X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31
    Join Date
    8th March 09
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by turpin View Post
    So how does it work if my Scottish line comes thrugh my mother, her father and grandfather, thence through her great grandmother to her GGM's father and patrilineal from there?

    Obviously the Y test isn't right, but will the mtDNA test shed light any better? Or is this a case of "you're hosed, turpin"?
    I would think if you had an uncle or someone from her male line take the test... it will reflect that ancestory
    “Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant.”
    – Robert Louis Stevenson

  2. #32
    Join Date
    13th September 04
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    11,885
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gilmore View Post
    While I agree that DNA testing is best used when it supplements the paper trail, it's obvious that YDNA testing can show ancestry linking a man to some one whose other descendents are part of Clan X---or who was himself a clansman.

    We are beginning to confuse biology with culture. DNA can outline the former quite well. The latter is a trickier thing. What a clan is---or more acurately, what a clan was---is determined societally, not gentically, though of course genetics play a part. (And we won't even get into clan associations.)

    Of course there is a great difference between saying "My YDNA shows that I am a direct patrilineal descendant of Somerled, (even though we are pure Italian as far back as we can trace it)" and saying "I am a member of the clan MacDonald."
    I'm afraid I must take exception to this. ""My YDNA shows that I am a direct patrilineal descendant of Somerled"

    I'm afraid not. Even if we had copies of Master Somerled's yDNA to sequence, even a base-for base exact match between our hypothetical persons y chromosome, and Master Somerled's Y chromosome, that does not PROVE that our friend is descended from Master Somerled.

    It only indicates to a high probability that he is descended. In fact it could possibly be that our hypothetical fellow is descended from someone else, who just SO HAPPENS to have the same Y Chromosome. Let's pretend that this person is Master Ballantrae.

    How could two people have the exact same Y chromosome?

    Well, for one explanation, Master Somerled and Master Ballantrae are brothers. Perhaps they're identical twins. Our client could quite easily be descended from Master Ballantrae, and not from Master Somerled at all.

    That's just one example, of several I could give you.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    13th September 04
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    11,885
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gilmore View Post
    Actually, there is a way to tell how far back in time your and your close YDNA's matches' most recent common ancestor lived.

    Family Tree DNA has a software tool that will give you an estimate as to the probability of the number of generations that separate you from each of your matches. "...FTDNATiP™ calculator which takes into account our new University of Arizona mutation rate study information. " http://www.familytreedna.com/my-ftdn...ftdna-tip.aspx

    It is expressed like this, an example of one of my close matches and me:

    "In comparing 37 markers, the probability that Mr. XXX and Mr. AAA shared a common ancestor within the last...
    generation is 2.72%
    2 generations is 9.72%
    3 generations is 19.9%
    4 generations is 31.56%
    5 generations is 43.32%
    6 generations is 54.25%
    7 generations is 63.84%
    8 generations is 71.93%
    9 generations is 78.53%
    10 generations is 83.79%
    11 generations is 87.89%
    12 generations is 91.05%
    13 generations is 93.44%
    14 generations is 95.22%
    15 generations is 96.55%
    16 generations is 97.52%
    17 generations is 98.23%
    18 generations is 98.74%
    19 generations is 99.11%
    20 generations is 99.37%
    21 generations is 99.56%
    22 generations is 99.69%
    23 generations is 99.78%
    24 generations is 99.85%."

    We can see that the 50th percentile is crossed between five and six generations. Therefore, it becomes more likely than not---or probable--- that our most recent common ancestor was at least five or six generations ago. The number of years in a generation for men varies from culture to culture, from society to society, but the usually accepted figure is 27 years, so we see that that was some 135 to 162 years ago, or around the period starting in 1847 and ending in 1874. Thus, our most recent common male ancestor probably lived in the early 19th century or earlier. While this fact is not in itself dispositive of a whole lot, it can be an important clue. And that is what much of genealogical research is, following clues until we arrive at harder and harder facts, and get a more and more conclusive picture of who and where our ancestors were, and what they were doing.

    In this case, the other man knows from his research when his patrilineal ancestor came to America from Europe, and which city he came from. This tells me where and within what period of time it might be useful for me to do further research, starting with my oldest documented patrlineal ancestor I am sure of, and working backward.

    Also, YDNA testing can sometimes show with amazing exactitude---with precision that increases as more and more men test--- the geographic location where the mutation of the marker(s) that distinguishes their YDNA from others' occurred, and how long ago it occurred. In other words, it is now sometimes possible to say, e.g., that "It is more probable than not that Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z descend from a common male ancestor who lived on the island of Harris 250-300 years ago."
    I have to say that as far as I know, the estimates of mutation rate, especially in "coding" and there fore naturally selected regions of the genome, is a topic of pretty hot debate right now. I'd be chary of pinning too many statements of *Truth* on estimates.

    Also, and I don't know the answer to this.... exactly WHICH regions of the Y chromosome are sequenced to provide the ancestry information. There's still a huge amount of debate over the spontaneous mutation rate, but whatever the case, estimates are in the range of a single mutation per 100 - 500 generations.

    Here's a very low estimate, I know the second author on this paper..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14691732

    Here's a stunningly high estimate

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08...tion-rate.html

    Four base substitutions in thirteen generations? Wow, that's four point mutations in 250 years.. I haven't read the actual paper, I don't know how they actually got tissue from 13 generations back...

    It's also pretty clear that the Y chromosome does not mutate evenly across all loci.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cfeb20edae7dc1


    In summary, again, I'd be chary of putting too much weight on the TIMING of things, as "determined" by yDNA testing.

    However, one thing you said is spot-on, for sure... "with precision that increases as more and more men test"

    I'd also like to very slightly edit another phrase that you wrote, to make a point...

    In other words, it is now sometimes possible to say, e.g., that "It is more probable than not that Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z descend from a common male ancestor who lived on the island of Harris 250-300 years ago."

    sometimes...yes. Sometimes, no.

    I quite like the way you phrase this...

    In other words, it is now sometimes possible to say, e.g., that "It is more probable than not that Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z descend from a common male ancestor who lived on the island of Harris 250-300 years ago."

    It's clear that you're talking about estimates, and understand that generation times can vary. As long as the discussion is about "estimates" I'm good to go!

    And you make a good point. As the cumulative data set widens, the accuracy is only going to get better....though it will still always be an estimate.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    13th September 04
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    11,885
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, the things we can get into, here on X Marks. I NEVER thought I'd have a discussion on Y chromosome mutation rate estimates!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    13th September 04
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    11,885
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just saw this...pretty interesting, regarding the co-inheritance of both your surname and your particular y chromosome haplotype..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204044?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_PMC&linkpos=3&log$=citedinpmcartic les&logdbfrom=pubmed

    Upshot is, depending on your name, the degree of correlation between inheriting your surname, and inheriting your haplotype varies HUGELY....with the more rare names being passed on more reliably than the more common ones.

    In other words, depending on someones surname, to formulate a pool of individuals against which to compare your haplotype, based on the name, might not necessarily be the most accurate thing to do, especially if you have a very common name.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    13th September 04
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    11,885
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pdcorlis View Post
    I hope I may ask a question - I have my fathers line back to George Corliss - first Corliss across the pond in the mid 1600's and to his father somewhere in Britain. Knowing this, what else can Y DNA testing tell me?
    I think your paper trail is pretty freaking good, if you really have that information documented.

    Phil, that's almost 350 years. That's amazing.

    If you really wanted to pursue this route, I'd research mtDNA, instead and take a look at Moms side of the family. mtDNA has a significantly higher spontaneous mutation rate than chromosomal DNA, though estimates of that rate are all over the map! However, since mutations accumulate more rapidly, there are a lot more haplotypes and haplogroups and you can get more specific information than with yDNA testing. NOte that not all haplogroups of mtDNA mutate at the same rate.

    That clock don't click the same, over the entire genome.

    I'd be chary of pinning too much the timing of things. Any results that you get back will be ESTIMATES and if you keep that in mind, you might find out something useful.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    22nd November 07
    Location
    US
    Posts
    11,355
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One thing about what Gilmore is saying on the clans and genetics... The clan chiefship or the normal passing on of the title of chief is absolutely one-hundred percent based on genetics; in other words, an offspring or genetic relative off to the side. Without a chief, there is no clan.

    I interrogated MacMillan of Rathdown on this point a while back, and he assured me this was the case. All other clan related things are matters of loilty to the chief and are not required to be geneticly based.

    It would be interesting to see how the genetic relations pan out in the chiefs if it were possible to follow back the path of the DNA, since there was no way of being sure until recent times.

    On the other hand, it might open a few cans of worms; I know it would in my family.
    I tried to ask my inner curmudgeon before posting, but he sprayed me with the garden hose…
    Yes, I have squirrels in my brain…

  8. #38
    Join Date
    23rd May 06
    Location
    Far NW Corner of Washington State, USA (48° 45' 51.5808" N / -122° 30' 36.6228" W)
    Posts
    5,715
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Crocker View Post
    It would be interesting to see how the genetic relations pan out in the chiefs if it were possible to follow back the path of the DNA, since there was no way of being sure until recent times.

    On the other hand, it might open a few cans of worms; I know it would in my family.
    Don't know if you'd find these of interest or not Ted, but thought I'd toss out there these interesting articles/sites regarding the Clan Donald USA Genetic Genealogy Project and the The Norse Code as it relates to the founder of Clan Donald (Somerled), the Norse code/dna of Clan Donald, & the testing of the Chiefs of Clan Donald.

    One day I hope I can afford to take part in DNA testing. While the furthest I've traced my Scottish /& Irish ancestors back is early to mid 1500's, I've been able to follow the paper trail of my Dutch ancestors to about 1330.
    [SIZE="2"][FONT="Georgia"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][B][I]T. E. ("TERRY") HOLMES[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
    [SIZE="1"][FONT="Georgia"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][B][I]proud descendant of the McReynolds/MacRanalds of Ulster & Keppoch, Somerled & Robert the Bruce.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="1"]"Ah, here comes the Bold Highlander. No @rse in his breeks but too proud to tug his forelock..." Rob Roy (1995)[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

  9. #39
    Join Date
    14th January 08
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    4,143
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Gilmore

    I have to agree with Alan on this one when it comes to validity of "estimates" of how far back and from where a certain y-DNA profile might originate in relationship to your own. As you say yourself and show in your statistical charts, these are "estimates" based on statistical probability. On any individual basis I think they are interesting and MAY lead you in a more directed focus to an area of the world to focus your paper chase efforts, but they are not precise enough to document much otherwise. I am not sure I want to put in my paper lineage trace the fact that I might ahve a 25% chance of being a MacDonnell of Keppoch. I would rather have firm evidence of a patrilineal link before venturing into those waters.

    Science is a wonderful thing, but like anything else the data needs to be taken in context and the outcome assumptions in moderation. I also agree that the more folks tested, and the more loci on the y chromosome that can be utilized for testing, the better overall population genetic database we will have in the long run, and the more likely we are to eventually be able to make more sense of all the data.

    jeff :ootd:

  10. #40
    Join Date
    2nd July 08
    Posts
    1,365
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peacekeeper83 View Post
    I would think if you had an uncle or someone from her male line take the test... it will reflect that ancestory
    This is similar to my situation. I have two uncles (my mum's brothers) who are the last male O'Callaghans of the name in our family. One never married, and the other married someone who already had a daughter and didn't want more children. They are both well into their eighties, so there's no likelihood that either of them will have a genetic son now.

    I would love to know what a DNA test on either one of them would show, but I am hesitant to ask them to get tested. I doubt if they would immediately realise that it would only take a scraping from under the tongue (or so I've heard). OTOH, if it is left too long, then eventually it will be too late, for the saddest of reasons. I think I ought to speak to my mum about this. She is the family genealogist anyway, so she would be interested in the results I'm sure.

    The burning question that it ought to answer is whether we are all descendants of Ceallachan of Cashel, King of Munster, d.953, or simply, as we already know, descended from a long line of Irish sailors. Whether a Y DNA test could even answer that I'm not sure, but the only way to really find out is to test one of my uncles.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I need more whiskey to understand this.....
    By brandycr in forum Miscellaneous Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2nd May 07, 05:22 PM
  2. okay i dont understand
    By switchblade5984 in forum Miscellaneous Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st June 06, 04:16 PM
  3. Don't understand it, but I love it
    By Graham in forum General Celtic Music Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th September 05, 04:44 PM
  4. Help me understand utilikilts
    By Graham in forum Contemporary Kilt Wear
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 28th August 05, 12:21 PM
  5. now I understand
    By akaussie in forum General Kilt Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th January 05, 02:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0