Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA Results from Asturias

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    Drivel? "Lurker" is a term used to describe someone who's a member of an online forum who reads the postings and rarely, if ever, participates in discussions. It's not a perjorative term and some lurkers describe themselves as such. I think that's a fair description of your level of participation in the Yahoogroup.

    I certainly welcome you to post there at any time you want, although we disagree on important issues. In fact, you do post from time to time about your personal interest in the age of your subclade, but rarely, given the large number of posts in that Yahoogroup. And you're entitled as a Yahoogroup member to have access to the Big Y results of almost 240 R1b-U106 Project members, which you've obviously taken advantage of.
    One of the reasons that I left the U106 project is that the project was too big and it si better

    So, I don't see what you have to complain about. Some people just don't play well with others!
    I read the posts written by Dr. McDonald. When I discovered that I had two new SNPs I posted them on the forum. I did look at the Big-Y results for the Z156 testers that have the same downstream SNP as I have. Those are the only U106 people that I am interested in. The rest of them are really none of my business.
    I left the project because it was too big and it was better for me to be in a smaller project which is focused on my terminal SNP.
    Last edited by 1798; 21 October 2014, 12:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    This is why I left the U106 project. This is the kind of drivel that one gets from certain project admins. I am in a project now that has a decent administrator. Any tests that I have taken I have shared that info with the project admin and he has shared their results with me.
    Drivel? "Lurker" is a term used to describe someone who's a member of an online forum who reads the postings and rarely, if ever, participates in discussions. It's not a perjorative term and some lurkers describe themselves as such. I think that's a fair description of your level of participation in the Yahoogroup.

    I certainly welcome you to post there at any time you want, although we disagree on important issues. In fact, you do post from time to time about your personal interest in the age of your subclade, but rarely, given the large number of posts in that Yahoogroup. And you're entitled as a Yahoogroup member to have access to the Big Y results of almost 240 R1b-U106 Project members, which you've obviously taken advantage of.

    So, I don't see what you have to complain about. Some people just don't play well with others!
    Last edited by MMaddi; 21 October 2014, 11:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    1798 lurks in our Yahoogroup for the R1b-U106 Project. He used to be a project member, but withdrew a couple of years ago due to his (in my view) excessive concern about privacy.

    After they've given their permission, we've uploaded and analyzed the Big Y results for about 240 project members to the Yahoogroup files section. We look for shared singletons that would define a new subclade.

    So, 1798 is referring to looking at the Big Y results for project members in his subclade. As he posted above me, he hasn't tested Big Y himself.
    This is why I left the U106 project. This is the kind of drivel that one gets from certain project admins. I am in a project now that has a decent administrator. Any tests that I have taken I have shared that info with the project admin and he has shared their results with me.
    Last edited by 1798; 21 October 2014, 02:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Subwoofer
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    1798 lurks in our Yahoogroup for the R1b-U106 Project. He used to be a project member, but withdrew a couple of years ago due to his (in my view) excessive concern about privacy.

    After they've given their permission, we've uploaded and analyzed the Big Y results for about 240 project members to the Yahoogroup files section. We look for shared singletons that would define a new subclade.

    So, 1798 is referring to looking at the Big Y results for project members in his subclade. As he posted above me, he hasn't tested Big Y himself.
    Why aren't I surprised !!

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Subwoofer View Post
    27, you must have had coverage for a fair amount of these surely ???

    Just look it up in your RAW data, it's easy enough : )
    1798 lurks in our Yahoogroup for the R1b-U106 Project. He used to be a project member, but withdrew a couple of years ago due to his (in my view) excessive concern about privacy.

    After they've given their permission, we've uploaded and analyzed the Big Y results for about 240 project members to the Yahoogroup files section. We look for shared singletons that would define a new subclade.

    So, 1798 is referring to looking at the Big Y results for project members in his subclade. As he posted above me, he hasn't tested Big Y himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by Subwoofer View Post
    27, you must have had coverage for a fair amount of these surely ???

    Just look it up in your RAW data, it's easy enough : )
    I didn't do the Big-Y test.

    Leave a comment:


  • Subwoofer
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Some members of the group that I am in have 27 SNPs in common downstream of Z156 from the Big-Y. I will have to test for these to find out how many of them I have in common. There is a good chance that I may not have a lot of them but there isn't any other way to find out. The rest of their SNPs are singletons specific to them.
    27, you must have had coverage for a fair amount of these surely ???

    Just look it up in your RAW data, it's easy enough : )

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    For a change, I agree 100% with what you've written. However, FTDNA is a business and is looking to streamline expenses and make a profit.

    I hope that they can balance that with serving the needs of their loyal customers. So, we'll see how many deep clade tests they'll offer that go down to the currently known most downstream SNPs for each subclade.
    Some members of the group that I am in have 27 SNPs in common downstream of Z156 from the Big-Y. I will have to test for these to find out how many of them I have in common. There is a good chance that I may not have a lot of them but there isn't any other way to find out. The rest of their SNPs are singletons specific to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    If they don't provide tests at the right money then the customer will go to one that does. They also need to make it known how important YSNP tests are. Two R1b men can be close in haplotype but still not be related within a genealogical time frame.
    For a change, I agree 100% with what you've written. However, FTDNA is a business and is looking to streamline expenses and make a profit.

    I hope that they can balance that with serving the needs of their loyal customers. So, we'll see how many deep clade tests they'll offer that go down to the currently known most downstream SNPs for each subclade.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    It's true that smaller projects will get better coverage out of any deep clade test that FTDNA offers for the specific subclade of the project. However, FTDNA will probably only develop deep clade tests where they think they'll be enough testers for it to be efficient for batching and testing and also profitable for them.

    It's possible that FTDNA may decline to develop and offer a deep clade test for a subclade that's too small for it to be worth their while. Also, there is some work needed by the project administrators to submit a proposed deep clade test to FTDNA. If the admins of a small subclade project don't put in the work, there probably won't be a deep clade test for that subclade.



    Regarding the admins knowing the subgroup of all the project members, see my post (#70) on the previous page at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...7&postcount=70.

    As I posted there, about 30% of the R1b-U106 Project members have not done enough SNP testing to identify which branch or sub-branch of U106 they're on. For those who've tested L48+ (from the old deep clade test), we know that they're somewhere on that branch; L48 and its subclades is about half of U106. If they've only tested U106+ or haven't had a SNP test yet, we can't know what's their branch of U106.

    We have varying degrees of "knowing" which branch a project member is on. It depends on how much SNP testing they've already done. For a significant number of project members, the new deep clade test will be their best bet to establish a fairly deep downstream subclade for themselves. If they don't anticipate spending the money for Big Y, they should order the deep clade test once it's offered.
    If they don't provide tests at the right money then the customer will go to one that does. They also need to make it known how important YSNP tests are. Two R1b men can be close in haplotype but still not be related within a genealogical time frame.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    No way that the name Łopieński is derived from a Scottish name. Family name Bruski is highly unlikely to be such, too.
    If the SNP originated in Scotland 4000-5000 years ago then it was a long time before surnames so names are meaning-less.

    Leave a comment:


  • dna
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    In 1621 there were 30,000 Scots living in Poland. Some of them that moved there may have belonged to U106.
    This is of topic.
    No way that the name Łopieński is derived from a Scottish name. Family name Bruski is highly unlikely to be such, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I thought that it would apply to all projects.The smaller projects will benefit more.
    It's true that smaller projects will get better coverage out of any deep clade test that FTDNA offers for the specific subclade of the project. However, FTDNA will probably only develop deep clade tests where they think they'll be enough testers for it to be efficient for batching and testing and also profitable for them.

    It's possible that FTDNA may decline to develop and offer a deep clade test for a subclade that's too small for it to be worth their while. Also, there is some work needed by the project administrators to submit a proposed deep clade test to FTDNA. If the admins of a small subclade project don't put in the work, there probably won't be a deep clade test for that subclade.

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The admins of the projects should have a good idea which subgroup a tester belongs to.
    Regarding the admins knowing the subgroup of all the project members, see my post (#70) on the previous page at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...7&postcount=70.

    As I posted there, about 30% of the R1b-U106 Project members have not done enough SNP testing to identify which branch or sub-branch of U106 they're on. For those who've tested L48+ (from the old deep clade test), we know that they're somewhere on that branch; L48 and its subclades is about half of U106. If they've only tested U106+ or haven't had a SNP test yet, we can't know what's their branch of U106.

    We have varying degrees of "knowing" which branch a project member is on. It depends on how much SNP testing they've already done. For a significant number of project members, the new deep clade test will be their best bet to establish a fairly deep downstream subclade for themselves. If they don't anticipate spending the money for Big Y, they should order the deep clade test once it's offered.
    Last edited by MMaddi; 19 October 2014, 12:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    In 1621 there were 30,000 Scots living in Poland. Some of them that moved there may have belonged to U106.
    This is of topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
    Chuckle.

    Łopieński is a characteristically Slavic surname. The Slavic expansion has nothing to do with the Mesolithic, in Serbia or anywhere else.

    Bruski is also Slavic or perhaps Slavicized German, but certainly not Scottish.

    Łopieński has no near-matches at all (on his Y-DNA Matches page) beyond the meaningless 25-marker level.

    At 67 markers, Bruski has two distance-5 near-matches with the (characteristically Slavic) Kimenkowski ancestral surname. At distance 6, he matches a Stuart--but that man has already tested L21+ and is hence a coincidental convergence.
    When I entered their IDs at ysearch both showed that they are closer in haplotype and SNP to the Isles, which suggests that this is the place of origin. This is the search that I did for both.
    Show users that tested at least 67 of the markers that I did.
    maximum genetic distance of 1 per marker compared above 37 markers.
    Limit search by Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a1a

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X