Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > Paternal Lineages (Y-DNA) > Y-DNA Haplogroups & SNPs Advanced

Y-DNA Haplogroups & SNPs Advanced Users can talk about SNP based tests such as single SNP testing by Sanger sequencing, Geno 2.0 chip based testing, and next-generation sequencing tests like BIG Y.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12th June 2013, 10:20 AM
rippleish20 rippleish20 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
Y-DNA Haplogroups - common paternal ancestor

My Surname group administrator keeps issuing statements like this - "A male Haplogroup I1 and a male Haplogroup T can not, will not and do not share a common paternal ancestor! ". My understanding of how the the Haplogroup tree works says this statement is inherently incorrect. According to current theory, all living humans ultimately share a common paternal ancestor; the males in two different haplogroups share at least this "Y-chromosomal Adam" and probably a paternal ancestor further down the tree, depending on the haplogroups. I tried to discuss this on our email list, but was basically told to stop rehashing the subject (because he was right and I was wrong). I believe I am in the right and would like others to confirm this. I can, however, accept that I could be wrong, but if I am, I would like to know why...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12th June 2013, 10:56 PM
Javelin Javelin is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by rippleish20 View Post
"A male Haplogroup I1 and a male Haplogroup T can not, will not and do not share a common paternal ancestor in historical times! "
Now it's correct.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13th June 2013, 09:40 AM
rippleish20 rippleish20 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javelin View Post
Now it's correct.
Thank you, but I'm actually looking for others to confirm that the specific comment is incorrect. I understand that the connection between people in different haplogroups would be far back enough such that there is no practical connection between males with a common surname, for genealogical purposes. The problem is that this is not what this person has (repeatedly) said. He insists that there is no common ancestor period...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14th June 2013, 07:12 AM
Jim Barrett Jim Barrett is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Timpson, TX
Posts: 1,932
Since I'm the admin you are quoting I'll point out that the statement was made when two groups were claiming the same 1700/1800 ancestor.

Would you be happier if I added something like "within the last 10,000 years" to my comment?

Yes, the specific comment is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14th June 2013, 09:11 PM
Donald Locke Donald Locke is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 347
While I do not know the exact specific's.
It sounds as if it is being described that 2 lineages of the same surname are making claim to the same common male ancestor, but both groups are in different Haplo Groups?

If that is the case, that 2 distinct family's whom are clearly not related with in the time frame of the use of surnames are claiming the same common male ancestor, then someone needs to re-evaluate their paper trail.

"If" both lineages can prove their trees back to the same common male ancestor, then there must be a case of an NPE, Non Paternal Event in one of those trees.

But I have to side with Jim on this one, there can be no biological kinship because the 2 family's are in totally different Y Haplo Groups.
No disrespect rippleish20, but it seems you are not understanding the Y DNA results and can not accept that the 2 lineages of that surname simply can not be related with in the time frame of the use of surnames.

Unless there can be a provable NPE in either of the 2 trees in question, then I must presume someone has connected to the wrong tree, which is I find most often the case, that someone has made a mistake in the paper trail connection which is now causing you and others some confusion.

This is the whole point of Y DNA, to use Y DNA evidence in combination with the paper records to reconfirm the paper trail connections we have in our trees.

I have seen this exact same thing happen, 3 DNA participants claiming the same common male ancestor, and all 3 participants were not a genetic match to each other! Who is right, who is wrong isn't for me to say, but what I will say that every DNA participant should focus his or her research on his or her direct lineage first, to paper trail document your own direct lineage to the best of your ability so YOU know what is true and factual, and what is pure speculation.

9 times out of 10, I find the reasons for mismatches is a direct result of poor genealogical research. NPE is also a possibility, but if there is a case of NPE it needs to be proven and documented before it can be accepted as a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15th June 2013, 07:42 AM
Jim Barrett Jim Barrett is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Timpson, TX
Posts: 1,932
You hit the nail on the head!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.