Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila

Expand Messages
  • Don Byars
    For anyone who is interested--and for what it is worth--I did a TMRCA calculation a few weeks ago using Dean McGee s Y-DNA Comparison Utility
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      For anyone who is interested--and for what it is worth--I did a TMRCA calculation a few weeks ago using Dean McGee's Y-DNA Comparison Utility (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) for SNP Z346 using the "1523-a,b" cluster from Charles' 111 spreadsheet, and the TMRCA result was 1860 ybp.

      Don

      --- On Thu, 5/31/12, Vince <vince@...> wrote:

      From: Vince <vince@...>
      Subject: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
      To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

       

      I find it intriguing that Marko's new 111 marker tree also implies a common ancestor between L199 and R-L217.1. Hmmm...

      Vince T.

      --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, "GTC" <gtc@...> wrote:
      >
      > He has posted on World Families Forums that he used the SNP Index to create the tree in spreadsheet format, but "Unfortunately the index is out of date and contains many errors, especially in the case of Hg R"
      >
      > Here is a link to his post: http://tinyurl.com/7uv8253
      >
      >
      > --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, Raymond Wing <wing_genealogist@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I have (hopefully) messaged Marko about his new spreadsheets, as I have noted a couple of issues which may be affecting the TMRCA dates ESPECIALLY for Z8 and its subclades.
      > >
      > > On a minor note, his haplogroup designation below U106 appears to be in error (see: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html for the most current update). Hopefully this issue does not affect any of his calculations.
      > >
      > > A more glaring issue is the fact he has separated Z5 from Z8 when (AFAIK) the two are phylogenetically equivalent (ie whenever someone has tested for both SNPS, they are either positive for both or negative for both). This separation of Z5 and Z8 has likely caused the ages of these clades (and their subclades) to be distorted. For instance, it lists Z5 and its subclades (Z1 & Z6) as being roughly 3400 years old while Z8 is listed as roughly 3000 years old. Z1 & Z6 cannot be older than its ancestral Z8 SNP (and prior estimates by Marko & others had placed Z8 roughly 2500-3000 years ago).
      > >  
      > > Ray
      > >
      >

    • Don Byars
      Correction:  The TMRCA result of 1860 ybp was for SNP Z343 1523-b cluster, not SNP Z346. Sorry! Don ... From: Don Byars Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Correction:  The TMRCA result of 1860 ybp was for SNP Z343 "1523-b" cluster, not SNP Z346.

        Sorry!

        Don

        --- On Fri, 6/1/12, Don Byars <snake86413@...> wrote:

        From: Don Byars <snake86413@...>
        Subject: Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
        To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, June 1, 2012, 12:59 AM

         

        For anyone who is interested--and for what it is worth--I did a TMRCA calculation a few weeks ago using Dean McGee's Y-DNA Comparison Utility (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) for SNP Z346 using the "1523-a,b" cluster from Charles' 111 spreadsheet, and the TMRCA result was 1860 ybp.

        Don

        --- On Thu, 5/31/12, Vince <vince@...> wrote:

        From: Vince <vince@...>
        Subject: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
        To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

         

        I find it intriguing that Marko's new 111 marker tree also implies a common ancestor between L199 and R-L217.1. Hmmm...

        Vince T.

        --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, "GTC" <gtc@...> wrote:
        >
        > He has posted on World Families Forums that he used the SNP Index to create the tree in spreadsheet format, but "Unfortunately the index is out of date and contains many errors, especially in the case of Hg R"
        >
        > Here is a link to his post: http://tinyurl.com/7uv8253
        >
        >
        > --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, Raymond Wing <wing_genealogist@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I have (hopefully) messaged Marko about his new spreadsheets, as I have noted a couple of issues which may be affecting the TMRCA dates ESPECIALLY for Z8 and its subclades.
        > >
        > > On a minor note, his haplogroup designation below U106 appears to be in error (see: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html for the most current update). Hopefully this issue does not affect any of his calculations.
        > >
        > > A more glaring issue is the fact he has separated Z5 from Z8 when (AFAIK) the two are phylogenetically equivalent (ie whenever someone has tested for both SNPS, they are either positive for both or negative for both). This separation of Z5 and Z8 has likely caused the ages of these clades (and their subclades) to be distorted. For instance, it lists Z5 and its subclades (Z1 & Z6) as being roughly 3400 years old while Z8 is listed as roughly 3000 years old. Z1 & Z6 cannot be older than its ancestral Z8 SNP (and prior estimates by Marko & others had placed Z8 roughly 2500-3000 years ago).
        > >  
        > > Ray
        > >
        >

      • Raymond Wing
        I have contacted Alice Fairhurst (and Charles Moore) from ISOGG and made them aware of this issue. They are busy at the moment, but I did receive a reply that
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I have contacted Alice Fairhurst (and Charles Moore) from ISOGG and made them aware of this issue. They are busy at the moment, but I did receive a reply that this issue will be addressed in the near future.
           
