Awesome Discovery

[Gregory]

At first I was disappointed because I could not a "non direct maternal lineage" in my mtdna, but I have found someone who shared an ancestor 20 to 30000 years ago. And this this person was from a caucasian Spanish. I only had two numbers matched so we are very very very distant related.
Family Tree Dna is rewriting the way we think about race in this country.
I think we are all connected in more ways than we think. However, I know there are some people I have no connection at all, but I surpised to see to the number 16223T and 16124C come up in places that I thought no way.
Is the American public ready for this?

[Mikey]

It's not about race

If the haplogroups were the result of mutations that occurred BEFORE the development of the modern "races" (they were), how can they "change the way the American public thinks about race"? (they can't/they shouldn't).

Moreover, the mechanism for certain haplogroups in certain areas is far from certain. Just hypothesis.

We don't know whether, say, an E3b in Britain is the result of an Indo-European-speaking farmer arriving 6000 years ago, or a Carthaginian tin trader in 500 BC, or a Roman soldier in 100 AD, or a Jewish convert in 1500 AD or a recent bastard child - or any of the above on another continent that somehow migrated to Britain.

In sum, the haplogroups (absent clades and subclades) tell you very little.

[Gregory]

If the haplogroups were the result of mutations that occurred BEFORE the development of the modern "races" (they were), how can they "change the way the American public thinks about race"? (they can't/they shouldn't).

Moreover, the mechanism for certain haplogroups in certain areas is far from certain. Just hypothesis.

We don't know whether, say, an E3b in Britain is the result of an Indo-European-speaking farmer arriving 6000 years ago, or a Carthaginian tin trader in 500 BC, or a Roman soldier in 100 AD, or a Jewish convert in 1500 AD or a recent bastard child - or any of the above on another continent that somehow migrated to Britain.

In sum, the haplogroups (absent clades and subclades) tell you very little.

First, I talked to many people about different races, and the answer is always "I think" or "the bible says". This is just based on opinions which was past on from generation to generation. And opinions base on emotions is not a valid argument.

Second, haplogroups may not be perfect in theory, but it's better than what we had before which was nothing. This is just a young science; still growing. We may have to wait a few years to see if all this will hold up. So I would not dismissed this as bunk right now.

Third, I have seen some interesting discoveries in the mitosearch. I was surprised to see some of my numbers in remote places.

[Mikey]

I don't think its bunk - my apologies if I gave that impression.

But my central point holds up - haplogroups predate our notions of race, so they should not really be used to denote race as we know it. I do understand they can be useful in this arena though.

Second, even once one knows one's haplogroup, the mechanism upon which it arrived at your ancestor's homeland is far from certain.

Lastly (and I didn't make this point in my first reply) but don't forget that your haplogroup on either gender side represents just one ancestor. I'll make a modern analogy: let's assume a guy's entire ancestry is Native American. But in 1560, one Spaniard carrying R1b fathered one direct male ancestor. Then all subsequent descendants were also Native American. This person is probably 1/64 or less Spanish, Caucasian, R1b, or whatever you wish to call him.

Now imagine this mechanism happening 6000 years ago.

See, haplogroups don't really tell THAT much.