开云体育

Hi Debbie, Thank you for these detailed and very informative explanations. In summary, there appears to be extremely little chance that new Y chromosome positions will be covered by the Omniexpress

Ewenn FTDNA and MyHeritage have always used the same chips for their autosomal DNA tests. All the testing is done at the Gene by Gene labs in Texas. The only difference is that the companies process

A person's DNA will always be theirs no matter who paid for it. This is the stance of FTDNA and a proper one in my opinion. I do not believe FTDNA disabled your email, but the person did most likely.

What have you others done when You have kits you have paid for and yours was the main email that is now disabled I have no problem if people want to take over their kits but when I save to buy a bigY

FYI I've just had notification that my Family Finder (tested 2015) derived haplogroup is R-CTS10893 This matches what the Chris Morley haplogroup predictor said for my Ancestry results, which is

Thanks, Iain for taking the time to explain this. I appreciate your contributions here and at the sadly defunct Anthrogenica. Shane

Thanks to everyone for their help, really appreciated. That was a great explanation, Mike. Even an Art Major understood it. I never really thought about a bridge subclade connecting to another

Hi Vince, Thank you for the clarification. I do not claim to be an expert in genetic analysis, and I certainly have a large number of gaps to fill in order to claim to understand a lot about the

Shane Iain gave a thorough reply regarding TMRCA on /g/R1b-U106/topic/106393562 that you may not have seen that would answer your first question. Regarding relatedness with those in

Ewenn, Technically speaking, the microarray chips do not "discover" new Y-SNPs. ?SNPs must be observed BEFORE they are added to the array. In the early days we didn't always know where on the tree

Thank you very much Debbie for sharing this explanatory information with the rest of us! The question I ask myself, and which seems to remain unanswered, is whether the other chips previously used by

Hi folks, ? The exact details of FTDNA's TMRCA calculations are not public. There's supposed to be a White Paper on it, but they haven't got around to writing it yet. Some parts of it are based on

Shane, It’s not possible for a haplogroup to contain just one man. I count over 70 men in haplogroup R-FGC17460, so I’d say that TMRCA estimate is pretty robust. Furthermore, in a case like yours

Mike, From what you said, it seems that the accuracy of a TMRCA depends on the number of examples that can be tested. Since it's just me the results are likely to be off by a significant amount,

All that's been said here regarding TMRCA is correct but a real world example may help. The 83 year rule is very much an average and, as such, is reasonably close over long periods of time, say 1,000

Thanks for the replies Vince and Myles. TMRCA has always been a bit of a mystery, this helps.

FamilyTreeDNA have advised group administrators that they have now completed the process of updating Y-DNA haplogroup assignments for everyone who tested on the current chip (the Illumina Global

Also 65% CI. In my case, my closest BigY match and I each have 2 NMVs. FTDNA estimates common ancestor born about 1764. Our common ancestor was actually born in 1654, just beyond the 65% confidence

Shane, The correct formula is for TMRCA is [(NMV/2) x years-per-NMV], but I'd suggest avoiding using this method and directly lookup the TMRCA estimate using FTDNA's "Discover" tool. Their TMRCA

I did some searching for previous threads and found that the Block Tree has been confusing for more than just me. I understand that fewer NMVs means a relatively closer connection. But in my mind a