          Ray

          From: GTC <gtc@...>
          To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 12:09 AM
          Subject: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila

           
          He has posted on World Families Forums that he used the SNP Index to create the tree in spreadsheet format, but "Unfortunately the index is out of date and contains many errors, especially in the case of Hg R"

          Here is a link to his post: http://tinyurl.com/7uv8253

          --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, Raymond Wing <wing_genealogist@...> wrote:
          >
          > I have (hopefully) messaged Marko about his new spreadsheets, as I have noted a couple of issues which may be affecting the TMRCA dates ESPECIALLY for Z8 and its subclades.
          >
          > On a minor note, his haplogroup designation below U106 appears to be in error (see: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html for the most current update). Hopefully this issue does not affect any of his calculations.
          >
          > A more glaring issue is the fact he has separated Z5 from Z8 when (AFAIK) the two are phylogenetically equivalent (ie whenever someone has tested for both SNPS, they are either positive for both or negative for both). This separation of Z5 and Z8 has likely caused the ages of these clades (and their subclades) to be distorted. For instance, it lists Z5 and its subclades (Z1 & Z6) as being roughly 3400 years old while Z8 is listed as roughly 3000 years old. Z1 & Z6 cannot be older than its ancestral Z8 SNP (and prior estimates by Marko & others had placed Z8 roughly 2500-3000 years ago).
          >  
          > Ray
          >



        • Don Byars
          Oh, and I guess I should add that I added some other haplotypes to the Z343 TMRCA calculation that aren t included in Charles 1523-b cluster, namely,
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Oh, and I guess I should add that I added some other haplotypes to the Z343 TMRCA calculation that aren't included in Charles' "1523-b" cluster, namely, Lawrence kit# 232247, Hightower kit# 10666, Gregory kit# 43232, Sprague kit# 62483, Nikkienen kit# N64794, and Hendrix Ysearch I.D. D7JVQ.

            Don

            --- On Fri, 6/1/12, Don Byars <snake86413@...> wrote:

            From: Don Byars <snake86413@...>
            Subject: Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
            To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, June 1, 2012, 1:36 AM

             

            Correction:  The TMRCA result of 1860 ybp was for SNP Z343 "1523-b" cluster, not SNP Z346.

            Sorry!

            Don

            --- On Fri, 6/1/12, Don Byars <snake86413@...> wrote:

            From: Don Byars <snake86413@...>
            Subject: Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
            To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, June 1, 2012, 12:59 AM

             

            For anyone who is interested--and for what it is worth--I did a TMRCA calculation a few weeks ago using Dean McGee's Y-DNA Comparison Utility (http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility111.html) for SNP Z346 using the "1523-a,b" cluster from Charles' 111 spreadsheet, and the TMRCA result was 1860 ybp.

            Don

            --- On Thu, 5/31/12, Vince <vince@...> wrote:

            From: Vince <vince@...>
            Subject: [R1b1c_U106-S21] Re: TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila
            To: R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

             

            I find it intriguing that Marko's new 111 marker tree also implies a common ancestor between L199 and R-L217.1. Hmmm...

            Vince T.

            --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, "GTC" <gtc@...> wrote:
            >
            > He has posted on World Families Forums that he used the SNP Index to create the tree in spreadsheet format, but "Unfortunately the index is out of date and contains many errors, especially in the case of Hg R"
            >
            > Here is a link to his post: http://tinyurl.com/7uv8253
            >
            >
            > --- In R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com, Raymond Wing <wing_genealogist@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I have (hopefully) messaged Marko about his new spreadsheets, as I have noted a couple of issues which may be affecting the TMRCA dates ESPECIALLY for Z8 and its subclades.
            > >
            > > On a minor note, his haplogroup designation below U106 appears to be in error (see: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html for the most current update). Hopefully this issue does not affect any of his calculations.
            > >
            > > A more glaring issue is the fact he has separated Z5 from Z8 when (AFAIK) the two are phylogenetically equivalent (ie whenever someone has tested for both SNPS, they are either positive for both or negative for both). This separation of Z5 and Z8 has likely caused the ages of these clades (and their subclades) to be distorted. For instance, it lists Z5 and its subclades (Z1 & Z6) as being roughly 3400 years old while Z8 is listed as roughly 3000 years old. Z1 & Z6 cannot be older than its ancestral Z8 SNP (and prior estimates by Marko & others had placed Z8 roughly 2500-3000 years ago).
            > >  
            > > Ray
            > >
            >

          • Steve Frank
            My results came in for DYS464X Testing:  15c-16c-17c-17g.   I would appreciate someone s help  to get this information into the spreadsheet.   Please let
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 9, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              My results came in for DYS464X Testing:  15c-16c-17c-17g.   I would appreciate someone's help  to get this information into the spreadsheet.   Please let me know if you need more information. 
               
              Thank You,
               
              Steve Frank
              N56927

              From: Raymond Wing <wing_genealogist@...>
              To: "R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com" <R1b1c_U106-S21@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:09 PM
              Subject: Re: [R1b1c_U106-S21] TMRCA calculations by Marko Heinila



              I have (hopefully) messaged Marko about his new spreadsheets, as I have noted a couple of issues which may be affecting the TMRCA dates ESPECIALLY for Z8 and its subclades.

              On a minor note, his haplogroup designation below U106 appears to be in error (see: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html for the most current update). Hopefully this issue does not affect any of his calculations.

              A more glaring issue is the fact he has separated Z5 from Z8 when (AFAIK) the two are phylogenetically equivalent (ie whenever someone has tested for both SNPS, they are either positive for both or negative for both). This separation of Z5 and Z8 has likely caused the ages of these clades (and their subclades) to be distorted. For instance, it lists Z5 and its subclades (Z1 & Z6) as being roughly 3400 years old while Z8 is listed as roughly 3000 years old. Z1 & Z6 cannot be older than its ancestral Z8 SNP (and prior estimates by Marko & others had placed Z8 roughly 2500-3000 years ago).
               
              Ray




            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.