Page 159 of 162 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159160161 ... LastLast
Results 1,581 to 1,590 of 1620

Thread: Big Y-700

  1. #1581
    Registered Users
    Posts
    108
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Irish/Scot/English
    Y-DNA (P)
    FGC11134/ZZ44/BY9002
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1a1

    Ireland Scotland England
    I was never suggested a pedigree can be created back 1000 years, but we can get almost half way there for many lines, well into the 1600’s. The example of the A1487 has pedigrees to 1520 extension of the known surname relationship history can fill in the blanks.

    The real quest is not a pedigree chart back 1000 years, but knowing the associated surnames, thus the importance of matching.

    The brother/uncle blocks of BY12234 all have surname clusters that originated in the Cavan/Fermanagh/Leitrim region of Ireland, this tells us they are not the Ossory Mac Giolla Phadraig but a possible clan all on their own, information that could only be found by BiGY matching. This provides historical insight to FTDNA customers seeking out more information from the investment they made in BigY.

    Never thought for one second that clans had one common ancestor, but we have several very old Fitzpatrick lines that do have a very old common ancestor. You can see the BY12234 block, how old it the common ancestor of this up until now, exclusively Fitzpatrick block? It’s 20 SNP’s deep.

    Anyway, I feel like I am going in circles with this discussion and repeating the same thing so I am done, said my peace, the whole thing started with someone stating they are not happy with the block tree and you telling them they should be, I am far from being alone in agreeing with the original complaint, the matching doesn’t provide a quality experience and could be improved if the STR’S were not the basis for determining a match, but who am I to say?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to IanFitzpatrick For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (07-24-2021)

  3. #1582
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,407
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by IanFitzpatrick View Post
    I love Dave Vance’s SAPP tool, it is wonderful….however, if I put the 111 marker A1487 results from the block tree through his tool with no SNP guidance, the SAPP tree looks nothing like what it should, not even close. So why bring STR’S into the block tree matching at all? They just do not give meaningful match results.
    More data from different sources gives you ways to cross-check results. SNP counting age estimation is far from perfect which your case is showing, if you are correct in your alignment of R-A1487 haplogroup ages.

    This is a brand new paper from Dr. Iain McDonald. He has a very strong mathematical mind. He thinks the next advance TMRCA estimation is including STR data along with the SNP counting.
    Quote Originally Posted by IainMcDonald
    In this article, I update the methods used to calculate coalescence ages (times to most-recent common ancestor, or TMRCAs) using a new, probabilistic statistical model that includes Y-SNP, Y-STR and ancilliary historical data, and provide examples of its use.
    "Improved models of coalescence ages of Y-DNA haplogroups"
    https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/p...na-haplogroups

    STRs do work, but the more STRs the merrier. Matching at lower levels can be misleading as we all know. I look for matches of GD=5 or less at Y111.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all in Big Y700 SNP discovery testing, but STRs can still be useful.

    As I've said before, we should not arbitrarily discard data or throw out "outliers". We should look at all the data we can, and cross-check with different methods to see what shakes out.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 07-24-2021 at 06:06 PM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (07-24-2021),  mwauthy (07-27-2021),  Roslav (07-25-2021)

  5. #1583
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,680
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerMW View Post
    More data from different sources gives you ways to cross-check results. SNP counting age estimation is far from perfect which your case is showing, if you are correct in your alignment of R-A1487 haplogroup ages.

    This is a brand new paper from Dr. Iain McDonald. He has a very strong mathematical mind. He thinks the next advance TMRCA estimation is including STR data along with the SNP counting.

    "Improved models of coalescence ages of Y-DNA haplogroups"
    https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/p...na-haplogroups

    STRs do work, but the more STRs the merrier. Matching at lower levels can be misleading as we all know. I look for matches of GD=5 or less at Y111.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all in Big Y700 SNP discovery testing, but STRs can still be useful.

    As I've said before, we should not arbitrarily discard data or throw out "outliers". We should look at all the data we can, and cross-check with different methods to see what shakes out.
    I agree, but like I wrote before, SNPs seem to be pretty reliable for all haplogroups and branches. There is some variation, probably even not the same mutation rate for all haplogroups, but still, its all in all fairly reliable. For STRs there is just no such rule below the very high matches. Some branches can get knowledge from GD2 at 25 level, others can get matches at 37 and 67, even slighly more distant at 111 and it doesn't seem to fit all. Once you are into it and got the right feel for the respective branch, it helps, but for newbies taking their first look at the results, its a complete mess.

  6. #1584
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,407
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by IanFitzpatrick View Post
    the whole thing started with someone stating they are not happy with the block tree and you telling them they should be, I am far from being alone in agreeing with the original complaint, the matching doesn’t provide a quality experience and could be improved if the STR’S were not the basis for determining a match, but who am I to say?
    I think the "you" here is me and I don't ever recall ever tell anyone "they should be" "happy with the block tree". Please cite the post and quote me if you think I said that.

    The Block Tree, like a lot of software, needs a lot of improvement. It is still useful and needed. There are things you can see on the Big Y Block Tree that you can't see anywhere else.

  7. #1585
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,407
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    For STRs there is just no such rule below the very high matches. Some branches can get knowledge from GD2 at 25 level, others can get matches at 37 and 67, even slighly more distant at 111 and it doesn't seem to fit all.
    Please read the paper from Iain McDonald that I cited below. He finds great use for STRs for TMRCA checking purposes.
    "Improved models of coalescence ages of Y-DNA haplogroups"

    McDonald isn't doing this for no reason. He's about ten times smarter than I am, although I'm not sure that takes much. ... it turns out SNP mutation rates vary more than we'd like. Ian Fitzpatrick is actually making the case for that. Mutation rates must be relatively constant to be useful.

    STRs are NOT just about GD checking for matching. They can be used for very close in genealogy if SNPs are not available (or just not there - read Robert Casey.) They also can be used for TMRCA estimates, but below Y67 I agree they are not very useful. You need a lot. Y111 isn't even really enough.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 07-24-2021 at 06:35 PM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (07-24-2021),  Riverman (07-24-2021),  Roslav (07-25-2021)

  9. #1586
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,407
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerMW View Post
    it turns out SNP mutation rates vary more than we'd like. Ian Fitzpatrick is actually making the case for that. Mutation rates must be relatively constant to be useful.
    I am still working on this. Good debates are good motivation for learning. I am currently trying to understand the scale to the left on the Big Y Block tree. When I understand I will use R-A1487 as a mini-case study.
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerMW
    STRs … also can be used for TMRCA estimates, but below Y67 I agree they are not very useful. You need a lot. Y111 isn't even really enough.
    I dusted off a look a look at STR TMRCAs too. An inhibitor that befuddles many is that subclades can’t be rawly mixed together. A large subclade can bias the overall TMRCA estimate. What looks like an “outlier” STR haplotype may be just be a member of a rarer subclade with an early branch away from its much larger subclade brother.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 07-26-2021 at 09:48 PM.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (07-26-2021)

  11. #1587
    Registered Users
    Posts
    324
    Sex
    Location
    Northern England
    Ethnicity
    English
    Nationality
    English
    Y-DNA (P)
    FT389203
    mtDNA (M)
    H1c3
    Y-DNA (M)
    I1a1b1a1~ L22, P109.

    England
    Received my FTDNA results from Big Y-700 confirming my terminal branch on Y H2 tree is SNP 'FT18586'.
    Last edited by Paul333; 07-29-2021 at 05:49 PM.

  12. #1588
    Registered Users
    Posts
    324
    Sex
    Location
    Northern England
    Ethnicity
    English
    Nationality
    English
    Y-DNA (P)
    FT389203
    mtDNA (M)
    H1c3
    Y-DNA (M)
    I1a1b1a1~ L22, P109.

    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul333 View Post
    Received my FTDNA results from Big Y-700 confirming my terminal branch on Y H2 tree is SNP 'FT18586'.
    Sorry
    I meant my correct terminal from Big Y-700 is actually 'FT18685, not FT18586, as I wrongly stated.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul333 For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (08-01-2021)

  14. #1589
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,203
    Sex
    Location
    Brisbane
    Nationality
    Australian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T-P322 (T1a2b1)
    mtDNA (M)
    H6a1

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Whenever I begin to despair of getting anywhere with making sense of my mtDNA subclade, I look at YDNA block trees.
    Yes, there are problems with block trees, but it could be oh, so much worse.

    I have been on the journey from reading academic work with STR markers in single figures a couple of decades ago.
    And spent several of the past few years envying R1b for their block tree.
    It is so much better now that we all have it.

    But it has made me feel far lonelier regarding YDNA.
    When I first tested at 67 STRs, although I had "no matches", doing a bit of a calculation on those closest to me suggested we were in the same subclade and probably separated by one or two millennia. Initial testing of a few confirmatory SNPs supported this.
    Y-700 brought the amazing news that I am not even part of that terminal subclade and am separated from them by around ten millennia.
    Just as well my mtDNA and aDNA connect me to some larger groups.
    And that while my YDNA terminal line has no one else tested, I do have a book full of them in my country.
    Just no leads further back in the Old Country.
    Yet.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (08-02-2021)

  16. #1590
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    3,035
    Sex
    Location
    Florida, USA.
    Ethnicity
    English, Scottish & Irish
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-FT80854
    mtDNA (M)
    H1e2
    mtDNA (P)
    K1

    England Scotland Ireland Germany Bayern Italy Two Sicilies France
    For anyone interested in upgrading or buying a Y700 test. FTDNA is having their summer sale.

    Attachment 45855
    Last edited by JMcB; 08-02-2021 at 09:03 PM.
    Paper Trail: 42.25% English, 31.25% Scottish, 12.5% Irish, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French. Or: 86% British Isles, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French.
    LDNA(c): 86.3% British Isles (48.6% English, 37.7% Scottish & Irish), 7.8% NW Germanic, 5.9% Europe South (Aegean 3.4%, Tuscany 1.3%, Sardinia 1.1%)
    BigY 700: I1-Z140 >I-F2642 >Y1966 >Y3649 >A13241 >Y3647 >A13248 (circa 620 AD) >A13242/YSEQ (circa 765 AD) >FT80854 (circa 1650 AD).

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     deadly77 (08-02-2021),  Dewsloth (08-02-2021),  Saetro (08-03-2021)

Page 159 of 162 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159160161 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •