Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y-DNA matches with a genetic distance of 6 and 7. How certain can I be?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by dna View Post
    I would not use a word confusion, though. I would use a word closer to enlightenment as people offered to you many different avenues.
    Yes, but enlightenment can lead to confusion when one realizes how complicated or difficult something is.

    Comment


    • #32
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-react-insult

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The_Contemplator View Post
        It may not be worth updating. However, I wouldn't see your lack of matches as a waste of money. Getting tested does not guarantee that you will have meaningful matches. My own Y67 has no matches at any level. I don't see it as a waste. It just means I am the first in my lineage to test. Now I just have to wait or actively recruit to get matches. You may need to wait a week, a decade, or more. At least now you have a flag planted where those matches can find you.
        I've got similar issues. I took the Y-67 test about 8 years ago... I've got 130 matches at 25 markers (each with a distance of 1 or 2) and absolutely zero matches at 37 or 67 markers. But I'm patient, I can wait.

        Comment


        • #34
          I gave in and upgraded to y111. Only one match with a genetic distance of 8 (it was 6 at 67 markers). Tip calculations as follows:

          Generations Percentage
          4 1.94%
          8 29.18%
          12 69.97%
          16 91.70%
          20 98.30%
          24 99.72%


          The person I match belongs to the I-S7753 subclade/branch.

          Comment


          • #35
            On how a genetic of 8 with 111 markers should be interpreted https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-interpreted/

            "A 103/111 match indicates a distant cousinship with only a chance of a genealogical relationship. Over half of matches at this level are related as 12th cousins or more recently. Most matches at this level are related as 18th cousins or more recently. The connections here can be highly informative for relationships with historic groups and events. If there is a tradition of a recent genealogical relationship, the best way to confirm it is to test additional family lines. By testing additional family lines, you can find the person in between who is a closer match to each of the others tested. This ‘in betweener’ is essential for you to find as their match proves the connection between the more distant matches."

            I'm trying to find out how old the S7753 mutation is. Does anybody know?
            Last edited by Ivar Kristensen; 19th November 2017, 11:20 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ivar Kristensen View Post
              On how a genetic of 8 with 111 markers should be interpreted https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-interpreted/

              "A 103/111 match indicates a distant cousinship with only a chance of a genealogical relationship. Over half of matches at this level are related as 12th cousins or more recently. Most matches at this level are related as 18th cousins or more recently. The connections here can be highly informative for relationships with historic groups and events. If there is a tradition of a recent genealogical relationship, the best way to confirm it is to test additional family lines. By testing additional family lines, you can find the person in between who is a closer match to each of the others tested. This ‘in betweener’ is essential for you to find as their match proves the connection between the more distant matches."

              I'm trying to find out how old the S7753 mutation is. Does anybody know?
              In FTDNA yTree (not sure which version/year of ISOGG they are using)
              S7753 also includes F2696, FGC20060,FGC20057,FGC20050,FGC20043,FGC20056, & Y4159

              ISOGG 2017 tree has it at as FGC20048/S7753/Y4171 (Long hand - I2a2a1a1a1a)
              https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html

              In YFull tree I-Y4171. Y4171/FGC20048(also includes F2696, FGC20060,FGC20057,FGC20050,FGC20043,FGC20056, & Y4159) is listed as formed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 1800 ybp
              https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y4171/

              YSEQ list S7753 as Aka FGC20048
              Last edited by prairielad; 20th November 2017, 01:33 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Thanks prairielad. I thought it was more recent. I'll have to find my sub-branch downstream of S7753.

                Comment


                • #38
                  My sub-branch is I-Y23716. Kit. nr.: 755750

                  https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

                  https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

                  https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Ivar, I really appreciate that you issued an "end of discussion" posting a long way back!

                    They never work, but it is quite possible for posters to get enough help to research the issue on their own. There a lot of horses being beat to near-death on this forum, and you are to be congratulated for attempting to end the agony. Perhaps towards the previous "end" you got additional helpful information.

                    I note that prairielad mentions
                    In FTDNA yTree (not sure which version/year of ISOGG they are using)
                    They seem to be using none, because I was issued an unrecognized (except as PRIVATE VARIANT) terminal SNP which disconnected me from anything recognized by ISOGG (so far), and I note that while the YFull tree is limited to a much smaller database, Mr Urasin (?) or whoever is behind the curtain is much more communicative about tree decisions than FTDNA, whose track record is ZERO explanations and ZERO age estimations.
                    Last edited by clintonslayton76; 4th March 2018, 05:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by clintonslayton76 View Post
                      Ivar, I really appreciate that you issued an "end of discussion" posting a long way back!

                      They never work, but it is quite possible for posters to get enough help to research the issue on their own. There a lot of horses being beat to near-death on this forum, and you are to be congratulated for attempting to end the agony. Perhaps towards the previous "end" you got additional helpful information.

                      I note that prairielad mentions
                      They seem to be using none, because I was issued an unrecognized (except as PRIVATE VARIANT) terminal SNP which disconnected me from anything recognized by ISOGG (so far), and I note that while the YFull tree is limited to a much smaller database, Mr Urasin (?) or whoever is behind the curtain is much more communicative about tree decisions than FTDNA, whose track record is ZERO explanations and ZERO age estimations.
                      I also have a terminal SNP not yet recognized by ISOGG. I also have novel variants which when someone tests positive for them, they will become my terminal SNP, however they will be restricted to my family.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        You are correct in questioning the idea that the situation of Y-DNA matches who share a surname (without specifying the circumstances) alters the probability that "genealogically significant" relationship exists.

                        Clearly, if the matches come from a culture that has used a patronymic system or some other system that results in frequent family name changes during past few centuries, there may be a significant probability, not accounted for by FTDNA's statistics and therefore violating the assumptions that went into their algorithm, that two men now have the same surname for reasons other than common descent from a man who lived centuries ago and who bore that same family name. For example, if two modern Norwegians happened to be named Olson AND matched on Y-67 with a genetic distance of 7, it would be ridiculous to suppose that they are more likely to be more closely related than two men who match at the same level but who have different family names. In any event, the suggested probabilities are not based on proved family histories, but rather on statistical models based on a number of (unstated?) assumptions that may not be correct. And, they likely omit other factors that should be important, such as the relative frequencies of the family names involved.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thank you John for your enlightening comments.

                          I just received my DYF371X results, and it certainly looks like I'm in a British/Irish/Scottish cluster.

                          see kit. nr. 755750, under I-M223, M284 Isles; DYF371X 10c-10c-13c-13c

                          https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X