|
Hi Chris, Jeffrey Tomer Graves has been in contact with me as he shows a match with Keith and John Joseph on his Y111.? I told him he should do a Big Y if possible and he has now just today received his results.? He shows Terminal SNP BY16322 just the same as Keith and John J.? Unless I'm totally all wet, I was thinking he too should belong to our s6881 group. His email is rwdrive@...? I'm assuming you will need to be who invites him. Mary E
|
Yes, he would definitely fall in the group. He's part of the group now. I'm working on the spreadsheet again and it should show how everyone fits on the tree now if I can get it done. Thanks, Mary!
Chris
Hi Chris,
Jeffrey Tomer Graves has been in contact with me as he shows a match with Keith and John Joseph on his Y111.? I told him he should do a Big Y if possible and he has now just today received his results.? He shows Terminal SNP BY16322 just the same as Keith and John J.? Unless I'm totally all wet, I was thinking he too should belong to our s6881 group. His email is rwdrive@...? I'm assuming you will need to be who invites him.
Mary E
|
Thank you for the invitation to join group.? I look forward to being a part of it.? Jeff Graves
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 2:26 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Yes, he would definitely fall in the group. He's part of the group now. I'm working on the spreadsheet again and it should show how everyone fits on the tree now if I can get it done. Thanks, Mary!
Chris
Hi Chris,
Jeffrey Tomer Graves has been in contact with me as he shows a match with Keith and John Joseph on his Y111.? I told him he should do a Big Y if possible and he has now just today received his results.? He shows Terminal SNP BY16322 just the same as Keith and John J.? Unless I'm totally all wet, I was thinking he too should belong to our s6881 group. His email is rwdrive@...? I'm assuming you will need to be who invites him.
Mary E
|
Surprises!! I got Keith’s Big Y700 results today. Didn’t expect them until next month. It seems to have moved Jeff up above John Joseph. I don’t get that since the Y111 shows John as 4 generations diff and Jeff at 6. Wish I could wrap my head around this stuff.
Sent from my iPad thingy ?
|
Wow! Great news, early too.
I have the same issue. When I asked they said the SNPs are what is the reliable determiner of closeness not the STRs.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 7, 2019, at 1:17 AM, Wiredmarys <wiredmarys@...> wrote:
?Surprises!! I got Keith’s Big Y700 results today. Didn’t expect them until next month. It seems to have moved Jeff up above John Joseph. I don’t get that since the Y111 shows John as 4 generations diff and Jeff at 6. Wish I could wrap my head around this stuff.
Sent from my iPad thingy ?
|
Hi Mary, looks like Keith's and JJ's haplogroup also changed.? I've had my BigY results 3 days now and it seems the block tree is constantly changing.? Very confusing. Maybe they publish preliminary results first?
|
Hi !
Welcome back Chris.
Do I have this right...
I think the U106 group said that FTDNA does publish preliminary results but they don’t list that. And, that the timing of the most current known results can post from weeks to a few months after the preliminary results post.
Do you remember reading that? Most certainly agree with Mary! This can be, for me, mind bending.
??? Cynthia?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 7, 2019, at 10:55 AM, rwdrive <rwdrive@...> wrote:
?Hi Mary, looks like Keith's and JJ's haplogroup also changed.? I've had my BigY results 3 days now and it seems the block tree is constantly changing.? Very confusing. Maybe they publish preliminary results first?
|
Jeff, Go check the Files section of this group.? Look for the file "Iians Age Speculation".? I think you'll find that interesting.
|
Sorry guys, I've been busy today and just getting to email. Jeff, your results are really exciting. You broke a block of SNPs that Keith and John had. It was a block of three SNPs but since you only test positive for two of them they now know where in the tree it falls and that is why their two haplogroups changed and yours didn't. It shows this is where your line broke off from their two lines. If you want any help with your results just let me know and I'll see if I can make things more clear. I am working on a big spreadsheet that shows the entire group and where we stand in the tree. It is similar to the block tree but you can see the whole group and not just the ones who have less than 30 SNP differences with you. I can only do this because a couple of members are sharing their results with me since when my kit got their 700 results I lost view to at least half of my previous matches. If I can get some parts of my life to calm down a bit I'll get it done and posted for the group.
Chris
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:55 AM rwdrive < rwdrive@...> wrote: Hi Mary, looks like Keith's and JJ's haplogroup also changed.? I've had my BigY results 3 days now and it seems the block tree is constantly changing.? Very confusing. Maybe they publish preliminary results first?
|
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Hi Mary, ? See my reply to Jeff. Keith and John share an SNP below Jeff now. It's kind of exciting since you've had a block of three SNPs that couldn't be told which order they came in. Now you know where one of those three falls in the tree thanks to Jeff's results. I also want to point out that the GD in the STR results stands for Genetic Differences, not generations. It has nothing to do with anything but how many differences in the STR results there are between your kit and someone else's. Usually, the fewer differences would predict a closer relationship but that isn't always true. The closest match to my kit isn't even in my haplogroup though others with bigger differences are. It just goes to show you that STRs change both forwards and backward so sometimes you match with people just by chance. But if your difference with John is 4 GDs and Jeff is 6 GDs then that would predict a closer relationship with John and that is what the SNPs are showing. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. Thanks.
Chris
Surprises!! I got Keith’s Big Y700 results today.? Didn’t expect them until next month.? It seems to have moved Jeff up above John Joseph.? I don’t get that since the Y111 shows John as 4? generations diff and Jeff at 6. Wish I could wrap my head around this stuff.
thingy ?
|
FTDNA usually looks over results as they get the time and fine-tune things like haplogroup assignments and breaking blocks up if a result shows it. Sometimes it is quick and sometimes it takes them awhile. But this change seems to be pretty quickly done. Let me know if I'm not understanding what you guys are puzzling over. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks.
Chris
Hi !
Welcome back Chris.
Do I have this right...
I think the U106 group said that FTDNA does publish preliminary results but they don’t list that. And, that the timing of the most current known results can post from weeks to a few months after the preliminary results post.
Do you remember reading that? Most certainly agree with Mary! This can be, for me, mind bending.
??? Cynthia? On Dec 7, 2019, at 10:55 AM, rwdrive <rwdrive@...> wrote:
?Hi Mary, looks like Keith's and JJ's haplogroup also changed.? I've had my BigY results 3 days now and it seems the block tree is constantly changing.? Very confusing. Maybe they publish preliminary results first?
|
Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Hello Chris, For me, that explanation was amazing.? It really makes and i have much better understanding. I do have one question, with that data, what is your best guess on how many generations are there between Keith and Johns MCRA and the MCRA for the 3 of us? Thank you!? Jeff
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, 11:38 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Okay, I have one caveat to issue before answering. SNPs appear totally randomly. You could have one SNP appear in one generation and then not get another one in your line for hundreds of years. Other people could have them more often. Sometimes one generation could have two or more SNPs appear so it is hard to guess these things. But they do have an average calculated for all the people taking the Y700 test. Be aware your sample size is small (just the three of you). But based on the average of about 83 years per SNP I would say anywhere from around 1-3 generations separate your MCRA from Keith and John's. Iain had the block last dated to about 1814 AD but I don't know what he'd date it now that it is broken and there is one more of you in the data. Take any dates with a grain of salt but see how well they might fit with any known paper genealogy you have for the three of you.
Chris
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:47 AM rwdrive < rwdrive@...> wrote: Hello Chris, For me, that explanation was amazing.? It really makes and i have much better understanding. I do have one question, with that data, what is your best guess on how many generations are there between Keith and Johns MCRA and the MCRA for the 3 of us? Thank you!? Jeff
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, 11:38 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Gosh you bet I’m aligned with Mary on how incredibly knowledgeable you are and super skilled at breaking this down explaining this to us so well.
