GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119894053


From: "Lowe DNA" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] P25
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:41:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <062720051712.272.42C0337400038F19000001102207021053050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


Ken and David..

You are both pushing in the same direction....perhaps the 700+ of us
here at this list can also get behind you and push too.

Deep SNP testing is not an option, it is the only way to connect
recent with ancient.

Point in question with our Stephens-Stevens project... We have recorded
at YSEARCH 4 "ancient lineages" or haplogroups and 5 unknowns:
E3b........(2)
R1b........(20)
I..........(2)
I1b........(1)
Unknown....(5)

What am I to tell these 30 Stephens men when they don't match another
Stephens-Stevens
on 25 markers. Or the group of 7 Stephens men who match a Vaughan on 37
markers and
are all R1b. We need deep SNP testing to tell validate these matches. Are
they
Stephens or Vaughans...???

Or with my Lowes with haplogroup I that have genetic distances of 26 or
greater
at 25 markers. How to make sense of these comparisons. Deep SNP testing
might
help us "pigeon-hole" them into I haplgroup sub-clades.

SNP testing must be pushed by us all if we are to ferret out the true
genetic
relationships of our SURNAME participants; and, to give a fuller
understanding
of their ancestry.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: David Faux [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] P25


Ken:

I would be ok with a "High probability R1b1c" designation, but you can't
call yourself something for which there is no ultimate proof, only very
strong circumstantial evidence. SNPs define haplogroups.

Chances are that most of the males on this list are 46XY. This is a
probabilistic statement since 1/1000 males are born 47XYY but the phenotypic
traits are too subtle to diagnose without a karyotype (typically done via
categorizing and counting chromosomes under a microscope). I have been
karyotyped and can say with 100% certainty that I am 46XY - I suspect that
everyone else within listening distance is using a probabilistic statement
in relation to their non - autosomal chromsomes.

David F.



-------------- Original message --------------

> David, I appreciate the addition of your company to measure SNPs that
other
> labs have so far refused to market. Your services can speed up our
> understanding of the peopling of Europe and other regions, and how our
> particular haplotypes fit into that larger picture. But you consistently
> cast things too strongly in black and white extremes. Most folks with
> canonical haplotypes are not "simply guessing" about haplogroups if they
> have not had the full battery of SNP tests. Their haplogroup affiliation
is
> clear with high probability. There are all gradations of evidence for
these
> estimates, from the very reliable to the doubtful. And certainly the more
> difficult haplogroups to identify and the marginal haplotypes (especially
if
> they are whimpy short haplotypes) need either key SNPs or more key markers
> to confidently identify.
>
> And please, no appeals to the "proper authority". Ysearch is overwhelmed
> with false haplogroup insertions based on the authorities. And no good
> estimate of the error rate in reported SNP results has yet come forth.
> Being an owner, myself, of a very questionable SNP designation as well as
> observing the many other foibles of the "authorities" is a sobering
reality
> check.
>
> Ken



==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx





This thread: