Do we have a common ancestor?

[HapJ1]

I am among those J1s who has not a single exact match, not even a 12 marker match. My closest match is 11/12 and we differ by 1 at DYS 439. I'm a 13. He's a 12.

Expanded to 25 markers he's still my closest match, with a genetic distance of 6. When we're a mismatch, it's by only one step on four markers, two steps on one marker.

Can we say for certain that we have a common ancestor and if so, how long ago? Are we talking hundreds or thousands of years ago?

[Jim Honeychuck]

I am among those J1s who has not a single exact match, not even a 12 marker match. My closest match is 11/12 and we differ by 1 at DYS 439. I'm a 13. He's a 12.

Expanded to 25 markers he's still my closest match, with a genetic distance of 6. When we're a mismatch, it's by only one step on four markers, two steps on one marker.

Can we say for certain that we have a common ancestor and if so, how long ago? Are we talking hundreds or thousands of years ago?

He's also a J1, and he's not in the DYS388=13 branch, right?

Then try this method: http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm

You match on 22 of 25 markers, right? Most likely common ancestor lived 55 transmission events ago, or 55/2= 28 generations. Now choose whatever you like for a generation length. 28 gen. X 25 years = 700 years ago.

Regards,
Jim

[Clochaire]

Level of diversity within haplogroups or sampling issue?

I'm a straight-up R1b1b2 here, never bothered to get deep-clade testing. My sense is that, apart from the VERY rare family snp, snp's are of most use to those interested in big-picture anthropology type issues, or trying to exclude apparent close matches that may be due to convergence.

But I do think I have a relevant question for y'all. I cry myself to sleep some nights wondering why I have no matches. Well, I exaggerate, but I do feel a certain level of frustration.

But my subjective sense, based on posts from fellows w/ J or E haplogroup assignments, is that the level of diversity is MUCH higher in J or E, vs. R1b1b2. Much harder for J or E folk to find matches. Yes? No?

If yes, my first thoughts are that, well, of course R1b1b2 seems less diverse because:

1. Ireland and some R1b1b2-heavy parts of Europe are probably wayyyy over-represented in commercial databases.

2. R1b1b2 crowds into the more recently populated areas of Europe. So chronologicall, R1b1b2 may be much younger--or certain clusters must be much younger--than J or E. Maybe I'm reading too much into cultural trends originating in what I believe are J and E homelands, but this is the impression I have.

Even if these thoughts are correct, is it also possible that J and E haplogroups have relatively FASTER mutation rates? That'd be interesting, even if I can't think of a practical application of such a possible fact.

Have a good one.

Jack

[Deirwha]

A for what it is worth

Hi, Jack.

For what it is worth, I count my deep clade test as the most useful I have taken thus far (for which results are back). I am awaiting FGS so that sentiment might change any day now. It was useful because 1) it was a surprise in outcome , and 2) took me in a direction that is closing in on 3 other families who appear to have a common ancestor within the past 500 years . I would have found only one of these if I had stuck with the basic tests and would not have realized how close the third group was until I found the one who I knew best had not taken the deep clade test . Yes, I think the significance of the sub clades can be anthropological, however, I have seen nothing yet convincing on that subject with respect to the deep clade to which I belong (S29). I think lots of folks make big sweeping statements based on very little data, none of which is grounded in greater history than the last several years of testing.

I don't know if you would find the results to be similarly helpful to you. You might not learn anything more than what you know now, although in a way that is valuable information also. Just a thought, but it might well open up a whole new door to you.

[Clochaire]

... Just a thought, but it might well open up a whole new door to you.

Thanks, Deirwha. I'm glad that you've had this positive experience.

But I don't forsee that happening here. My closest matches are 625 yrs according to McGee. And frankly, that's only if I suspend disbelief.

You see, I searched some databases w/ those loose-match fellows' haplotypes. Based on the matches and surnames for those fellows, it appears that, at higher resolutions I match no one for nearly 2,000 yrs under McGee.

But don't tell me that, 'kay? I don't want me to find out that I'm wasting my time.

All the best,

Jack

[Deirwha]

now see

that may make you unique, like Otsi, mate ... way cool I think. Let's wrap you in ice and 5500 years from now they can discover there is none like you left. My little clade is less than 50 people unduplicated count. I suspect there are many reasons why. You know that an estimated 20% of Cornish were killed in 1559? Then there is the plague ... and WWI ... WWII ... the War of the Roses ... etc, etc, etc. Truly a wonder there is anyone left to whom we ARE related. Anyway, for what it is worth, I suspect you might have a surprise awaiting you at the end of a deep clade test. If nothing else, the realization that Chronicles of Narnia were history and you were transported from Narnia to here during WWII.

[Clochaire]

that may make you unique, like Otsi, mate ... way cool I think. Let's wrap you in ice and 5500 years from now they can discover there is none like you left. My little clade is less than 50 people unduplicated count. I suspect there are many reasons why. You know that an estimated 20% of Cornish were killed in 1559? Then there is the plague ... and WWI ... WWII ... the War of the Roses ... etc, etc, etc. Truly a wonder there is anyone left to whom we ARE related. Anyway, for what it is worth, I suspect you might have a surprise awaiting you at the end of a deep clade test. If nothing else, the realization that Chronicles of Narnia were history and you were transported from Narnia to here during WWII.

Sound like you got pretty lucky in finding this suclade. Cheers!

But I know what you mean about hypothesizing reasons for no matches.

It is a holiday here in the U.S. And turning my thoughts to spending holidays with my people, I can imagine a scenario where my distant ancestors nearly anihilated each other after a testy Imbolc dinner!

All the best,

Jack

[Deirwha]

And to you

I will drink a lovely CALIFORNIA wine in your honor In anyone's honor

[HapJ1]

Thanks, Jim for giving me the only straight answer to my question. I don't know how the others went off on such a tangent.

[Clochaire]

Thanks, Jim for giving me the only straight answer to my question. I don't know how the others went off on such a tangent.

Speaking for myself alone, I will say it was because the answer to your question is so painfully common and obvious. Thank you for your comment that forced me to say this outloud.

Even the most minimal amount of research on this forum would have revealed to you that these basic type of genetic distance type questions are asked perhaps hundreds of times over. And that your answer had been in front of your face all along.

My response may be rude. You are probably new to the whole biz, afterall. But you did ask about the digressions, and I am certain that you will reconsider my answer later. Perhaps as you enter your third year of no meaningful matches.

I believe that this type of inconclusive result is by farrrrr the more common experience.

I believe that the typical life cycle of a genetic DNA customer is such that, barring an atypical interest in anthropology or population genetics, one is forced into a strange decision rather quickly--say 3 months after receiving first batch of results.

The choice: Give up on genetic genealogy all together (probably the rational choice) or indulge in off-topic discussions while treading water.

All very Beckett-like.

[HapJ1]

Thank you for your rude reply. I am neither new at this nor am I dense.

Jim Honeychuck gave me what i was looking for without snide comments.

[Clochaire]

New product idear: Match Beckett

Thank you for your rude reply. I am neither new at this nor am I dense.

Jim Honeychuck gave me what i was looking for without snide comments.

You're not new? Good lord, why didn't you tell me--it's bad luck for a man to slanging the defenseless.

But to salvage this thread from being a total waste of time, I will point out an actual genetic genealogy-related fact.

Sam Beckett's had his DNA done. At least his estate has, according to this Wikipedia entry (take that for what it's worth).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Beckett

Now why can't they offer a 'Match Beckett' page on the FTDNA home? They could display it with a photo of Joyce--right next to the Niall section of the Bayeux tapestry.

[Jim Honeychuck]

Speaking for myself alone, I will say it was because the answer to your question is so painfully common and obvious. Thank you for your comment that forced me to say this outloud.

Even the most minimal amount of research on this forum would have revealed to you that these basic type of genetic distance type questions are asked perhaps hundreds of times over. And that your answer had been in front of your face all along.

My response may be rude. You are probably new to the whole biz, afterall. But you did ask about the digressions, and I am certain that you will reconsider my answer later. Perhaps as you enter your third year of no meaningful matches.

I believe that this type of inconclusive result is by farrrrr the more common experience.

I believe that the typical life cycle of a genetic DNA customer is such that, barring an atypical interest in anthropology or population genetics, one is forced into a strange decision rather quickly--say 3 months after receiving first batch of results.

The choice: Give up on genetic genealogy all together (probably the rational choice) or indulge in off-topic discussions while treading water.

All very Beckett-like.

HapJ1 is not Waiting for Godot, he is making good progress with an interesting genealogical case. But not here, we are continuing by e-mail.

Regards,
Jim

[Clochaire]

HapJ1 is not Waiting for Godot, he is making good progress with an interesting genealogical case. But not here, we are continuing by e-mail.

Regards,
Jim

Come on now, boys, can't we all put the knitting needles down for a second and just be friendly-like?

You certainly have many options as to how you conduct your discussions. And taking them out through private correspondence is maybe a good one.

But I think you have to admit that it's fair to expect public comment in a public forum, even if you don't immediately grasp it's full meaning.

Yes, I was having a bit of fun. But it was relevant and I meant no harm.

I think that the Godot reference is merely a lighthearted reflection of the fact that many of us--including and especially myself--are not likely to acheive what they had hoped through DNA. And for some strange reason we persist anyhow.

And seriously, take a look at the Beckett article. They HAVE done his DNA.

So just lighten up a bit, can you?

[Yaffa]

Everyone

To everyone. Stop arguing and go enjoy your turkey!!!