Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Only 25 generations?

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

  • Only 25 generations?

    So... let's say fathers have kids in the age of 20. Then, 5 generations would make 100 years, so 25 generations would be 500...

    Quite not much, considering I have a suspicion in the 14th century, and if it gets confirmed, I have another one in the 9th...

    Would Big Y extend the maximum amount of generations, or I am doomed to uncertanity?

  • #2
    Everyone is doomed to uncertainty.

    Genomic tests are based on pure theory, and different services can only "age" the SNPs on what is in their database using algorithms that may in fact be wrong, especially as to mutation rates. Very weaselly math is involved, and this not to question the integrity of the scientists, but they simply do not agree.

    We cannot confirm with DNA that my haplogroup split 27,500 years ago from the male ancestors of my wife, as theorized. It just happens that her male ancestors and mine share essentially the same surname, a very unreliable indicator of relationship and basically ignored by genetic scientists. Like yourself, judging from the ID, my people probably came from Scandy-Nordic roots, Sweden or possibly Jutland as Anglo-Saxons, but while I am curious, anyone saying that they have "proved" this sort of thing may be a Nigerian Prince who wants my bank account details.

    Haplo administrators for any groups that you fit into can help. Only Y and mito DNA remain stable and undiluted for the time ranges you give. Genealogies purporting to support those time ranges usually overlook the fact that written records contain fiction to support inheritance, a mythical ancestor, or to avoid a negative association.

    Everything in DNA is an estimation, there is constant argy-bargy in journals covering molecular biology. Everyone is doomed to uncertainty.
    clintonslayton76
    I-M253 (I-A11036)
    Last edited by clintonslayton76; 16 February 2018, 06:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Mutation rates can be different within families or what is believed to be accurate in mutation rate calculations, SNP calculations or STR calculations could be entirely wrong.

      Time to most recent common ancestor in actuality could be much closer in time or much further in time, and we won't really know for sure. Everything is based on probabilities, and that is quite uncertain. This is why combining paper trail research and genetic testing is a useful tool you can establish potential time-frames.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by clintonslayton76 View Post
        Genealogies purporting to support those time ranges usually overlook the fact that written records contain fiction to support inheritance
        Actually that's why I am not the king of Danmark so can confirm.

        But anyway, I guess it would be hard to define a haplogroup for a line considered "extinct", so I would need clues from earlier ages that would suggest I have the same roots as the "extinct" line.

        Comment


        • #5
          And also it can ba a fiction due to romances...

          Comment


          • #6
            generation - 25 years

            for northern European men 20 generations is closer to 500 years ago...men from northern Europe over the last 900 years typically were not married until age 24 and had children up to age 40.

            My Paternal Great Great Grandfather began having children at 29 years-old, he was 41 when my Great Grandfather was born.....my Great grandfather began having children at 27 and was 45 years-old when my Grandfather was born...thus for my son his GGG grandfather was born 200 years before his birth , which is 5 generations ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jova99 View Post
              for northern European men 20 generations is closer to 500 years ago...men from northern Europe over the last 900 years typically were not married until age 24 and had children up to age 40.
              There is an intresting article at isogg (click to read). According to that, rule of thumb will be.
              Male = 3 per 100 year
              Female = 3.5 per 100 year

              Of course with big disclaimer, every family is different

              Comment

              Working...
              X