If YOU ARE ONE, BE ONE

[lgmayka]

Hey, here's an interesting compromise. Maybe the Proto-Indo-Europeans simply won a race to repopulate Europe after a cold spell:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/Indo2.html

His idea is that the first community to repopulate an area might well 'win' linguistically, even over a more populous but later-arriving group.

Besides the obvious LGM, he gives some more recent smaller climate changes that accord better with comparative linguistics, including an 'elm decline' only 6000 years ago.

Frankly, though, I think I'm all "debated out" on this topic. Let's pray for some more DNA results instead. I'm waiting for mtDNA and 37-to-66 for myself, and deep-subclade and 37-to-66 for my uncle. I offered to pay for DNA testing of two different relatives, but I don't know if either will accept.

[Stevo]

Hey, here's an interesting compromise. Maybe the Proto-Indo-Europeans simply won a race to repopulate Europe after a cold spell:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/Indo2.html

His idea is that the first community to repopulate an area might well 'win' linguistically, even over a more populous but later-arriving group.

Besides the obvious LGM, he gives some more recent smaller climate changes that accord better with comparative linguistics, including an 'elm decline' only 6000 years ago.

Frankly, though, I think I'm all "debated out" on this topic. Let's pray for some more DNA results instead. I'm waiting for mtDNA and 37-to-66 for myself, and deep-subclade and 37-to-66 for my uncle. I offered to pay for DNA testing of two different relatives, but I don't know if either will accept.

I'll check that link out.

I'm glad you said you're "debated out," because I am, too.

Besides, we know the R1bs and I1bs got together, kicked some butt, and made everybody else start speaking B-LINGO, which, as we all know, was the original Proto-IE.

B-LINGO also led to the development of the religious institution known and revered today as BINGO (PIE - Blingo).

[Stevo]

I did the deed.

I ordered the deep clade R1b thingee today.

Hope I made today's lab batch, but I'm not sure. I wasn't able to place my order until about 6:00pm EST.

Now I begin waiting . . . again.

I'm still waiting for markers 26-37 (due June 2).

It's okay, though. In my case FTDNA's service has been great, and they have been very kind and responsive in communicating with me, as well.

I also found out why I am listed as R1 on the R1b Project pages. It's not because I am R1. FTDNA's project algorithm is more conservative than the one used for personal pages. There is another guy whose prediction from FTDNA is R1. I matched him closely enough that the project algorithm also listed me as R1, because that is the most conservative prediction possible.

My deep clade thingee should clear everything up once and for all.

The plan: to look forward to markers 26-37 and not worry about my deep SNP results until some time in mid-July.

Yeah . . . right!

[Stevo]

I did the deed.

I ordered the deep clade R1b thingee today.

Hope I made today's lab batch, but I'm not sure. I wasn't able to place my order until about 6:00pm EST.

Now I begin waiting . . . again.

I'm still waiting for markers 26-37 (due June 2).

It's okay, though. In my case FTDNA's service has been great, and they have been very kind and responsive in communicating with me, as well.

I also found out why I am listed as R1 on the R1b Project pages. It's not because I am R1. FTDNA's project algorithm is more conservative than the one used for personal pages. There is another guy whose prediction from FTDNA is R1. I matched him closely enough that the project algorithm also listed me as R1, because that is the most conservative prediction possible.

My deep clade thingee should clear everything up once and for all.

The plan: to look forward to markers 26-37 and not worry about my deep SNP results until some time in mid-July.

Yeah . . . right!

I'm in Batch 155. R1b Deep SNP.

Target results date: July 17, 2006.

Yeah, baby!!!

[Stevo]

Genetic Distance

How is genetic distance measured?

If, say, you are off on two markers with someone who has your surname or one of its variants, is that a distance of 2?

Or does it depend on the numerical differences in the marker values themselves?

There is a man who has a significant variant of my surname. He and I are off by two markers out of 12 (he has only been tested for 12 ).

At 385b he has 14 and I have 11.

At 439 he has 12 and I have 11.

Otherwise we match exactly.

Is that a distance of 4 or only 2?

If it's only 2, then I might begin to get excited, because his paper trail ancestor is from the Adamstown-Lancaster, Pennsylvania, area. I know one part of my family was there, and I suspect my paternal ancestor was there, too.

If we are only two off, I want to persuade this man to test for more markers!

This could potentially represent a huge breakthrough for me and confirmation of some long-held suspicions.

But if we're off by four . . . well . . . back to the drawing board.

[M.O'Connor]

It is the total number of digit difference.

