Guessing my y haplogroup

[hussainr565]

Alright so here is prediction from morley:

https://paste.pics/3ec3c7f1fc8322ccfcc01917894bbe2a

https://paste.pics/8081K

And by this my most likely is L1b1 even though i tested negatively for M317, M349 and M274. This should mean that the result by morly is wrong. Also, i tested negatively for L1a(M27, M76, P329 ) and L2 (L595) which only leaves me with L1c (M357) for which i haven't been tested positive or negative, which is common in Pashtuns and Baloch (some say jatt population as well so if someone knows anything on Jatts and which subclade of L they have, that would be great too).

So my, question is, if we look at the data above, it is logical to conclude that I can only be L1c since i am not tested either positive or negative for it?

Also, is it possible that I do not even belong to L? My next most probable haplogroups are as follows:

https://paste.pics/81MD1

https://paste.pics/81MHQ

Any help would be appreciated.

[Jim Barrett]

If you want to know your paternal Haplogroup you MUST do SNP testing.

[benowicz]

If you want to know your paternal Haplogroup you MUST do SNP testing.

Absolutely. It's just unfortunate that unless you go all in with a huge test like the Big Y or whatever, it's a very risky prospect from a financial point of view. It's not like an STR test where even if you don't get any close matches, at least you get a result that you can carry forward to future tests. With SNPs it's either that you're positive or negative, and if you're negative you get almost no useful information.

SNP testing has come a very long way in identifying a large number of SNPs about which we continue to gather useful anthropological data. But there are still huge gaps in our knowledge. It is easily possible, even with one of these enormously expensive comprehensive SNP packages, that you will test negative for any anthropologically useful SNPs. Relative to what it used to be, that risk is small and getting smaller. But in absolute terms it is still very large.

You could say that it's a kind of martyrdom for science because maybe 100 years from now some handful of people will show up as matches for SNPs that were originally reported to you as a novel variant. But who wants to be a martyr?

For people on a budget, a risk-managed approach is to make some initial guesses as to your SNP status through those haplogroup prediction utilities and noting the statuses of your closest STR matches, and buying some more modest clade-specific testing packages. It's less expensive, but still pretty risky unless you have some pretty high-resolution "near matches".

The least risky approaches require beaucoup bucks, and even there there is still a significant amount of risk.

[Jim Barrett]

Absolutely. It's just unfortunate that unless you go all in with a huge test like the Big Y or whatever, it's a very risky prospect from a financial point of view. It's not like an STR test where even if you don't get any close matches, at least you get a result that you can carry forward to future tests. With SNPs it's either that you're positive or negative, and if you're negative you get almost no useful information.

SNP testing has come a very long way in identifying a large number of SNPs about which we continue to gather useful anthropological data. But there are still huge gaps in our knowledge. It is easily possible, even with one of these enormously expensive comprehensive SNP packages, that you will test negative for any anthropologically useful SNPs. Relative to what it used to be, that risk is small and getting smaller. But in absolute terms it is still very large.

You could say that it's a kind of martyrdom for science because maybe 100 years from now some handful of people will show up as matches for SNPs that were originally reported to you as a novel variant. But who wants to be a martyr?

For people on a budget, a risk-managed approach is to make some initial guesses as to your SNP status through those haplogroup prediction utilities and noting the statuses of your closest STR matches, and buying some more modest clade-specific testing packages. It's less expensive, but still pretty risky unless you have some pretty high-resolution "near matches".

The least risky approaches require beaucoup bucks, and even there there is still a significant amount of risk.

You keep mentioning risk! Risk of what? A SNP test gives you an answer. A guess gives you nothing. You get what you pay for. You pay nothing you get nothing.

[benowicz]

You keep mentioning risk! Risk of what? A SNP test gives you an answer. A guess gives you nothing. You get what you pay for. You pay nothing you get nothing.

If you test negative for an SNP, you learn nothing new. You've lost $X and have opened up exactly zero new research avenues. That's the risk.

What's so hard about this for you to understand? I don't like your insulting tone. Watch it.

[Jim Barrett]

If it was me I would have learned that I wasn't positive for that SNP! Negative results can be very helpful. We used Y-DNA to prove we didn't descend from a man 100's of trees, without documentation, claimed we did descend from thus we no longer try to prove we do descend from him.

[benowicz]

Then you would be the only person on earth demanding the company's website give you a listing of donors you aren't related to instead of who you are related to. Congratulations. I guess that makes you 'special'.

BTW, thanks for the apology. Class act.

[spruithean]

If you test negative for an SNP, you learn nothing new. You've lost $X and have opened up exactly zero new research avenues. That's the risk.

Except, that's not really a "risk" per se. Sure you're out of some money, but you WILL get a terminal position on the haplogroup tree which is actually rather valuable information, and your purchase may prove to yet be fruitful in the future when someone from the same lineage as you eventually tests. I tested Big Y and while my matches are not within a genealogical time-frame (my two closest matches are downstream of my position) it certainly helps me rule out trying to find genealogically relevant connections to these matches.

Secondly, Big Y does not just test a SNP and if it is negative that isn't the end of the road, they sequence millions of sites and will determine your branch of the Y-tree, that is also what you can get out of this test and that is rather valuable information for future testing when actually determining legitimate matches.

Ordering random SNP packs with no rhyme or reason is risky.

[benowicz]

Except, that's not really a "risk" per se. . . Ordering random SNP packs with no rhyme or reason is risky.

Which is it then? Is it a risk or is it not? Make up your mind.

There is no guarantee that finding a terminal SNP will provide any anthropologically useful information. To find that you share a common ancestor with someone 20,000 years ago is not useful. Finding out that you share a common ancestor with someone 700 years ago is useful. There is no guarantee which response you will get. That's the risk.

Look, you have to stop being dishonest with people. You can't keep sweeping this under the rug, telling them that there is a 100% guarantee that this test will give them a useful answer. Life is a risk. Just be honest with people about the relative level of risk and give them hints about how to manage it.

Normal people respect honesty. Just.be.honest.

[spruithean]

Which is it then? Is it a risk or is it not? Make up your mind.

A SNP Pack or an individual SNP test is NOT the same as a Big Y test. Very different animals. Don't conflate them.

There is no guarantee that finding a terminal SNP will provide any anthropologically useful information. To find that you share a common ancestor with someone 20,000 years ago is not useful. Finding out that you share a common ancestor with someone 700 years ago is useful. There is no guarantee which response you will get. That's the risk.

A Big Y test will not even filter a 20,000 year-old match into your list of matches, that would be ridiculous. Big Y will filter matches that are within a set parameter similar to STRs, however what Big Y CAN do that STRs can't do is confirm or deny matches (same surname or different surname) that seem very close in STRs. For example, I have plenty of STR matches on the 67 marker level that seem to be somewhat close relations and TiP calculators and other formulae predict a genealogical connection, however Big Y has confirmed that I don't share a connection with these people for some 2000 years or so, that is not a risk, that is a benefit, now I won't be pursuing a possible NPE on either my line or theirs. I agree there is no guarantee that you will get such results, but this should seem like a logical conclusion, you either get a match or you don't, that depends entirely on whether someone from your lineage has tested at all.

Look, you have to stop being dishonest with people. You can't keep sweeping this under the rug, telling them that there is a 100% guarantee that this test will give them a useful answer. Life is a risk. Just be honest with people about the relative level of risk and give them hints about how to manage it.

Normal people respect honesty. Just.be.honest.

Big Y is described as follows by FamilyTreeDNA:

"The Big Y test is intended for expert users with an interest in advancing science. It may also be of great interest to genealogy researchers of a specific lineage. However, it is not a test for matching you to one or more men with the same surname in the way that our other Y-STR tests do, such as Y-37, Y-67 or Y-111."

They themselves also describe it as:

"The Big Y is a Y-chromosome direct paternal line test. We have designed it to explore deep ancestral links on our common paternal tree. This test examines thousands of known branch markers as well as millions of places where there may be new branch markers."

For some finding their terminal SNP and positioning on the Haplotree is a real interest and the results they gain can be a useful investment for any future testers who may find themselves in each others match lists. I understand that some people don't care for this haplotree information, and are only in this for finding genealogical matches, however with certain haplogroups like R1b or others STR matches can be due to convergence and be completely false matches SNP testing (of the Big Y or of a similar form) is the only way to clear up this sort of convergence issue.

[benowicz]

A SNP Pack or an individual SNP test is NOT the same as a Big Y test. Very different animals. Don't conflate them. . .

So you're saying that there is no risk of ending up on a barren branch of the phylogenetic tree with the Big Y? Don't be absurd. The fundamental nature of the risk is the same, it's only the extent of the risk the differs. Which was the entire point of my post, which somehow, against all odds, was entirely missed.

. . . A Big Y test will not even filter a 20,000 year-old match into your list of matches, that would be ridiculous. . . ."

R-M269 is between 12,500 and 25,700 years ago, a 20,000 SNP age estimate fits quite comfortably within that interval. Are you saying that there is nobody out there hanging out as undifferentiated R-M269? If so, I think you need to catch up on the literature because that simply is not true.

If you're saying that they wouldn't report any SNP status at all for someone who is currently undifferentiated M269, then that is an ethical problem for the company.

Otherwise there simply is no point to your statement.

. . . For some finding their terminal SNP and positioning on the Haplotree is a real interest and the results they gain can be a useful investment for any future testers who may find themselves in each others match lists. I understand that some people don't care for this haplotree information, and are only in this for finding genealogical matches . . .

Yeah. 'Some'. 'Can'. 'May'. Sounds like the less than 100% guarantee situation that I described in all my posts and in fact was the entire point.

It's not often that I'm met in debate with fundamental agreement that is presented as a challenge. It's hard for me to know how to respond because normally that kind of admission would be accompanied by an apology.

[benowicz]

Except, that's not really a "risk" per se. . .

Yes, it most definitely absolutely is a risk. Even the sources you cite in your very own argument say that product satisfaction is contingent.

When did it become a controversial position to say, "Be careful and know what you're getting into?" To tell the truth, the wild misreadings of my simple position have been so howlingly off the mark here that I have to believe that I'm being trolled.

[spruithean]

It might just be me, but what you describe doesn't seem like a risk (it should be obvious that ones mileage may vary and ones results depend on who has tested), I get that you can end up on a barren branch of the tree (my family is the only one on our small branch). But if it wasn't for Big Y I would still be chasing possible links to non-surname matches who in the end have turned out to be completely irrelevant. It's a luck of the draw, and I'm fully aware of that (I just don't see it as some detrimental risk) and testing Big Y is a hell of a lot better in determining your haplogroup as per the OP's original question than an STR test. Frankly, Basic Y-STR testing should eventually be done away with for the Big Y700 and other similar tests, they are more reliable and far more accurate. Obviously over time they will drop in price as we've already seen.

Referring to your earlier posts and exchange with another user you seem to be insinuating that if you get a negative result you are out some amount of money, etc. However Big Y reports your haplogroup based on your positive results. It's not a one SNP and done test. Ordering a single SNP or purchasing a SNP pack with no advice and getting completely negative results is a larger waste of money and frankly you will get a better return ordering Big Y as the amount of SNP tests one may order in the end to determine their overall haplogroup will add to the same price of Big Y if not more (this has been seen by many if you read around various forums).

EDIT: I'm fully aware of some R-M269* individuals, however they are rare and no FTDNA doesn't ignore such a position. What I meant was that the matching algorithm will not even link people together who are 20,000 years apart. Their matching system depends on a certain number of unshared and shared variants.

[benowicz]

Yes, it is just you. Risk, contingency, probability and chance are well known synonyms in the standard English vocabulary. There is nothing mysterious about this.

Yes, if you spend $X amount of money and don't test positive for an SNP within an at least anthropological time frame, it is a loss. It opens up absolutely no new lines of inquiry, and to say that it closes off others is no answer. Do you know anybody that says to themselves, "I'm going to buy this DNA product hoping just to cross off people I don't match from my list. One down, only 7.529999999 billion to go"? I don't think many people would find the idea that one of their novel variants could score a match after they've been dead 100 years terribly comforting.

At least with an STR profile you can use it today to compare with other profiles and form specific hypotheses about some currently undiscovered SNPs. You could realistically leverage that information into a pitch for an expanded resolution STR test or make a case for concurrent SNP testing with another donor.

You can't do any of that if all you have is a negative sign before a list of tested SNPs. If the odds for the STR-based pitch are slim, they're practically non-existent for a pitch based on negative SNPs, if only because, the volume of people having done at least some level of STR testing is so much larger than expanded SNP tests. And frankly, it's much easier to pitch an upgrade to 111 markers for somebody with an existing 67 marker profile than to pitch an entirely new kind of test for somebody who hasn't done any SNP work to date.


Let's be honest: Big Y ain't cheap. It's not reasonable to assume that everybody is going to be comfortable with this level of expenditure unless they have some kind of specific incentive, say maybe kind of low-medium level STR match.

[Jim Barrett]

Then you would be the only person on earth demanding the company's website give you a listing of donors you aren't related to instead of who you are related to. Congratulations. I guess that makes you 'special'.

BTW, thanks for the apology. Class act.

1. At no point have I said I was demanding anything from FTDNA. I said I was GLAD the Y-DNA results proved my line was not kin to the other line and therefore we didn't need to search for information we would never find. I'm happy! You need to read my message again.

2. At no point did I apologize to you for anything!