GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265648902


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:08:22 +0100


Dear Anatole

Yes I do think the main problem is "talking past each other" and so I
really want to thank you for not dropping this in frustration. I know
that this must be very tempting. People drop conversations in these
situations too quickly sometimes.

You find my remarks about family trees mysterious and ask me to define
what I mean. Previously I mentioned (too quickly I think, Sun, 7 Feb
2010 19:51:52 +0100) that by the family tree question I am talking of
The question of "which sub-sets share common ancestors".

So amongst all the things you have shown, the one I am questioning is,
as per your latest listing of steps in your method "(4) how to dissect a
tree to branches". And this is the step in your method I think you write
the least about.

Obviously any counting of mutations requires this step FIRST. It is
critical to everything.

You ask for an example. Maybe this is a good idea.

I am not picking an unusual group, but just one on my mind lately: we
have a P312+/L21- cluster in the Livingstone project which was not
visible until people started buying 67 marker upgrades. But once we had
those, the family is undeniable and we are even finding the paper trail
links. You can see them amongst others here:
http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/maclea%20R1b.htm

These people not only share the same surname. They also mostly trace
back to the same small region in Scotland, and they have no other close
matches except for one other surname (Ferguson) from the same region.

I think that there is no point showing marker values which are merely
the same, because obviously you can not use these to make your
phylogeny, so I'll show markers which differ in the same way for more
than one haplotype.
24-12-17-18-18-17-37-38
24-12-17-18-19-17-38-40
25-12-17-18-19-17-38-39
25-12-17-18-19-17-38-38
25-12-17-18-18-17-37-39
25-12-17-18-18-18-38-38
25-12-17-18-19-18-37-38
25-12-16-18
25-11-16-19-20-17-38-38
25-11-16-19-18-18-37-40
25-11-17-19-19-18-38-39
25-11-17-19-19-17-38-38
25-12-17-19-19-18-37-38
26-12-17-19-18-17-37-38

Now, when you remove the irrelevant markers, to me this real example
looks very much like the example of Ken's which you criticized as a case
of changing the subject by giving a sample which showed no obvious
structure? Here was Ken's example:-

>> (4) 10 10 10 10
>> (1) 10 10 9 10
>> (2) 10 11 10 10
>> (1) 10 9 11 9
>> (2) 10 9 10 9

In my example above, which mutation happened first and is more
ancestral, on the following "slow moving markers":-
*The 11 or 12 on the second marker?
*The 16 or 17 on the third marker?
*The 18 or 19 on the fourth marker?

I'd say there has either been back mutations, or else the same mutation
happened twice in parallel, or else one of the minority (non modal) values
is actually ancestral? And this is on slow markers.

As you can see, there are numerous possibilities. I understand that what
you objected to in Ken's example is that there were numerous
possibilities, I am claiming that this is normal in nearly every significant
data set I can remember seeing. Whenever someone finds a really clear
clade (sub-group with common ancestry) based on STRs it is normally one
which also has an SNP to define it, or else it makes big news on forums
like this one. If most data sets had obvious branching, the whole field
would be completely different?

Best Regards
Andrew


This thread: