do haplotypes drift apart or together?

[Jim Denning]

see this is the point are all the facts based on facts or assumptions

if they are based on assumptions then you cant call it science .
scientists [and alot of other professionals] do this alot. this is what eventually leads some other scientist having to be put down cause he found a been answer to some problem and the established scientific community comes down hard. until the answer cant be denied
this happened to gallleo ,lister,pastuer and many more

i just like to have some thing based in cement otherwise i am an e3b whose people came west to ireland;. i believe when 90,000,000 people get tested the puzzle will be clearer. we are just starting this and not much is so clear

here is a good example from another thread in the forum

KerryODair
Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
Posts: 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by robe3b
It seems that the haplotypes listed in this link, have been obtained from the article “Signature of recent historical events in the European Y-chromosomal STR haplotype distribution”, by Lutz Roewer, Peter J.P. Croucher,, Sascha Willuweit, Tim T. Lu, Manfred Kayser, Rüdiger Lessig, Peter de Knijff, Mark A. Jobling, Chris Tyler-Smith and Michael Krawczak.
Thus, they were in the YHRD database. If you add DYS 385, your “exact” matches vanish in a puff of smoke.



Wow! I ran my numbers and you are exactly right. I did not know that these numbers were coming from the YHRD database. This certainly is a disappointing situation. Back to the drawing board.
__________________
Group Administrator O'Dair Y-DNA Project E3b1 M78+ (? e3b1A2)
O'Dair Y-DNA Webpage Pedigree Ydna E3B Forum Ftdna E3b Forum
Ysearch 24MDU Celtic Tribe

[Jim Denning]

Without the capacity to 'suppose' we would be paralyzed. But absent a willingness and ability to test our suppositions we would learn nothing.

see this is the point are all the facts based on facts or assumptions

if they are based on assumptions then you cant call it science .
scientists [and alot of other professionals] do this alot. this is what eventually leads some other scientist having to be put down cause he found a been answer to some problem and the established scientific community comes down hard. until the answer cant be denied
this happened to gallleo ,lister,pastuer and many more

i just like to have some thing based in cement otherwise i am an e3b whose people came west to ireland;. i believe when 90,000,000 people get tested the puzzle will be clearer. we are just starting this and not much is so clear

[Jim Denning]

Jim, Odd that you start your reply with "i assume" and end it with "cause you usually assume wrong."

I wasn't making a statement on a rule that applies to finding results link my haplogroups came from albania
and i said that cause i didnt know what the % would have been 60 is probably wrong

[tomcat]

Without the capacity to 'suppose' we would be paralyzed. But absent a willingness and ability to test our suppositions we would learn nothing.

[Jim Barrett]

jim i assume most [60%] matches go back to 600 yrs. so thats before surnames and the king ordered surnames so tax collectors could have names other then james son of john.

one of the first things i learnt in genealogy is assume is a word of terror to genealogists. cause you usually assume wrong.

Jim, Odd that you start your reply with "i assume" and end it with "cause you usually assume wrong."

[tomcat]

You could make up two phylogenetic trees - one based on the assumption that all are adding repeats, in which case the lowest value at any marker is closer to the original value - and a second based on the assumption that all are dropping repeats, in which case the higher value at any marker is closer to the original value. That would produce two foci for concentrated paper genealogical research.

Of course if some are drifting up and some are drifting down in repeats, you're out of luck.

Tom

[Jim Denning]

Jim, What do you think the odds are for two totally unrelated men who have the same surname and to have their haplotypes "drift together"?

I believe I keep hearing people say that even an exact matches aren't enough. You still need to find the paper trail. I have never heard anyone who knew what they were talking about say that an exact match proved that two people shared a common ancestor. The match only indicates the possibility of a common ancestor.

jim i assume most [60%] matches go back to 600 yrs. so thats before surnames and the king ordered surnames so tax collectors could have names other then james son of john.

so prior to surnames people in small towns and villages probably had common ydna and mtdna. thats why i do small area projects . to catch these matches. this can be very helpful for paperwork since as you know prior to 1890 in mass. maiden names werent usualy give in birth records
now some names like my farrell farley ferrell project seem to have all come from common sources. while the Denning project is scattered all about. E'S K'S I'S R'S

so a small town maybe the original settlers came from a place common to all.
this would lead to say r1bs and they look simulair . but how can we know what the original ones were? My dennings which based on dnn as the source for all the names shows this demming denehy dannehy denney all matching
compounding the problem.i guess you cant know but i say all this to warn about jumping to conclusions.
one of the first things i learnt in genealogy is assume is a word of terror to genealogists. cause you usually assume wrong.

[LeoLoS]

i see all the time people saying stuff about haplogroups being traced but how do you know whether these are numbers of the same ancestor or ones that mutated together

maybe they are close relatives or people that have over time drifted together

i dont see how you can really tell

Victor also mentioned it and the possisbility of back-mutation in E3b haplogroup project in the end of the thread "Need help interpreting phylogenetic trees in E3b project"
http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=2905

[Jim Barrett]

i see all the time people saying stuff about haplogroups being traced
but how do you know whether these are numbers of the same ancestor or
ones that mutated together

maybe they are close relatives or people that have over time drifted together

i dont see how you can really tell

Jim, What do you think the odds are for two totally unrelated men who have the same surname and to have their haplotypes "drift together"?

I believe I keep hearing people say that even an exact matches aren't enough. You still need to find the paper trail. I have never heard anyone who knew what they were talking about say that an exact match proved that two people shared a common ancestor. The match only indicates the possibility of a common ancestor.

[Judy]

how do you know whether these are numbers of the same ancestor or
ones that mutated together

maybe they are close relatives or people that have over time drifted together

i dont see how you can really tell

Jim, I wonder the same thing. That is why I like to have the haplogroup and sub clade confirmed by SNP tests. That gives me more confidence that the match is a true match and not one of chance haplotype convergence.
Judy Simon

[Jim Denning]

THISis my set of numbers
13 24 13 10 16 18 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 9 9 11 11 26 14 20 33 14 16 16 17 9 11 19 19 17 12 17 19 31 34 11 10
what if this happens and i find this match
13 24 13 10 16 17 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 9 9 11 11 26 14 20 33 14 16 16 17 9 11 19 19 17 12 17 19 31 34 11 10
and then this one
13 24 13 10 16 19 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 9 9 11 11 26 14 20 33 14 16 16 17 9 11 19 19 17 12 17 19 31 34 11 10

i see all the time people saying stuff about haplogroups being traced
but how do you know whether these are numbers of the same ancestor or
ones that mutated together

maybe they are close relatives or people that have over time drifted together

i dont see how you can really tell