Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

34 of 37 Markers...

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

  • #16
    That is still a large variation for such a short time frame. They do not mutate that fast. We are talking maybe a .004 mutation.... I was talking to Bennett G. a cpl of weeks ago about a family branch we are waiting results on that branched in 1270. Bennett expects no more than a genetic difference of 6, maybe 7 tops on the 37 marker test.

    Comment


    • #17
      I was talking to Bennett G. a cpl of weeks ago about a family branch we are waiting results on that branched in 1270. Bennett expects no more than a genetic difference of 6, maybe 7 tops on the 37 marker test.
      I quote this from my uncle's personal page:

      "Since each marker has a different mutation rate, identical Genetic Distances will not necessarily yield the same probabilities. In other words, even though a Distance of 3 occurs in one instance, someone else with the same Genetic Distance may have different probabilities, because the distance of 3 was prompted by mutations in different markers, with different mutation rates."

      There are greater variables to consider other than generic probability based on ignoring which alleles mutate. When you corresponded with Bennett, was his "6, maybe 7" estimate based on certain alleles or was that just a simple probability?

      It has been a few months since I read the posting of one participant with a dead-on paper-trail who experienced a genetic distance of 33/37 within a couple hundred years.

      Because of the partial paper-trail I have collected in addition to the rarity of this R1b pattern, I would be an idiot not to pursue the 67-marker upgrade if that can even be arranged. I have the feeling that this participant is growing weary of my contact...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Lost-Sheep
        There are greater variables to consider other than generic probability based on ignoring which alleles mutate. When you corresponded with Bennett, was his "6, maybe 7" estimate based on certain alleles or was that just a simple probability?

        I found the email from him. I'll cut and paste the relative line:

        "I'd expect no more then 33/37 or 53/59 at results
        at this time depth and yet still predict a high % of confidence."

        so I err's in remembering, he did not say 6 or 7 it was 33/37 or 53/59.

        I do realize there are other variables to consider. I was suggesting a mismatch of 3 over a period of under 200 years and an incomplete paper trail you should still procede with a lot of caution. Is it possible? Well yes, but probable is a different story. Just be careful on the conclusions you draw. Sometimes we can find ways to make things fit into something we want to be true. That is all I am suggesting.

        Comment


        • #19
          Sometimes we can find ways to make things fit into something we want to be true
          What I originally 'wanted' was for my great-grandfather to be legitimate...he was not. I have proven that through Y-DNA and have boldly moved on. I am fully admitting that my great-great-grandmother gave birth to a child that was not of her husband's seed. It might have been consential or it might have been rape...only God knows.

          A 34/37 match given the circumstances that I have collected is certainly worthy of the 67-marker upgrade. I have experienced my fair share of R1b1 results through many Y-DNA testings and no others have compared to the possibilities that I have witnessed in this case...even with a genetic distance of three.

          I have even witnessed FTDNA make a mistake...on MY OWN alleles. One day out of the blue, I noticed that one of my alleles changed by a single digit without notification from FTDNA. They ended up pulling my Y-DNA sample and re-evaluating my markers. They ended up sending me a new 37-marker test-result certificate confirming that the original results were indeed incorrect, per the correspondence that Bennett sent me.

          I always "procede with a lot of caution" and that is why I am bold enough to purchase the upgrade...to confirm or deny...

          Comment


          • #20
            A similar situation but showing many fewer mutations since 1800

            Lost,

            An interesting tale with some good sleuthing - but I personally feel you are heading in the wrong direction with a 67 marker test of your two 34/37 marker matches.

            Here is why I say this ............

            I am aware of a situation where a woman had four children, apparently w/o ever being married. All her children took the surname of their mother. A descendant of a son of this unmarried woman has been tested and found to be the only one having a specific haplogroup for the Y-DNA project studying her/his surname whereas the other 16 participants differ.

            Using Y-search we found a very significant apparent match with an entirely different surname. Further research reveals that there was a man (b. abt 1805) of this newly found surname living in the same county at the same time the unmarried woman was. Further evidence pointing toward a connection is the fact that this man's wife apparently died about 2 years before the unmarried gals' first child (a daughter) was born (1845). And then, to cap it all off, the first son born to this woman was given the same forename as the suspected father.

            So then the research honed in on the "suspect's" FTDNA surname project. This is a large project and happens to have 36 testees of the same haplogroup as our testee. Here are the "significant" matches :

            37/37 = 4
            36/37 = 4
            35/37 = 6
            34/37 = 3

            25/25 = 1
            24/25 = 4

            12/12 = 8

            After this long preamble, here is my point : The match listing above is for a surname with many different branches - many seemingly not connected one to another by paper trail.

            Your present connection may only be like one of the above 34/37 - perhaps there are several other of your "suspected" surname yet to be tested who might give you much closer connection and greater confidence. The elapsed time period is about the same as in your case and the rate of mutations appears to be much less. Admittedly the rate of mutation appears to be quite variable from family to family. Food for thought?

            Ironically, in the situation outlined above, we have been informed by the project admin that we are not allowed to participate in their project because our test subject does not carry the project surname! This is the kind of serindipity we all dream of finding using DNA in this kind of brick wall situation and then to come up against such a short sighted and defeatist attitude!!

            As to your DYS393 = 14 in a R1b haplotype - I am tracking three different surname projects and have two unrelated R1b DYS 14s in one project; one in a second project and none in the third. So I am not sure the DYS393 = 14 is all that rare?

            Anyway you have an intriguing puzzle to work out and I wish you good luck in your quest. (Sorry for the length of all this)

            Bill Harvey

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Bill,

              Thanks for the opinion. It appears that you have quite a lot of close matches to sort through and are well on your way to solving your missing link. My great-grandfather beared the surname of his mother's husband. Here are my uncle's "significant matches":

              34/37 = 1 (the other participant)
              23/25 = 1 (the other participant)
              12/12 = 1 (the other participant)

              11/12 = 5 (same surname as the other participant)

              Getting back to that very rural county in North Carolina where my great-grandfather was conceived, almost ALL of the 'of age to father a child' males of this newly found surname descend from one immigrant who immigrated from Ireland to Pennsylvania and then migrated to North Carolina (NC). He had one son who migrated to the rural county where my great-grandfather was conceived before the American Revolution who served in the NC Militia and fathered several sons.

              As you can see, there are not many paper-trail variables left that I have not already taken into consideration. It is a rare R1b pattern in a rural county and I may not have discovered the descendant of the biological father of my great-grandfather, but I really believe that the Irish immigrant who immigrated to the colonies and settled in NC is my biological ancestor...

              Comment


              • #22
                Good luck, Lost-Sheep.

                Remember that practically every county in the United States in the 19th century was "very rural."

                I think you are probably fully aware that 34/37 might be a lot just since the 19th century. Still, your conclusions are reasonable, and you are chasing real proof. You don't have it yet, but you have not said that your work is finished.

                Comment

                Working...
                X