开云体育

Wayne, I agree—-your DNA fills the paper gap- it is who we are. Pervis [email protected]> wrote:

Dear all, ? I've updated the document I shared yesterday <https://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/phylogeography.pdf> with a new section looking at the origins of R-L151 in relation to ancient

I would not call establishing a solid genetic descendant relationship without a corresponding paper trail as "useless."? ?From a purist paper trail genealogical perspective useless may be

Hi folks, ? Thanks for the input. ? Brian - you'll remember that many of these changes were done in response to GDPR. Sadly, legal fears always trump reasonable requests, since a few bad actors

You need a complete paper trail, with no gaps, back to your Earliest Known Ancestor. Your DNA might show you are a match with a known individual (like King Robert II of Scotland, for example) but if

Joe, ?? To second what Vince said, you are inferring that your ancestry goes back to Wiltshire, but you only know that it goes back to Plymouth (if you have suitable DNA matches with roots there).

The “EKA” should be always be someone whose specific identity you can verify with documentary evidence. Vince

Iain, What would you rather have, what a paper trail says definitely or what your DNA matches tell you. My paper trail goes back to Plymouth, England but my DNA matches are with men with known

Iain, A very minor historical point regarding your paper. I think FTDNA released the Big Y-700 around the end of 2018. They upgraded Big Y results to Big Y-500 in 2018. A member of my project ordered

Dear Iain I am very pleased you continue to give this whole area your considered expertise. Whilst I have considerable empathy with your desires here, I do think there has to be a quiet revolution in

Dear all, ? I've begun to look again in earnest at the phylogeography of R-U106. To begin that, I've started some ground-work. A new PDF on my website

https://omniletters.com/researchers-uncover-potential-new-ancient-human-species/ Dan D

Kevin, FTDNA Project Administrators are not allowed to divulge names, or kit numbers for testers listed on those reports beyond the limits of what you can see on your own match lists. There are also

Kevin, I think the nature of the report might have been misrepresented to you. The "Y-DNA Genetic Distance” report available group administrators only shows the GD between group members, which is

Will an administrator of this group make available to a tester the Y DNA genetic distance report for the tester? This? report that is accessible to the administrators of this group. It shows matches

The “missing kits” problem is identified by FTDNA as affecting customers with autosomal transfers. Vincent Vizachero sent from my iPhone

If anyone wants to go back to the original style charts (classic) here is the link https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults You can check for missing kits if you like. In my surname

Thanks Vince, ? To expand on &quot;may not be in their exact positions&quot;: ? It can be that mutations are only recorded in some tests both not others. This could be because some tests are the old

As an addition to this even a member that is pending lab results that had already tested to 111 has disappeared [email protected]> wrote:

It appears in our surname project anyone with big y has disappeared from the spreadsheets and results pages but they appear to be their in member subgrouping [email protected]> wrote: