Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Other Spouses

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

  • whitkeen
    replied
    JOhn. Thank you again. The individual with the single mutation is R1b both for an exact (non-project member) match and one-step. The line he is only one marker off, is also R1b, but only at one step matches (they have no exacts except, presumably, each other). Another line, that doesn't even come close, is also R1b and has an exact (non-project member) match. I have asked for more participants, and one has joined. With a few more, I will feel more comfortable asking for people to upgrade. I agree that we need more precision. The best part of this surname project is the vast quantity of written genealogical record that exists, back to around the 1580s. I could give you all the numbers for each marker, but I think it is a good idea to hold off a bit until I have more information. If I submit information to youfor analysis, I would prefer to do this privately, and not on the Forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE "One of the participants conjectured that he was in the "John" line, and is off by one mutation on 391 (not a fast mutating allele). His paper records are not good enough to place him clearly in the line, but it is certainly possible. Do you think that being off by one in 12 makes it likely? "

    With a case like this it is all a matter of statistics and the individual
    definition of "likely"
    Some people want more proof than others.
    To me 11 of 12 and a surname match is not enough.
    Look at it this way from father to son it is UNLIKELY there will be
    a mutation. But over 100 generations it is UNLIKELY we have NO
    mutations. That is what makes this technology hard to apply.

    I can run the calculations and give you the statistical percentages.
    The part we have no way of knowing is what percentage should
    we give to a match in surname and a match in location.
    You wrote "generally similar geography in his past."
    This is also subject to subjective evaluation based on how
    general is "general"
    For example from 1750 to 1890 one "general" path is
    VA to KY to IL. That to me would not be helpful even it
    all the families had it.
    On the other hand if it is the came county in each state
    that make it higher probability.

    One of the items you did not mention is the values of the other
    markers. If they are all the modal for the haplogroup and that
    is R1b we have a much higher chance of an accidental match.
    If there are one or more that are in the range of 1% we have
    increased the odds of a family match.

    I do not like to "confirm" relatedness based on even 12/12 markers
    because I know there is a 20% chance an upgrade to 25 markers
    will show they are not related - this is even with a last name match.

    If the families cannot find a paper link given the 11 of 12 match
    I would recommend upgrading to 25 for two of he men.
    Then look at the results and see what we have.
    After the upgrade to 25 markers we will have these possibilities
    24 of 25 Highly probability of being related
    22/23 of 25 probably related given the last name match
    Less than 22 of 25 - probably not related.

    That is a lot of words and I am not even sure I have answered your question.

    Leave a comment:


  • whitkeen
    replied
    Thanks for the line by line response, John. Our project has two identified lines, and several other probable (too different to be closely related). One of the participants conjectured that he was in the "John" line, and is off by one mutation on 391 (not a fast mutating allele). His paper records are not good enough to place him clearly in the line, but it is certainly possible. Do you think that being off by one in 12 makes it likely? Same surname and generally similar geography in his past. He would like to know, and I am not knowledgeable enough about this to answer him with any degree of confidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE "I am related to the first three, probably within the last 350-500 years, .."

    If we assume the "best case" and the added 13 markers match 13 for 13, then the 90% interval would be from 9 geneations
    back to 70 generations. At 25 years per genearaion the 90%
    interval would start about 250 years ago. So the statistics would
    support your hypothisis of 350-500 years.

    But until you have taken the test you do not know what the results are. Statisticly if you are 3 off at 12 you will "most likely" be 6 off at 25. The only way to know if it is 3 or 6 or something
    else is to have the test done.
    Ask your self these questions -- "What would I do if I found
    a 22 for 25 march? And what would I do if I found a 19 for 25 match?"
    If you would have a different course of action the test is worth something - if not then why do it?

    RE "My problem is I match about 10 per cent of all the European people's DNA, a 25 marker test would not prove any closer relation to these three, but would disprove some of the other surnames I am matching correct?"

    That is correct. Even if you upgraded to 35 markers and matched
    on 32 of 35 you would only pull the edge of the 90% interval back
    to 7 generations from 9 - not worth mutch in my book.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE " At the present I have matched 26 surnames, none that are Smothers or Smithers etc. This is the 12 marker test"

    That is not surprising. A 12 marker test is must the same as
    matching the first 3 letters of your last name.
    Just think about how many surnames names start with Smi or Smo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Excellent information, Thanks. At the present I have matched 26 surnames, none that are Smothers or Smithers etc. This is the 12 marker test. All the Smothers Smithers families were just a couple of counties apart, usually less than a 100 miles, here is the results of my mutations to the others, there is exact match's of 3, another exact match of three, and another exact match of three, 1 off by 1 mutation to the last three. I believe that the first 6 are related, and the last 4 are not related to the first 6. I am inclined to believe that I am related to the first three, probably within the last 350-500 years, the earliest recorded Smothers I have been able to find is 1550 in England. My problem is I match about 10 per cent of all the European people's DNA, a 25 marker test would not prove any closer relation to these three, but would disprove some of the other surnames I am matching correct?
    03 Smothers (#5640)
    03 Smothers II (#5851)
    03 Smathers (#7815)
    04 Smothers (#6857)
    04 Smothers (#6858)
    04 Smothers (#7258)
    11 Smothers (#7111)
    12 Prudhomme (#7123)
    12 Smothers (#7172)
    12 Smothers (#8359)

    I appreciate all the help, I think of myself and the other donors as pioneers of this process, would like to be around another 50 years to see how this all works out.
    Thanks again.
    Noah Smothers
    Last edited by Nsmother; 19 May 2003, 09:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE totally unrelated people can have identical Y-DNA (or mtdna) in a 12 marker test.
    Yes and totally unrelated people can have an identical match AT ANY number of markers.
    Some call it an "accidental match" other say the haplotype is the same by state and not by ancestry - means the same thing.

    In the case of a 3 out of 25 marker difference the "most likey" time
    the MRCA lived is 1000 AD - not very useful for most of us.

    However there are "Documented Cousins" with a 3 marker difference. That happens about 2% of the time. So with 400 plus
    Surnames projects in place with FTDNA. And at least one set of cousins per project FTDNA should have at least 8 of these.

    RE but if everything else checks out,
    There are a number of things to check and one very strong point is the matching last name. We just dont know how to factor that
    into the mathamatics.

    Another is location - are the families near each other in the past?

    A third thing to check is for any relatively "rare" values for other markers. I look at "rare" as 1% or less. If there is a match there that means a lot more than a match at a marker that is
    at 80%. A rare marker or two can change the "odds" by a
    factor of 100 or more.

    RE there may have been an adoption or extramarital event,
    Yes then one needs to look at the "genetic" distance to a random
    male in the place and time of the suspected event.
    Most random two men will have a genetic distance of 5 to 35

    So you can calculate the "odds" of a random man being a distance
    of 3 vs the "odds" of the MRCA being in the last X years.
    I have not done that - hmmm wonder if there is enough data to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • whitkeen
    replied
    As I understand it, totally unrelated people can have identical Y-DNA (or mtdna) in a 12 marker test. Certainly they would not be required to be different on all 12 markers. The 12 marker test eliminates people who are not related, by their having too many differences, but it does not, by itself, prove relatedness by identity. You would need to check written records, oral records and probably go for the 25 marker test to see if the 3 mutations are the only 3 in 25. 3 in 12 is generally NOT meaningfully related through the male line. 3 in 25 is still pretty far out, but if everything else checks out, there may have been an adoption or extramarital event, which would explain what appears to be a common ancestor. It is pretty long odds that 3 mutations happened within the time frame of most people's genealogical records. ( Max: Please correct me if I have misunderstood this.)

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    Noah
    Re I only wish we had more male Smothers that were interested in the DNA

    Yes I understand.

    RE There have been 12 of us take the DNA test and it seems that there is at least two distinct family lines. One totally unrelated to the other. My problem is I am 3 mutations off the closest group,

    Is that 3 at 12 markers or 3 at 25 markers?

    Having two or 3 groups out of 12 is better than average.
    The first 3 Walden men where MANY steps appart.

    I just got back some results at 3 steps off at 25 markers.
    I did about 4 days of thinking and analysis and writing.
    My first posting on this is at this web page
    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb..../w004w005.html

    Maybe some of the analysis applies to your situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    John
    Thanks for the quick reply. It seems that the Smothers family has never been at any one time very large, probably in the range of 4,000 -6,000 at any given time. I have also found the name spelled various ways, but generally Smithers and Smothers seem to be the most common. There have been 12 of us take the DNA test and it seems that there is at least two distinct family lines. One totally unrelated to the other. My problem is I am 3 mutations off the closest group, and I am interested in any thing that might have to do with these mutations. I have thought that maybe someone's wife was mistaken as to the father, but then there would be no similiar DNA, if someone was raped same thing. The other thing I have thought of, what if two brothers married the same wife, and she had children by both. I only wish we had more male Smothers that were interested in the DNA, but it doesn't appear so. Thanks again.
    Noah Smothers

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE but can two mutations occur in the same generation?

    Yes it happens about 1 of every 10,000 male births

    RE Is there such a thing as maybe a minus or plus mutation?

    Yes the go both ways +1, -1 (and +2 and -2)

    RE Would diease or sickness have anything to do with mutations? How about yellow fever, smallpox etc?

    There has been speculation about this and other things such as
    age and Xrays and other radation.
    But I have not seen any results of scientific studies.
    So for now I will assume a NO for my project.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Is there such a thing as maybe a minus or plus mutation? Maybe one brother is one mutation on the plus side and another one mutation on the minus side? So if 12 were exact match's and one was plus and one minus would this make them 2 mutations apart? Or am I way off on this one?
    Noah

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Would diease or sickness have anything to do with mutations? How about yellow fever, smallpox etc?
    Noah

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    Re: Other Spouses

    Originally posted by Nsmother
    If the Male is married to say three wives and has a total of 24 children, what if any effect could this have on the DNA results? Could this increase the mutation rate within a shorter time? Appreciate any help.
    Thanks
    Noah Smothers
    Mark says yes
    But I claim that is not of any value to us.
    Any testing we do on one family will not have enough data
    points to bring out any change in the mutation rate.

    That is untill you have in the order of 10,000 data points.
    That would be 400 births accounted for at 25 markers each.
    Until we get to testing thousands of markers per person
    I claim any single family never be able to make a valid argument
    that "my family is different our mutation rate is higher (or lower)."

    Leave a comment:


  • JSW
    replied
    RE
    The male's ability to reproduce a perfect copy of his Y chromosome, and pass on this replica to his male progeny, is akin to the functioning of a copy machine:

    Since the mutation rate is still understudy and not known within 50% (some say .002 and some say .003) what is the science
    testing behind the "increase" with age? And what higher rate
    would one use at what age?


    RE but can two mutations occur in the same generation?
    Yes - as far as we know the mutations are independant events
    The trasmission of a single one marker from father to son has
    a .002 chance of mutating. Thus one son has 25 x.002 of seeing
    one mutation and 25 x.002 x .002 (approx)) of seeing 2 mutations
    and 25 x.002 x.002 x.002 of seeing 3 mutations.
    Thus if you were to test 10,000 father son pairs (25 markers) you would expect
    to see about 500 one step mutations and maybe one case with
    two one step mutations. I also remember (if I remember right)
    that two step mutations happen at 1/14 the rate of one step mutations. Thus out of 10,000 father son pairs you would expect
    about 36 two step mutations.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X