Chris, Thank you!!!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 7, 2019, at 11:38 PM, Chris Noble <avalea3@...> wrote:
? Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Chis,?
If you have an answer to Jeff’s question even just a hint I’d love to know that about Roy, Grady and Wm.?
I know how busy you are and you are seeing how enthusiastic we are BUT no pressure.
Get back to us when things quiet down for you. That matters most.?
Warmly? Cynthia?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 8, 2019, at 8:47 AM, rwdrive <rwdrive@...> wrote:
? Hello Chris, For me, that explanation was amazing.? It really makes and i have much better understanding. I do have one question, with that data, what is your best guess on how many generations are there between Keith and Johns MCRA and the MCRA for the 3 of us? Thank you!? Jeff On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, 11:38 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Your answer will be pretty much the same as the one I gave to Jeff. Three columns below starting at the old SNP S6881 going to the youngest last shared SNPs. The columns go in the order of William, Grady, Roy. You can see lots of blocks of SNPs in the columns below (sharing the same colors). We still need lots of testers to break up these blocks. The three of you last share an ancestor at the BY11971 block. Then William and Grady broke off from the rest of the group of Roy, Garrison, and Lathrem. Again, probably 1-3 generations separate the last shared ancestor of William and Grady and the last ancestor of the group they split from. Iain last aged the BY11971 block at 1528 AD so at least another 83 years or so, on average, to the ancestor of William and Grady. And Iain might feel differently about the ages now with more data. His data is kind of old now. Though I notice that YFull dates it even further back in time. You might want to look there though they have so little of the U106, and specifically, S6881 data that I think their dates are off.
| S6881 |
S6881 |
S6881 |
| S6886 |
S6886 |
S6886 |
| FGC50431 |
FGC50431 |
FGC50431 |
| FGC42045 |
FGC42045 |
FGC42045 |
| FGC42046 |
FGC42046 |
FGC42046 |
| FGC50423 |
FGC50423 |
FGC50423 |
| FGC50429 |
FGC50429 |
FGC50429 |
| FT5123 |
FT5123 |
FT5123 |
| FT5124 |
FT5124 |
FT5124 |
| FT7701 |
FT7701 |
FT7701 |
| ACT739 |
ACT739 |
ACT739 |
| BY11970/FGC42048 |
BY11970/FGC42048 |
BY11970/FGC42048 |
| A11377 |
A11377 |
A11377 |
| A11379 |
A11379 |
A11379 |
| BY11973/FGC51240 |
BY11973/FGC51240 |
BY11973/FGC51240 |
| A8050 |
A8050 |
A8050 |
| FT15940 |
FT15940 |
FT15940 |
| FT16384 |
FT16384 |
FT16384 |
| FT16965 |
FT16965 |
FT16965 |
| BY11974/FGC51242 |
BY11974/FGC51242 |
BY11974/FGC51242 |
| BY11971/FGC51238 |
BY11971/FGC51238 |
BY11971/FGC51238 |
| BY11972/A11375/FGC51239 |
BY11972/A11375/FGC51239 |
BY11972/A11375/FGC51239 |
| BY11975/FGC51243 |
BY11975/FGC51243 |
BY11975/FGC51243 |
| BY11976/FGC51244
(i) |
BY11976/FGC51244
(i) |
BY11976/FGC51244
(i) |
| FGC82851 |
FGC82851 |
FGC82851 |
| FT90790 |
FT90790 |
FT90790 |
| FT90791 |
FT90791 |
FT90791 |
| Y63413 |
Y63413 |
|
Chis,?
If you have an answer to Jeff’s question even just a hint I’d love to know that about Roy, Grady and Wm.?
I know how busy you are and you are seeing how enthusiastic we are BUT no pressure.
Get back to us when things quiet down for you. That matters most.?
Warmly? Cynthia? On Dec 8, 2019, at 8:47 AM, rwdrive <rwdrive@...> wrote:
? Hello Chris, For me, that explanation was amazing.? It really makes and i have much better understanding. I do have one question, with that data, what is your best guess on how many generations are there between Keith and Johns MCRA and the MCRA for the 3 of us? Thank you!? Jeff On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, 11:38 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Oops ! Note to Cynthia—read the most recent entry first.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 8, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Chris Noble <avalea3@...> wrote:
? Okay, I have one caveat to issue before answering. SNPs appear totally randomly. You could have one SNP appear in one generation and then not get another one in your line for hundreds of years. Other people could have them more often. Sometimes one generation could have two or more SNPs appear so it is hard to guess these things. But they do have an average calculated for all the people taking the Y700 test. Be aware your sample size is small (just the three of you). But based on the average of about 83 years per SNP I would say anywhere from around 1-3 generations separate your MCRA from Keith and John's. Iain had the block last dated to about 1814 AD but I don't know what he'd date it now that it is broken and there is one more of you in the data. Take any dates with a grain of salt but see how well they might fit with any known paper genealogy you have for the three of you.
Chris
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:47 AM rwdrive < rwdrive@...> wrote: Hello Chris, For me, that explanation was amazing.? It really makes and i have much better understanding. I do have one question, with that data, what is your best guess on how many generations are there between Keith and Johns MCRA and the MCRA for the 3 of us? Thank you!? Jeff
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, 11:38 PM Chris Noble < avalea3@...> wrote: Okay, let's see if this makes more sense. There is the old spreadsheet in the files section but below is a piece of the new one I'm working on. The columns go in the order of Keith, John, and then Jeff. The SNPs are in order from oldest in time to youngest shared SNPs. Starting with the block of SNPs at S6881, you'll see how they all match each other by testing positive for all the same SNPs until they come to what used to be a block of 3 SNPs. Now it is just a block of two because Keith and John tested positive for BY12294 and Jeff tested negative for it. So I'm going to explain a couple of things here. A block of SNPs (I use dark lines around them when they are a block) is an equivalent group because everyone who has tested who has those SNPs has tested positive for all of the ones in the block. Because of this, they can't tell which one came first or second or third or however many SNPs are in that block. It takes someone to come along and test positive for some and not for others for the block to be broken and them being able to say what order the SNPs come in. So for the previous block of SNPs BY16322, BY16323, and BY122994, it was a block of three because the only ones who had tested positive for them were Keith and John. There was no way to tell what order the SNPs fell in. Now that Jeff came along and tested positive for SNPs BY16322 and BY16323 and negative for BY122994 they know that BY122994 came later in the tree since all three men shared the first two in the block but only two share the last one. So besides helping to show what order that SNP came in it also shows that Jeff broke away from Keith and John's lines at this SNP and went his own way with his own SNPs. Keith and John continued to share that one more SNP, BY122994, before they too broke away from each other and went on with their own SNPs. So Keith and John last shared an ancestor at BY122994 and Jeff last shares an ancestor with them at the block of BY16322 and BY16323. We have no way to tell which order those two SNPs go until someone comes along that will test positive for one of them and negative for the other. If Jeff were to find someone more closely related to himself than Keith and John are some of his private SNPs would probably match that closer match and his haplogroup would change and those new SNPs would show up on the tree. As long as only one person has tested positive for an SNP it won't be on the tree. It takes two people for it to show up. Let me know if this is making sense or if I need to explain it differently.
Wow Chris,? You helped me a bit with this note to Jeff. Yes and no...because I don't quite understand either.? What do you mean that this is "where you broke off from their two lines"?? When you explain things to Jeff please include me too, I'll bet Cynthia would like to be included as well for John Joseph.? So glad to have you back.
Mary
|
Oh? thank you so much for this note and setting me straight on the GD meaning.? That helps me understand that particular column a lot!!? Don't know where I got to thinking it meant generations, but I know I've thought that from the start. duh? Thanks so much :D
|
Wiredmarys