World Families Forums - Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 25, 2009, 10:13:53 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 07:53:44 PM 
Started by DKF - Last post by DKF
I edited the above posting to include an amended link. 

http://www.davidkfaux.org/X-Segment-FauxV2.zip

Some minor errors were corrected and the comparisons expanded.  All credit goes to Anders who has developed true expertise in the use of complex phasing programs.

David.

 2 
 on: Today at 04:56:34 PM 
Started by JimT - Last post by JimT
The fact is that some women have significantly more homozygous regions in their X chromosomes than others.  You can see it in the data in Ben Moscia's spreadsheet.  Because my mother has significantly fewer people who contributed to her X DNA than most other women, I would expect her X chromosomes to be more homozygous than most other women.  I didn't make any claims about whether that would be of any use in genealogy. 

You didn't mention one of the big differences between the X and Y chromosomes; the number of X SNPs tested by 23andMe is far greater than the number of Y SNPs tested.  We have already seen several cases of back mutations in Y SNPs in 23andMe results.  With the much larger number of X SNPs, we should have a greater possibility of seeing back mutations, and that would definitely be useful for studying deep ancestry and possibly for genealogy.  Of course, STR testing has its place too.


Pedigree collapse can cause the same markers to show up in multiple descendants;
but alternatively the SNPs we deal with could also be UEP (unique event polymorphisms)
that show up in millions of people and rarely ever change, so you would not be able
to tell the difference between pedigree collapse and sequences that just hardly ever
change until one race just happens to mate with another race and there is crossover
recombination.  So I think what Svaale is saying, people who are related thousands of years ago can also be homozygous.

That is why we need to test more variable regions, as in STR regions that mutate more
often.  We are working backwards here. The Y chromosome has all kinds of people
who have close STRs, so now the associated SNPs in their haplogroups and subclades
are being discovered through data-mining.  With the X chromosome, we are finding the UEP SNPs first; so now we need to find the associated STRs within the appropriate haploblocks. The challenge is to find an appropriate haploblock , then test for STRs, then be able to compare with a public or already published database. 

There are four problems that I see with the X that are not a problem with the Y:
1. The X has crossover recombination.
2. The X has associated genes that some people may not want divulged.
3. The X does not have a lot of research papers and “X”perts to help us.
4. Genealogists are not familiar with the X and have not embraced testing so far; so why spend the money if there is no immediate gratification?
Kathy J.



 3 
 on: Today at 04:33:57 PM 
Started by JimT - Last post by JimT
I still don't understand.  What are "very closely related blocks of x-chr" if they are not mostly homozygous?

I try it to ask it another way then, do the pedigree collapse suggest that a single founder dominate the remaining descendants to you?

Not a single founder but a  smaller number of founders than most other people have.   Each generation of my mother's ancestors has fewer people who could have possibly contributed to her X than other people have.  And many of the people who could have contributed to her X are cousins who inherited parts of their X chromosomes from the same ancestors.

 4 
 on: Today at 04:01:31 PM 
Started by rms2 - Last post by rms2
I neglected to mention a new German R-L21* result that came in on Friday evening because he hadn't yet answered my email about his most distant y ancestor.

Anyway, the surname is Schneider, from Rheinland-Pfalz, Placemark 107 on the R-L21* Map at the link in my signature below.

He's in the R-P312 and Subclades Project but hasn't yet joined the R-L21 Plus Project (I'm encouraging him to do so).

 5 
 on: Today at 03:26:42 PM 
Started by rms2 - Last post by rms2
I think that P312 and U106 came out of the Basque refuge.Thats why both SNPs are spread all over Europe.R1b has been in Europe for the last 25,000 years according to the Scientists, or are there two R1bs.
If this were true, we should be able to find surviving European P312 and U106 haplotypes with diversity comparable to that of haplogroup "I".  If you know of any, please let us know!

I do think that the original P312 could be older than what the "new math" currently indicates, but every time I think there's one in the bag to support that, it turns out being P312 and U106 negative.

It's very frustrating!

That's very true. Our Armenian who would have driven the age estimate back a bit turned out to be P312- after all.

I recently updated the R-P312* Map. It can be seen at the link in my signature below.

There have got to be some significant SNPs downstream of P312 in that group.

 6 
 on: Today at 02:02:48 PM 
Started by Bennymosh - Last post by Bennymosh
ID027 has now been fixed on the X-File. The sheet should be good to go now.
Thanks,
Ben

 7 
 on: Today at 01:33:24 PM 
Started by NorthAdmin - Last post by northernone
Basset, b c1790 , North Carolina, m Sally Lassetter
  Allen B,  c1820,  Macon Georgia,  m Mary Ann Spearman
    William Basset, 18 Jul 1858, Coweta Co. Georgia,  m Laura Frances Merrell
      Otto Paul,  16 Jul 1889,  Frost Texas,  Mary Lou Prater

 8 
 on: Today at 11:38:28 AM 
Started by HoneycuttAdmin - Last post by Nancy Crane
Here is my Honeycutt pedigree:

Uriah Honeycutt, m. Nancy Bradford, 14 Aug 1796, Orange County, NC, their child was:
Austin Honeycutt (see below)

Austin Honeycutt, b. ca 1812, NC, d. 1868, m. Rebecca Robinson, 14 May 1839, Claiborne County, TN, their children were:
John H. Honeycutt, b. Jun 1837, Claiborne Counlty, TN, d. 1919, Shawnee, Pottawatomie County, OK, m. 1) Catherine Williams, 2) Rebecca Hadden
Leroy Honeycutt, b. 1842, TN, d. 1865
Elizabeth Aveline Honeycutt, b. 14 Apr 1845, TN, d. 24 Apr 1875, Gage County, NE, m. James Asbury Beeler
James Warren Honeycutt, b. Jan 1847, TN, d. 9 Jun 1923, Chicago, Cook County, IL, m. Mary McNew
Nancy Honeycutt, b. Mar 1850, TN, d. after 7 Apr 1921, Cambridge, Furnas County, NE, m. Alonzo Crapser
Gilford Honeycutt (see below)
Chesley Honeycutt, b. 1853-1859, TN, d. 1937, Columbia County, OR

Gilford Honeycutt, b. 6 Jul 1853, Mainardsville, Union County, TN, d. 27 Mar 1921, Marysville, Marshall County, KS, m. Sarah Emilie McNew, 13 Jun 1878, Pawnee City, Pawnee County, NE.  Their children were:
Isaac H. Honeycutt, b. Dec 1879, Gage County, NE, d. May 1949
William Luther Honeycutt, b. Aug 1881, Gage County, NE, d. Jul 1948, Superior, Nuckolls County, NE
Mabel Pearl Honeycutt, b. Aug 1883, d. 1965
James Oscar Honeycutt (see below)
Robert Lloyd Honeycutt, b. 9 Jun 1888, Nelson, Nuckolls County, NE, d. 22 May 1952, Gutherie, Logan County, OK
Martha Vera Honeycutt, b. 3 Feb 1891, Nelson, Nuckolls County, NE, d. 29 Sep 1968, Reedley, CA
George Honeycutt, b. Apr 1893, Nelson, Nuckolls County, NE, d. 1956, Blue Rapids, Marshall County, KS
Chester Leroy Honeycutt, b. 4 Sep 1895, Nelson, Nuckolls County, NE, d. 12 Dec 1962, Yakima, WA

James Oscar Honeycutt, b. 20 Nov 1885, Nelson, Nuckolls County, NE, d. 6 Mar 1951, Blue Rapids, Marshall County, KS, m. Martha Mae Monday, 1 Mar 1911, Marshall County, KS





 9 
 on: Today at 10:13:33 AM 
Started by rms2 - Last post by GoldenHind
Cheese and Crackers, guys!  Get a grip!

I think that we need to consider the remote possibility that the Rhineland group and Scandinavian group were founded by a back migration of a single man respectively just a few thousand years ago.  I have no idea if it's true or not, but surely to heck we can't throw it out just because it feels wrong or there isn't sufficient archeological evidence to support it.

We've humored R1b decent from Paleolithic European cave painters for years; I think we can also humour the "back-traveler" theory for a while, too.

Who knows, there might be something to it.

Is it possible? Of course.

Is it likely? Doesn't seem so to me, but who knows?

Commercial dna testing is overloaded with persons of British Isles descent. The Continent is under-represented, yet we are getting a pretty steady flow of L21+ there, and L21 was only just discovered (for all practical purposes) in October.

Significant movement between Europe and the Isles has been from the Continent into the Isles and not the other way around.

Single L21+ founders moving from Ireland (or Britain) to the Rhineland, France, Scandinavia, etc., and having the sort of impact we are seeing seems a real stretch.

But, hey, if that is what proves to be the case so be it.


My sentiments exactly- possible but unlikely, and the stronger the presence in Scandinavia the less likely it is. I have never said it shouldn't be considered, as I believe all possibilities should be open to consideration. That being said, I do think the attempts to explain L21 in Scandinavia as a result of medieval and modern migration (no Miles, I'm not referring to you!) is absurd.

 10 
 on: Today at 09:46:42 AM 
Started by JimT - Last post by geneticgenie
I still don't understand.  What are "very closely related blocks of x-chr" if they are not mostly homozygous?

I try it to ask it another way then, do the pedigree collapse suggest that a single founder dominate the remaining descendants to you?

Pedigree collapse can cause the same markers to show up in multiple descendants;
but alternatively the SNPs we deal with could also be UEP (unique event polymorphisms)
that show up in millions of people and rarely ever change, so you would not be able
to tell the difference between pedigree collapse and sequences that just hardly ever
change until one race just happens to mate with another race and there is crossover
recombination.  So I think what Svaale is saying, people who are related thousands of years ago can also be homozygous.

That is why we need to test more variable regions, as in STR regions that mutate more
often.  We are working backwards here. The Y chromosome has all kinds of people
who have close STRs, so now the associated SNPs in their haplogroups and subclades
are being discovered through data-mining.  With the X chromosome, we are finding the UEP SNPs first; so now we need to find the associated STRs within the appropriate haploblocks. The challenge is to find an appropriate haploblock , then test for STRs, then be able to compare with a public or already published database. 

There are four problems that I see with the X that are not a problem with the Y:
1. The X has crossover recombination.
2. The X has associated genes that some people may not want divulged.
3. The X does not have a lot of research papers and “X”perts to help us.
4. Genealogists are not familiar with the X and have not embraced testing so far; so why spend the money if there is no immediate gratification?
Kathy J.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.201 seconds with 12 queries.