GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293852346


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com> <000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1> <003b01cba79b$5dbd2f00$19378d00$@dgmweb.net> <003101cba7ad$8afe1800$c2482dae@Ken1> <005701cba7ba$60e42070$22ac6150$@dgmweb.net> <006301cba7bb$82fddfb0$c2482dae@Ken1> <005901cba7ca$2913d8b0$7b3b8a10$@dgmweb.net><308BEEC4-A901-4939-B0B7-5BDBE94B7E3A@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:25:46 -0500


From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:29 AM
To: ''
Subject: RE: [DNA] The death of paragroups

I'm not talking about thousands of new SNPs in one person, I'm talking about
thousands
of recent SNPs across the entire population. None of these would have
accumulated
enough descendants to be considered more than "Private."

Apparently the consensus is that a SNP variation must appear in at least 1% of
the
population to be phylogenetically "useful," which means the SNP cannot be
recent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test
(see under Haplogroup heading)

Diana


> Why wouldn't SNPs from living people be pretty evenly divided over the
> historical timeline, rather than being bunched up in recent generations?
>
> Jim



This thread: