开云体育

Thanks for bringing Rosenblad's SNP results to Mr. Sager's attention Mike. It will be very interesting to hear his conclusions. Not sure who you were referring to when you said 'blacklisted' -- FTDNA blacklisting Geno SNPs? I know I discarded PF6145 as a viable SNP when I was going through SNP results the other day, as the results on two men were conflicting and couldn't be right for both. Maybe all the 'PF' SNPs are not reliable? Or maybe just difficult for Big Y to read -- like PF6141 has demonstrated, as was a 'No Call' for Duncan and Dugger in the A1067 haplogroup per Yfull BAM data. On a positive note: it now appears quite apparent that SNP Pack testing gives much better results than Big Y coverage, as it can zoom in on an exact Ydna Position on the Y chromosome. This has been clearly demonstrated in A5865 where only SNP Pack testees (except McLean, 38840, who has it in his private/unique list of variants/SNPs) have resulted in positive results for it versus Big Y which only had 1 read each for A5865 for both Dugger and Duncan (above) -- and both reads were positive, but FTDNA and Yfull rejected the result because the 'read' count was not high enough. On a positive note: it now appears quite apparent that SNP Pack testing gives much better results than Big Y coverage, as it can zoom in on an exact Ydna Position on the Y chromosome. This has been clearly demonstrated in A5865 where only SNP Pack testees (except McLean, 38840, who has it in his private/unique list of variants/SNPs) have resulted in positive results for it versus Big Y which only had 1 read each for A5865 for both Dugger and Duncan (above) -- and both reads were positive, but FTDNA and Yfull rejected the result because the 'read' count was not high enough. I believe we have Duncan McLean to thank for A5865 discovery, as he ordered 'dream' tests for A5861-5 a few years ago through Yseq.net (all SNPs starting with 'A' originate with Yseq). Thanks Duncan! Mike W: Do you know how FTDNA determined that A5865 is equivalent to Z17813? When? Whenever they made that determination, I missed it -- saw no announcement about it anywhere, and didn't see it on the usual trees (I rarely check the FTDNA tree on 'MyFTDNA'). Best, Daryl

Yes, your June 7, 2015 email referred to Skip's May 15, 2015 recommendation to test for a group of variants on Leroy's unique variants page. Then you 'made a wish' for them which Yseq then labelled A5862-5 because of that request. So A5865 still sits in Leroy's unique variants list. The credit still goes to you for being proactive enough to make a wish! :-) Here's an excerpt of Skip's email: [[[In my limited experience the best candidates for downstream SNPs are: 15617867-C-T 18934984-G-A 19461549-C-T 23128605-G-A followed by: 18269403-CAG-C 23123237-C-A Also 15776087-C-A 'CTS4705' is named and someone may already have a test for it. This is shooting in the dark somewhat though, very likely to miss, maybe a lucky hit.]]] The first four became A5862-5; the next two became A5866,7; and CTS4705 was already named. So, Yseq named 6 SNPs due to your make a wish. Then Mike W implemented his aggressive campaign to get as many variants as possible on FTDNA's SNP Packs -- even private/unique ones like A5865 on Leroy's unique variant's page. I'd say there's a nil chance of A5865 getting onto the SNP Pack if you hadn't made a wish! Best, Daryl

Does Rosenblad break up the L193 block, per below? Or are his results unreliable? Best, Daryl ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Class1 Driver" <class1driver@...> Date: Jul 20, 2017 10:26 AM Subject: L193+ but S5982 neg for N234853 Rosenblad To: <R1b-L513-Project@...> Cc: Mike: I stumbled across N234853, Rosenblad, while looking for A5865 negative men (23 negatives in L193, 4 +s). He is A5865 negative as well as other men in subclades outside of PF6141. I'll send another posting about A5865. But N234853 may have broken up the L193 block of 9 SNPs. His SNP data says he is L193+, and S7123+, but negative for S5982, and the subclades of L193 ( neg for A3, A8, ZS4581, FGC32004, Z17813-17). Oddly he's A9* per SNP data, but I forget what the * means there. Can we rely on his SNP data? It looks like Geno ('N' in front of his kit #). Best, Daryl

Maybe I'm being too selfish, but for many months the L513 Yahoo Forum has withheld many of my postings for many hours, and sometimes days. It appears to be only Yahoo's fault, but yet my L21 Yahoo Forum postings go through right away. The only difference, that I can see, between the L21 and L513 Yahoo Forums appear to be that the L21 Forum is open to the public and the L513 Forum is closed to the public. From my perspective, if we want to stay with Yahoo, and give everybody timely access, then it seems that the best solution would be to make L513 public again. We've talked about timely access, and public access to the L513 Yahoo Forum before. It appears that untimely access and our 'private' (as in non-public) status has resulted in a decrease in the volume of postings. I know it has for me, but mostly due to untimely access. Would public access to the L513 Yahoo Forum solve the timely access problem? I don't know, but if we want this Forum to remain viable then I believe it's worth it to try that route before we give up and move to another website, like dot 'io', which we previously discussed. If returning the L513 Yahoo Forum to public status doesn't solve the timely access problem, then moving to another website seems to be our only option. Either way, I think our 'private' non-public status hurts us in the long run -- for a number of reasons which have been previously mentioned. But non timely access hurts us more, firstly on the short term, and then obviously in the long term. The other day I made 4 posts: 2 appeared within a few hours, but the other two took many hours -- more than 24 hours I think. I get tired of keeping track, but I can produce exact 'sent' times for those interested. In my opinion this dna stuff is complicated enough without creating more problems for ourselves. Surely it benefits the majority to reduce those non-ydna related problems that are fixable. I've sent this at approximately 1 pm PST, on 24 July to both Yahoo and 'io' websites. Best, Daryl

Brad: Good to know we concur somewhat on dating SNPs.? I plan on continuing my manual count and ageing of L513 NGS Haplogroups, so numbers could change.? What ages did you come up with? While I try to convince myself I'm on the right path I still have doubts, as past human history reveals how easy it is to get things wrong -- like the sun revolves around the earth theory!? Perhaps I need to stop trying to figure out which is the right theory, and instead try to discern which theory is most likely wrong.? For example, can we trust the radio carbon results of Rathlin1 & 2 to be accurate? I don't have any research experience with radio carbon testing, so I don't know how trustworthy it is.? If it is correct, then I may have a small problem with my L513 age figure. Rathlin1, aged to 2026-1885 BC was actually Z30233, a Son of DF21. Even if we only add another 50 years onto the youngest age of 1885 BC I'd get 1935 BC for DF21 compared to 1685 BC +/- 150 for L513.? It looks like it comes down to the minimum radiocarbon age of 1935 BC for DF21 against my maximum age for L513 of 1835 BC -- which is only a 100 year difference.? That's not much of a difference, so I have to ask myself if ?radiocarbon dating might be too aggressive and if the 95 ℅ radiocarbon confidence level leaves much more room for error. Jared: How do I opt out of receiving a copy of my posts here?? It adds a duplicate copy of my posts into my gmail thread. Best, Daryl

My interests in this group/forum format include modernization and attractability.? There is more to my intentions, though.? I want to enable more skilled and dedicated folks to take more ownership. I think it is wise in terms of off-loading some of the things I do or am expected to do, but that is NOT it. ? I want to keep the whole R1b-L513 project together and not fracture it into sub projects. That's problematic over time. I've seen it many times. Projects can have life cycles of their own (including death)? the same as volunteers can have interests and competing interests that come and go. If we have a powerful enough forum, like hopefully this one, we can have subgroups and the advocates of the various subgroups have autonomy over those.? That's it. I want you to keep the project together but implement a powerful forum like this so that subgroups can do their own things and discuss whatever test options or theories they want.? That's it. That's the deal. Let us keep the project together and not create sub-projects but do your own thing by using subgroups.? If this agreeable I'll invite everyone in the project to this forum.... when we feel like this forum is ready and setup so that people will have a good first experience. I would also continue to use the R1b project and R1b-L21 projects to get people over to here when we find new 11-13's / L513's.? We have to keep growing. That is where the best insights come from. You can see that a good implementation of subgroups is very important. Jared posted, "you would only need to subscribe to the sub-group if you wanted to join it. The main group will always be the main L513 group (I'd suggest making it [email protected] or similar), but we could form "[email protected]", "[email protected]", etc. sub-groups, if desired, for more focused discussions. We can form as many sub-groups as we want on the free plan. Main group subscribers can add themselves to sub-groups or moderators can manually add or invite them. The only limitations to sub-groups are that we cannot have sub-groups below sub-groups, they are not listed in the groups.io directory, and subscribers to sub-groups must join the main L513 group first (which is not a bad thing)." We have to be careful with the trade-offs between too much and not enough granularity. A key constraint is there is no nesting of subgroups. We'd like to shoot for the right level of granularity from the start or pulling things a part or merging things could be messy later.? An example decision point would be Z16340.? There is a large group of people under Z16340 that are Airghelli II (FGC9798).?? It could easily be justified that FGC9798 has their own subgroup but we know people are investigating Z16340 as a whole.? My personal perspective is that all early branching discussions (i.e. Z16340) be in the general/base group of this forum.? In this case, we'd create a FGC9798 subgroup instead of a Z16340 subgroup.? That doesn't mean there could also be a Z16340 Belgium and Swedish subgroup for focus on those.? However, I don't want to make that kind of decision. That's up to folks like Brad, Baudouin and Ulf, etc.? If they want a Z16340 subgroup and forgo having downstream subgroups thats up to them. Potential subgroups....? ???? 1) General or main subgroup includes everything else not listed below.? 2) Advanced DNA topics (using BAM files, evaluating SNPs, TMRCA techniques, etc.) 3) S7834 (E) 4) A8 (under L193 "A1") 5) Z17813 (under L193 "A1") 6) Z17817 (under L193 "A1") 7) ZS4584 (under L193 "A1") 8) BY651 (under L193 "A1") 9) Z16340 (includes "A2") 10) Z16357 11) BY16 12) BY17 13) CTS11744 (L705)

What makes this Forum better, or worse than Yahoo?? Will security features slow down my postings, like Yahoo?? If not, why does it often take many hours for my Yahoo postings to appear? Best, Daryl