For instance if you were 393=13 and 390=24

................And if I was 393=12 and 390=21

our genetic distance would be 4

[Stevo]

It is the total number of digit difference.

For instance if you were 393=13 and 390=24

................And if I was 393=12 and 390=21

our genetic distance would be 4

That's what I was afraid of.

Drat!

I was starting to get excited, but it figures.

It would have been too easy.

[Stevo]

Got markers 26-37

My markers 26-37 were waiting for me this morning.

Hooray for FTDNA!

My score on Whit Athey's Y-Haplogroup Predictor improved from 66 for R1b to 73 (anything 50 and above is a good fit).

All my 24/25 near-hits fizzled and faded.

The closest one is at a genetic distance of three with a man named Webb (not my surname or even close).

Now I am waiting for my Deep SNP-R1b in Batch 155 and for someone with my surname or something like it to test and match me or come close.

My YSEARCH ID is HX9ZF if you're interested.

[F.E.C.]

My markers 26-37 were waiting for me this morning.

Hooray for FTDNA!

My score on Whit Athey's Y-Haplogroup Predictor improved from 66 for R1b to 73 (anything 50 and above is a good fit).

All my 24/25 near-hits fizzled and faded.

The closest one is at a genetic distance of three with a man named Webb (not my surname or even close).

Now I am waiting for my Deep SNP-R1b in Batch 155 and for someone with my surname or something like it to test and match me or come close.

My YSEARCH ID is HX9ZF if you're interested.

Congrats, Stevo

However 34/37 is still a very good match

[Stevo]

Congrats, Stevo

However 34/37 is still a very good match

Really?

I didn't think it was.

For two people with different surnames?

[F.E.C.]

Really?

I didn't think it was.

For two people with different surnames?

You have different surnames, but sometimes a difference of 3 occurs between people with the same surname as well.
However you can easily have a common ancestor within the last 1000 years. It seems you've already achieved a result I'll never achieve...

[Stevo]

You have different surnames, but sometimes a difference of 3 occurs between people with the same surname as well.
However you can easily have a common ancestor within the last 1000 years. It seems you've already achieved a result I'll never achieve...

Nah, you just have to recruit some more northern Italians for testing.

Some more of those "barbarians" . . .

[Stevo]

DYS393=12 and Asia Minor

I'm still puzzled about the 393=12.

I lifted that quote from post #13 over on the *Poof* You Are Now R1b1 thread because I just noticed something in an article here regarding 12 repeats at DYS393.

Here it is.

While several R1b sub-groups have been found, it turns out that they are only seen in very small percentages of R1b's. The majority of men in R1b belong to none of the known sub-groups and are therefore most properly classified as R1b* (or R1b3* in the 2003 YCC nomenclature). However the R1b*s can be divided into two large identifiable groups by the results of a RFLP test of the 49a,f Taq/I locus. The R1b*'s in Western Europe mostly have 49a,f Taq/I results that are categorized as ht15. The R1b*'s seen in Turkey, and Iraq have a different 49a,f Taq/I haplotype known as ht35. Al-Zahery et al in their paper on Iraq theorize that ht35 is actually the ancestral haplotype for R1b3*s. Cinnioglu et al speculate that the ht35 R1b*s may have spent the Last Glacial Maximum in an Asia Minor refugium while the ht15 R1b*s were in an Iberian refugium.

The allele frequency graphs below show that the STRs for the two 49a,f Taq/I haplotypes are nearly identical. The main differences are the alleles at DYS393 and DYS461. Considering that these two lines of R1b*s have been separated for more than 15,000 years it is remarkable how little drift has occurred between their modal haplotypes.

Weale's paper on Armenian Y chromosomes shows many HG1 haplotypes with DYS393=12 - so it can be guessed that many of these R1b*'s may have been ht35.

Is that 12 at DYS393 an indicator of an ancestor who spent the last Ice Age in Asia Minor?

Excuse me if someone has pointed this out before.

[Stevo]

I saw a cool new book on the Celts at the bookstore the other day. I would like to buy it. Sorry I can't remember the exact title or the author. The book was very attractive, with numerous photos, maps, and other illustrations.

I hesitate to mention it on this thread, because too many people think R1b=Celts.

That is one of my personal pet peeves.

Not all Celts were R1b, and not all R1bs were Celts.

Anyway, the book looked really cool.

[Lost-Sheep]

Not all Celts were R1b, and not all R1bs were Celts

Yeah...well...not all R1bs were non-Celt...