Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family History cost.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    A lot of people in R1b-U106 with a 23 at dys 390 and 13 at dys 492 are
    R1b-L48.
    Those are the results that I have dys 390/23 and dys 492/13.

    I never took the deep clade when it was available. As I am adopted, I was more interested in matches than deeper genealogy. I found it less interesting to know about my ancestors than to know the identity of my ancestors. So now I know neither. But I am still hopeful.

    As a side note, I have tested to Y67 with the following results: Y67 - no matches at any level. Y37 - 4 matches at 4 steps. Y25 - 271matches, 21 at 1 step, 250 at 2 steps. Y12 - a couple thousand. So there is nothing close to work on for determining paternal line.
    Last edited by JPHutchins; 12 May 2013, 02:22 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JPHutchins View Post
      Those are the results that I have dys 390/23 and dys 492/13.

      I never took the deep clade when it was available. As I am adopted, I was more interested in matches than deeper genealogy. I found it less interesting to know about my ancestors than to know the identity of my ancestors. So now I know neither. But I am still hopeful.

      As a side note, I have tested to Y67 with the following results: Y67 - no matches at any level. Y37 - 4 matches at 4 steps. Y25 - 271matches, 21 at 1 step, 250 at 2 steps. Y12 - a couple thousand. So there is nothing close to work on for determining paternal line.


      I cant find close matches at 67.So the only way that I can go at present is the SNP way.I have lots of SNP cousins and with their help I may be able to find other downstream SNPs.Dont give up.

      Comment


      • #18
        As some of you know via my other posts, I've found very little via "genetic genealogy" - so wrt time, I still think traditional techniques pay off better FOR ME. Tim is right however that travelling and hotels cost a lot of money, so if you are getting results for your dna tests, then it's probably not relatively expensive. Note however Tim that one gets much more out of travel than just genealogy - like insight/experience, memories, maybe even a new squeeze.

        As much as I would like to, I don't advocate spending money on genetic genealogy unless your brickwalls are very recent - such as if you're an adoptee or someone with an unknown parent/grandparent etc. Reason being is that genetic genealogy can't produce much fruit on the pre 1800s family tree... or at least not without a lot of triangularization. Then it DOES become very expensive. However, like any hobby or activity, if you think you're getting value out of what you spend, then "all's good".

        Comment


        • #19
          I'll be politically incorrect on two counts.

          I am unoffended by good tobacco, used in moderation -- as a luxury, not a staple.

          And, I consider heredity a possible starting point for social capital, being that it is one way of identifying myself. Like the "your are here" marker on a kiosk. I'm altruistic, at heart, but ethnicity is still the lowest common denominator of social discussions.

          Comment


          • #20
            Cost-accounting is over-rated. It's your current agenda that trumps cost. I've had a negative net worth for decades. Oh well...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by AndrewS View Post
              I'll be politically incorrect on two counts.

              I am unoffended by good tobacco, used in moderation -- as a luxury, not a staple.

              And, I consider heredity a possible starting point for social capital, being that it is one way of identifying myself. Like the "your are here" marker on a kiosk. I'm altruistic, at heart, but ethnicity is still the lowest common denominator of social discussions.
              Everything in moderation seems ok to me.

              As for "ethnicity" - frankly I don't think they really exist with much definition - we're all "mutts" of some sort. Its like the Irish thinking their so different from say others of the British Isles - in reality, there's not much of a genetic difference between Irish, Scottish, Welsh and many English. Of course, that doesn't mean one can't chat about their home country with some romantic pretense.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by djknox View Post
                Everything in moderation seems ok to me.

                As for "ethnicity" - frankly I don't think they really exist with much definition - we're all "mutts" of some sort. Its like the Irish thinking their so different from say others of the British Isles - in reality, there's not much of a genetic difference between Irish, Scottish, Welsh and many English. Of course, that doesn't mean one can't chat about their home country with some romantic pretense.
                I am Irish and I am not my ancestor.My first ancestor may be from Africa that doesnt make me African.Having the same SNP as a Scot doesnt make me a Scot either especially when it is 4000 ybp.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                  I am Irish and I am not my ancestor.My first ancestor may be from Africa that doesnt make me African.Having the same SNP as a Scot doesnt make me a Scot either especially when it is 4000 ybp.
                  Hey, have you noticed almost all Irish U106 in the R1b-U106 Project have English, Scots, or French surnames; that they cluster around areas of heavy English, Scots, Norse, and Palatine settlement; and that U106 is strongly associated with Germanic populations and regions throughout Europe?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                    Hey, have you noticed almost all Irish U106 in the R1b-U106 Project have English, Scots, or French surnames; that they cluster around areas of heavy English, Scots, Norse, and Palatine settlement; and that U106 is strongly associated with Germanic populations and regions throughout Europe?
                    No, you will be told variance is highest in Ireland.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                      Hey, have you noticed almost all Irish U106 in the R1b-U106 Project have English, Scots, or French surnames; that they cluster around areas of heavy English, Scots, Norse, and Palatine settlement; and that U106 is strongly associated with Germanic populations and regions throughout Europe?
                      Have you noticed that U106 is an SNP that happened 5000 years before surnames? The Scots are descended from the Celts.The Norse came on the scene 1200 years ago.Tell the English that they are all Scandinavian-Germans which is the meaning of Anglo-Saxon.
                      Last edited by 1798; 23 May 2013, 06:11 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        Tell the English that they are all Scandinavian-Germans which is the meaning of Anglo-Saxon.
                        Ah, the etymological fallacy: that all words now mean what they meant at one point. By that logic, if someone calls another person "silly," it is actually a compliment, because the word comes from the Old Germanic for "happy."

                        It is clear that today's "English" are not solely derived from Anglo-Saxons but rather have a substantial Celtic (Brythonic) substrate. See the recent work of:

                        http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org

                        I will always offer a source or multiple sources for my position. Would you kindly do the same, and provide a source that says that "the English are all Scandinavian-Germans" as you claim?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                          Ah,
                          It is clear that today's "English" are not solely derived from Anglo-Saxons but rather have a substantial Celtic (Brythonic) substrate.

                          It is clear that you are not able to read.U106 is a mutation that happened 6000 years or more.The large majority of English are Celtic and by that I mean all haplogroups.



                          http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org
                          It is clear that you are not able to read.U106 is a mutation that happened 6000 years or more.The large majority of English are Celtic and by that I mean all haplogroups.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            It is clear that you are not able to read.U106 is a mutation that happened 6000 years or more.The large majority of English are Celtic and by that I mean all haplogroups.
                            No, I am actually rather good at reading. That's why I provide hyperlinks in substantiation of my claims, and it's also how I know about the etymological fallacy I previously mentioned: you know, that despite the word having meant "full of pomp," or "grand," in the past, currently, the word "pompous" means "full of hot air":

                            http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pompous

                            Or, as in my previous etymological example, "silly."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                              No, I am actually rather good at reading. That's why I provide hyperlinks in substantiation of my claims, and it's also how I know about the etymological fallacy I previously mentioned: you know, that despite the word having meant "full of pomp," or "grand," in the past, currently, the word "pompous" means "full of hot air":

                              http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pompous

                              Or, as in my previous etymological example, "silly."
                              Thank you for the insight and the links Javelin.
                              Your post was clearly thought out, easy to read and understand.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                                Ah, the etymological fallacy: that all words now mean what they meant at one point. By that logic, if someone calls another person "silly," it is actually a compliment, because the word comes from the Old Germanic for "happy."

                                It is clear that today's "English" are not solely derived from Anglo-Saxons but rather have a substantial Celtic (Brythonic) substrate. See the recent work of:

                                http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org

                                I will always offer a source or multiple sources for my position. Would you kindly do the same, and provide a source that says that "the English are all Scandinavian-Germans" as you claim?
                                I didnt claim that the English are Scandinavian-Germans.You are one of the people who uses the term Anglo-Saxon for the English.The Anglos came from Scandinavia and the Saxons came from Germany.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X