Susan Your critique below is an honest and penetrating review of your logic in applying yDNA analytical methods. Have you seen an accessible reference where these paradoxes are discussed in detail, with helpful diagrams that show the bias introduced by bottlenecks, early death and girling? Is it all down to pure chance? Monte Carlo simulation of such a system would surely result in an infinite number of unprovable hypotheses. If as you correctly point out, modern modes are meaningless, and taking account of reverse mutation, it follows that we cannot establish the actual profile of that remote 'ultimate' ancestral haplotype/SNP without disinterring his actual remains and analysing his Y profile. Such a discovery is akin to finding a needle in a haystack, considering all the tumuli, tamlaghts and battlefields of the ancient world. Further thoughts about this would be welcome. M. On 22 Nov 2013, at 15:43, Susan Hedeen wrote: > Dear Brad, > We now get into the paradoxes. > > On the one hand a modal assumes what we believe a founders haplotype > would be today if that founder lived and tested today; however in best > case, this assumption is really theoretical. In actuality, we do not > know what the founder's haplotype was 2000+ years ago, and with > mutations being random, what the modal represents is the average of > all > allele mutations for all the haplotypes in the tested results. Our > today's haplotypes exist because our Y ancestors survived...others, > however did not. Had all survived to produce a continuous flow of > men, > the modal could be different. > > All M222 lead back to the founder--that is the first bearer of the > M222 > single nucleotide polymorphism--the SNP mutation which caused this > bearer and his descendants to depart from his relatives in the sub- > clade > ancestral to R-M222. In reality, there is no R-M222 descendant bearer > which could be considered "older" than the next. > > That said, there are some caveats to this. The first is the reality > that diversity of haplotype generally indicates age which in reality > is > survival. In simplistic terms it takes time for mutations to occur > hence the more SNP mutations present in linear succession from the > M222 > mutation the longer the lineage has survived (since R-M222 mutated). > Additionally the haplotypes may often indicate this in their diversity > and sometimes be a signal for the various episodes of calving which > have > occurred between the M222 mutation and any given lineage with > surviving > men today who have tested. > > Here is where this paradox enters the picture...the sub-clade from > which > a calving occurs is ancestral; however the calf in survival will > generally indicate age. The calving, if you will, is where there are > splits. Within a lineage the haplotypes often indicate the splits > within the lineage itself; within the clade, the splits are > indicated by > the down stream SNPs. > > View this as you would view a tree. Below ground is a complex root > system that begins with initially 1 root which then sprouts off the > balance of roots as the tree grows. I usually equate the root system > with the SNPs previous to the clade in question. Above ground is the > trunk (the first bearer of the clade) from which there are further > branches splitting away (the down stream SNPs); those branches > continue > to split into limbs (extended lineages), twigs (family lineages), and > leaves as the tree grows. We are the leaves. The tree itself is X > numbers of years old, and at various points in its growing both the > above and below ground systems split and expand, and over time > sections > of both systems die off, yet the tree generally will survive--not > indefinitely, but it will have produced seeds which is another > subject. > > In genealogy we may call the die off everything from dying young > before > procreating to girling out-- that is a progenitor issues only girls; > if > he (the progenitor) has male cousins and/or brothers who also issue > only > daughters, then with their deaths that particular Y lineage is > lost--does not survive. HOWEVER if the overall extended lineage is > old > enough, the loss of that particular lineage does not affect the > viability of the others who will be under the same constraints faced > by all. > > We all are survivors. Hope this helps, Susan > > On 11/22/2013 9:47 AM, Brad and Sheila Knowles wrote: >> Susan, >> >> "The closer one's haplotype is to the M222 modal the more matches the >> individual will have." That is very interesting. >> >> If I understand this correctly, it solves a puzzle I have been >> wrestling >> with. I currently have 113 matches at 67 markers on my FTDNA report. >> In correspondence with some of these people I have found that they >> have >> only 10 or 12 matches at 67 markers. Does this mean that my line is >> probably ancestral to theirs? Likewise, my line would be under one >> of >> my matches that had, say, 200 matches at 67 markers. Taking this to >> its logical (or illogical) conclusion, if I knew how many matches >> each >> of my 113 matches had, I could place them in order and construct my >> family tree! >> >> I realize that this is not a rigorous approach but it does seem to >> indicate that the number of matches we all have to the M222 modal >> is a >> useful parameter and one that should be made public. >> >> Your thoughts? >> >> Brad Knowles >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message