GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268715599


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA.
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:59:59 +1300
References: <270548.86246.qm@web111316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,<SNT115-W100A5F4E30C0231B9E890ACC2E0@phx.gbl>,<016301cac3e3$fe0b33e0$5e82af48@Ken1><SNT115-W196CFB24CCDD653D7C3D50CC2E0@phx.gbl> <01ba01cac3fb$87b368d0$5e82af48@Ken1><01d101cac3ff$6a024190$5e82af48@Ken1><4B9F064E.5070206@san.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B9F064E.5070206@san.rr.com>


Al,

Scary thought, but..... what will we all be doing when we all have full
genome sequences, and know everything we ever needed to know about our
genetic history.......

Perhaps someone will need to arrange counseling for dysfunctional obsessed
genetic genealogists who no longer have the satisfaction of impossible
questions to solve.

I guess in reality we will never get to the end of the rainbow. Even when
the technology is available to theoretically construct a full tree of the
human family from the year dot to the present, we will still be trying to
get that last stubborn survivor of such and such Y-DNA line to open his
mouth and get swabbed. (Unless the Governments insist on publishing the
full genome of every citizen in a microdot next to their name on the
electoral roll.)

And we will still probably be arguing about when R1b arrived in Europe, and
from where, because some will say the archaeological DNA is deteriorated,
and contaminated, and unreliable.

The argument of how clades are defined will of course be still filling up
the Genealogy-DNA list, so the list will not die. And those who do not
follow the threads on definitions of clades will be complaining about those
who are involved in the thread, so life will pretty much go on as normal.
Human nature will surely rescue us from the boredom of knowing everything.

John.



-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Al Aburto
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA

What does this mean for the future, say, when we'll have the whole
Y-chromosome sequenced at reasonable cost?
Will Y-STRs be out?
Instead of a 67 Y-STR set will FTDNA offer a detailed "Y-SNP" set (like
we get for the mtDNA FGS, but much, much more)?
Al

> On 3/14/2010 10:21 PM, Ken Nordtvedt [responding to Steven Bird] wrote:
>> [[ For purposes of the Y tree we are only interested in the mutations at
>> base pairs on the y chromosome. I'll take 25 million base pairs in the y
>> as
>> the practical region.
>>
>> 67 million males were born last year. EACH base pair on the y has your
>> one in a
>> billion chance of mutating. So EACH base pair had a .067 chance of
>> mutating
>> last year. So EACH base pair had a chance of approximately ONE to mutate
>> over about 16 years. That's half a generation --- so in half a
generation
>> EACH and every practical snp site on the y chromosome has on average
>> mutated
>> once. I still don't know why you are bringing the 3 billion base pairs
of
>> the whole genome into the picture. The snps used for the male y tree are
>> only from the y chromosome. Ken ]]
>>


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: