World Families Forums - Mutation Theory ??

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2014, 01:35:42 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Mutation Theory ??
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mutation Theory ??  (Read 815 times)
Adrian Ballard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« on: March 21, 2013, 04:50:56 PM »

How are halopgroup estimated origin dates arrived at ?

The mutations from a parent halopgroup resulting in consequential more recently dated and named halopgroups presumably have been proved to have arrived from their parent group.

As it has been proved that these halopgroups exist and have mutated to form their recorded subordinate groups.

Who can say for sure that an established parent halopgroup can not mutate further along its time line and at a later date than that of an established earlier sub clade into that very same genetic combination being identified by current theory as a halopgroup that may be identified as an earlier uncle and believed to be older than it actually is when it may infact  have developed independently once again from its parent clade.

Genetic throwbacks are common in people and people are a result of genetics.
The fact that this mutation was able to develop once from its parent surely means that it may be possible to develop again at a later date.

Can anybody more learned in this field reassure us this is not the case when trying to make sense of this marvellous but mythical science so we may rule out our SNP matches pre surname that carry halopgroups subordinate to our own even when the paper evidence between matches is compelling and would seem worth pursuing further if we were not being guided by those with more knowledge saying that “This can not work because your halopgroup developed 5000 years ago and theirs branched off  3500 years ago.

I would like more clarity I would like to be sure I am not putting aside possible leads based on the science of genetics that I see as developing and that some would lead us to believe is infallible in its present form.

I am Terminal SNP’s tested - P310+ U106- P312– Longhand description- R1b1a2a1a1*   Shorthand description - R1b-L11*  

No current subclade currently exist OR have been discovered – Maybe they have but an assumption has been made that they are earlier – I make that statement because my SNP matches are in groups of U-106 and P-312 those exclusively deemed earlier, should I be ignoring these matches?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:26:17 PM by ballardgen » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2013, 09:20:18 AM »

...
I am Terminal SNP’s tested - P310+ U106- P312– Longhand description- R1b1a2a1a1*   Shorthand description - R1b-L11*  

No current subclade currently exist OR have been discovered – Maybe they have but an assumption has been made that they are earlier – I make that statement because my SNP matches are in groups of U-106 and P-312 those exclusively deemed earlier, should I be ignoring these matches?

Please be sure to join the R1b-ht35 project. This is where L11* should be along with a few other earlier branching types of R1b-M269.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=yresults

The decendency tree at this web site shows where L11 fits in.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-YDNA/

It is only natural that you find some degree of matching among P312 and U106 people as they immediately downstream of L11. They are "sons of" the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for all R1b-L11+ people existing today. L11* folks are just brothers to P312 and U106.

What you are seeing is evidence that these groups within L11 started initially expanding nearly simultaneously and fairly rapidly.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Adrian Ballard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2013, 11:51:16 AM »

Thanks for the reply Mike and links I am a member of ht35
and no problems understanding the published decadency charts but thanks all the same.

Has anybody else experienced this -

By following the matches to SNP markers regardless of halopgroup and converting the modern versions of names back into old English they constantly lead back to a common male patrilineal family pre surnames.

In addition the same method applied to halopgroup results, produce the same results through different names and lines back to the same patrilineal family pre surnames.

Yet comparing the SNP markers from both groups of people (i.e halopgroup match names & SNP matched names) these distances would be un accepted by the current system as matches.

As it so happens the Patriarchs of these linages match with people that interacted extensively with my ancestral line.

I would like to explore these lines in more detail but am constantly told this cant be so genetically - nobody yet as told me why I am wrong - I constantly get replies with pages of links and text showing theorists charts that do not cover my enquiry -

If nobody can answer these questions or put forward some reasoned explanation then I must presume it may be possible.

I have founds others in the same position having found they have no known matches so go further, studying the results and looking for logical patterns to find answers.

Here is a link to the St Clair family - who it would seem are going through similar problems.

http://www.stclairresearch.com/content/groupingsVa-R-L193-DNA.html
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 12:52:51 PM by ballardgen » Logged

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2013, 01:22:35 PM »

How do they determine the Haplotype itself?
Logged

LDJ
Adrian Ballard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2013, 02:51:41 PM »

How do they determine the Haplotype itself?

Hi Bren

Good question,  doubt anybody can tell you!
Logged

Adrian Ballard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2013, 03:33:52 PM »

Can anybody help me please !!!!

When comparing YDNA results to others to find matches should we first...

(1). Find matches in our own tested Halopgroup.

(2). Then compare SNPs within those Halopgroup matches with mutation rates in mind when trying to find relatedness.

Logged

mcg11
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2013, 07:39:38 AM »

The probability of a SNP mutation is about 10exp  (minus 8).  For independent events the probabiity of a second mutation is this value squared which suggests that SNP's are pretty  stable.  A second mutation can occur but is very improbable.

Many folks have had a dearth of SNP's to work with.  Clan Gregor was R - L21 until just recently when L1335 , the so called scots modal, was found. This is probably more the signature of one of the Dal riadic tribes which came to Scotland c. 500 AD. 

Clan Gregor is distiguished by an STR mutation at 385a with a value of 10; most other related clans have an 11 at that STR.  (note this is for the Ian Cam, all descended from Gregor of the Golden Bridles c. 1325.)  There are many other Clan Gregor members such as: Gregory, McGregor, McGregory, Grieg with differing naming but all septs of the clan.  So names, per se', are not necessarily a good benchmark.

To answer your question is difficult,  I am Z253, but even within that group I have a very unusual haplotype (Ysearch z5hg3).  Using Klyosovs slow mutator rule, I have 3 STR mutations which may mean my haplotype is 12K years old, which conflicts with all current assessments of the age of Z253.  As Robert Heinlein might say, I am a Stranger in a Strange land.

I would recommend you have patience and test for new SNPs that may be appropriate as Ht 15/35 gets better defined.  It may also be that you are a very rare haplotype with few matches (as am I).  good luck.
Logged
Adrian Ballard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2013, 09:08:15 AM »

Thanks mcg11

For trying to help - I thought I was going mad with the lack of response (or even worse that genetic sample testing for genealogy was a fraud in its present form)

The information i am receiving so far is contradictory in that one group i belong to is grouping matches in groups of SNP matches calling for 1 halopgroup test within that group as representative and excluding anything else as a possible match.

Yet another group I belong to is grouping by SNP's regardless of Halopgroup and accepting these as matches.

It all seems very theoretical in practice - yet when I deduce a theory, that thoery is brushed aside without clear explanation as if there are rules that are set in stone - my experiences so far show massive contradictions using these rules.

All I am trying to do is understand the process to help me make informed judgements regarding genetic genealogy - we are told this is a useful tool for family historians - yet it would seem we are being led to test under this auspice for the benefit of those more interested in ancient migration of peoples we have no chance of getting to know in the context of our rich and more recent history.
Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 18 queries.