that what you mean by bunch?

NOW, back to my problem.
YOUR: "In this case you should look for a haplotype which has > a minimum number of mutations in the haplotype set, compared with other > haplotypes. One can call it "minimization of mutations" procedure. You > "deduce" the ancestral haplotype, counting mutations and minimizing them > with respect to an "imaginary" ancestral haplotype.> > Sometimes it helps. Actually, it always helps."

MY: G1's name is John his haplotype at 37 markers is:
DYS393=12,DYS390=24,DYS19a=14,DYS391=11,DYS385a=11,DYS385b=14,DYS426=12,DYS388=12,
DYS439=12,DYS389-1=13,DYS392=13,DYS389-2=29,DYS458=16, DYS459a=8,DYS459b=10,
DYS455=11,DYS454=11,DYS447=25,DYS437=15,DYS448=19,DYS449=31,DYS464a=15, DYS464b=15,DYS464c=16,DYS464D=17, DYS460=11, H4=12,YCAIIa=19,YCAIIb=23,DYS456=15,
DYS607=16,DYS576=17,DYS570=17,CDYa=34,CDYb=35,DYS442=12,DYS438=12.

Writing all this seems such a waste of time when you can see it all in a nice chart, spaced out where every marker is comparable to the next. Would you...PLEASE go look at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/comparisons.htm

ok hoping your looking at the chart...
if you take G1,G2,G3,G5,G6 being they are all R's we know there is a common ancestor, but because there is a difference in the clades beneth the haplogroup R, we know that relationship is before the use of surnames or non-related for genelogical purposes. (is that better Ken?).

Now you can group the R1b1b2's but there is only 4 and these have different surnames, so again probably related, but before the use of surnames but that needs to be checked out... Right?

So tell me again how you count your mutations? How do I know what is a mutation and what is not? Please be specific - Remember Hard headed here...

now that you have been so kind as to show me the time difference to the common ancestor.

What would his haplotype be.

something like: G2's or??

Hopefully with this explicid detailing of what your saying I'll understand.

Thank you
Friendly Regards
Nelda


http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg
http://freepages.folklore.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> From: > To: > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:07:30 -0400> CC: > Subject: Re: [DNA] calibrating for common ancestor - QUESTION?> > Nelda Percival wrote:> > >Now to your formula... ln(40/23)/0.024 = 23 generations to a common > >ancestor, that is 23x25 = 575> I don't do math.. Sooooo need explaination are you saying 40 times 23 and > that total times 0.024?> > My response:> > Not exactly :-) But close :-)> > Actually, there are three steps here. (1) I divided 40 by 23 (=1.739), then > (2) took a natural logarithm of the ratio (which happened to be 0.553), and > (3) divided by 0.024, which gave 23.06. Then I rounded it up to 23.> > >You are using 25 as the years of generations so now 23 times 25= 575. Ok > >but I use 30 years as the time between generations.> > No, you cannot use 30 years here. My mutation rates are calibrated with 25 > years for generation, it is given. You cannot change it.> > >What I really wanted to know was how to caculate the haplotype of their > >common ancestor... How often is a Haplotype caculated and when? Does it > >ever get changed?> > O.K., it is rather simple. If a common ancestor had a haplotype, say, > 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12, then this haplotype will stay for a > loooooong time in Y-chromosomes of his descendants. Statistically, every one > mutation will appear in this kind of haplotypes (12-marker haplotypes) once > in 1100 years. Therefore, a group of, say, 100 of his descendants nowadays, > say, 1000 years after a lifetime of their common ancestor, will still have > 38 haplotypes exactly the same as one of their common ancestor.> > In other words, find a haplotype which exists in many identical copies in > your haplotype set, and it will be the ancestral haplotype. I repeat, after > 1000 years 38% of haplotypes in a set will be the ancestral haplotype. Of > course it can be not exatly 38%, but in this ballpark. And only in a case if > the ancestor was only one for the given set of haplotypes. Often there were > a whole bunch of them.> > After about 5000 years only one (approximately) haplotype will be the > ancestral one among 100 of 12-marker haplotypes. So, you will have a hard > time to identify it. In this case you should look for a haplotype which has > a minimum number of mutations in the haplotype set, compared with other > haplotypes. One can call it "minimization of mutations" procedure. You > "deduce" the ancestral haplotype, counting mutations and minimizing them > with respect to an "imaginary" ancestral haplotype.> > Sometimes it helps. Actually, it always helps.> > >

This thread: