Hello Victor,
No, I am not at all sure, it was actually you who suggested that I probably am E3b1 and maybe I'd better then try upgrading to 25 or 37 markers. To do so I think the number of persons in the database should be a lot greater, the chance to find some "closer relative" would then also be greater. As the situation now is, with a genetic distance of 6 to 17 with people sharing my surname, I think the chance to find a close relative is very small. FamilyTreeDNA says that "The range of generations for the common ancestor extends to 76.9 generations, or almost 2000 years for those cases where there is not a surname in common."
On the other I read from this forum that people which had 10/12 match got a 35/37 match by upgrading their markers, which means they are closer than a 12/12 match. This should then indicate that all my 12/12 and 11/12 and 10/12 matches could be possible relatives. The numbers of generations could be cut down from 29-72 to 7-14 at 95% probability. Does this happen often, or is it more rare? I thought the 12 markers test was showing "older" markers than the extended 25 or 37 markers test, the other markers being "newer" ones developed after the 12 markers. Obviously it isn't like this.
But actually I am more interested to know how my ancestors ended up in Spain and then Mexico from the Near East, and which migration routes they took. Then of course some "generalizations" like being Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Jew or Moor would be of help, although it is not clearly written in my dna. So maybe the deep subclade test then would suit me better. Noticed that recently there was a discussion of this topic in the thread "Deep subclades -Who cares". Your arguments were that the test reduces the search in geographical location of your origin.
Unfortunately you get only one line from your paternal side researched and one from your maternal line, the others stay silent. But two lines are of course better than nothing. Would be interested into research the line of my mother's father's mother's parents. But no relatives are known so it can't be done. Saw in DNA forum that there are some genetic tests that resarch the dna matrerial from the other lines except direct paternal and maternal lines, that means the x chromosome. Anyone who knows how such a test works, what does it research, as the x-chromosome should be a blend of fragments from our ancestors' x-chromosmes? Is this an area that might develop in the future? Will FamilyTreeDna come up with similar or other tests later?
Also, according to FamilyDnaTree:s information on Understanding matches, all lines can be traced down to one Adam (and one Eva I suppose). This is a bit hard for the mind to grasp, from whom did he get his Y-dna, and with whom did his children "marry". Where there other individuals around, whose genes were not carried down to nowadays people? How should you interpret this?
I remember a math task from school,
10 generations ago (about 10*25 = 250 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^10 = 1 024
20 generations ago (about 20*25 = 500 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^20 = 1 048 576
...
80 generations ago (about 80*25 = 2000 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^80 = 1.2E24 (1 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000)
and so on. So much people there aren't even today and certainly not 2000 years ago when my MRCA should have lived.
The population should usually decrease the further back we go in time. The above model probably works well within some generations, giving birth to separate lines, but at some point the lines are not more different, they mix into each other, that means they are related and you get duplicated lines. So how many real ancestors did I have 2000 years ago, when you remove the duplicate lines? Those ancestors of course are ancestors to a lot of other people, not only to me. A tricky question, maybe some genetic good at math or statistics and probability could count some average figures for that. Anyhow, very probably dna material of my MCRA could be found from other lines that goes down to me, but it would be fragmented into the x chromosome.
Researching my grandmothers' genealogy that has been well recorded the last 200-300 years, show me lines which have split and then rejoined after three or even two generations, and I also find intermarriages of cousins from both paternal and maternal sides, obviously this happened earlier in smaller societies with a steady population, which is not migrating.
Well, a lot of questions again,
Regards
No, I am not at all sure, it was actually you who suggested that I probably am E3b1 and maybe I'd better then try upgrading to 25 or 37 markers. To do so I think the number of persons in the database should be a lot greater, the chance to find some "closer relative" would then also be greater. As the situation now is, with a genetic distance of 6 to 17 with people sharing my surname, I think the chance to find a close relative is very small. FamilyTreeDNA says that "The range of generations for the common ancestor extends to 76.9 generations, or almost 2000 years for those cases where there is not a surname in common."
On the other I read from this forum that people which had 10/12 match got a 35/37 match by upgrading their markers, which means they are closer than a 12/12 match. This should then indicate that all my 12/12 and 11/12 and 10/12 matches could be possible relatives. The numbers of generations could be cut down from 29-72 to 7-14 at 95% probability. Does this happen often, or is it more rare? I thought the 12 markers test was showing "older" markers than the extended 25 or 37 markers test, the other markers being "newer" ones developed after the 12 markers. Obviously it isn't like this.
But actually I am more interested to know how my ancestors ended up in Spain and then Mexico from the Near East, and which migration routes they took. Then of course some "generalizations" like being Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Jew or Moor would be of help, although it is not clearly written in my dna. So maybe the deep subclade test then would suit me better. Noticed that recently there was a discussion of this topic in the thread "Deep subclades -Who cares". Your arguments were that the test reduces the search in geographical location of your origin.
Unfortunately you get only one line from your paternal side researched and one from your maternal line, the others stay silent. But two lines are of course better than nothing. Would be interested into research the line of my mother's father's mother's parents. But no relatives are known so it can't be done. Saw in DNA forum that there are some genetic tests that resarch the dna matrerial from the other lines except direct paternal and maternal lines, that means the x chromosome. Anyone who knows how such a test works, what does it research, as the x-chromosome should be a blend of fragments from our ancestors' x-chromosmes? Is this an area that might develop in the future? Will FamilyTreeDna come up with similar or other tests later?
Also, according to FamilyDnaTree:s information on Understanding matches, all lines can be traced down to one Adam (and one Eva I suppose). This is a bit hard for the mind to grasp, from whom did he get his Y-dna, and with whom did his children "marry". Where there other individuals around, whose genes were not carried down to nowadays people? How should you interpret this?
I remember a math task from school,
10 generations ago (about 10*25 = 250 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^10 = 1 024
20 generations ago (about 20*25 = 500 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^20 = 1 048 576
...
80 generations ago (about 80*25 = 2000 years ago) the amount of your ancestors were 2^80 = 1.2E24 (1 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000)
and so on. So much people there aren't even today and certainly not 2000 years ago when my MRCA should have lived.
The population should usually decrease the further back we go in time. The above model probably works well within some generations, giving birth to separate lines, but at some point the lines are not more different, they mix into each other, that means they are related and you get duplicated lines. So how many real ancestors did I have 2000 years ago, when you remove the duplicate lines? Those ancestors of course are ancestors to a lot of other people, not only to me. A tricky question, maybe some genetic good at math or statistics and probability could count some average figures for that. Anyhow, very probably dna material of my MCRA could be found from other lines that goes down to me, but it would be fragmented into the x chromosome.
Researching my grandmothers' genealogy that has been well recorded the last 200-300 years, show me lines which have split and then rejoined after three or even two generations, and I also find intermarriages of cousins from both paternal and maternal sides, obviously this happened earlier in smaller societies with a steady population, which is not migrating.
Well, a lot of questions again,
Regards
Comment