Very interesting post. Thanks for providing the links Steven. Richard On Monday, October 12, 2015, steven perkins via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The recent ruling in Schrems v Facebook has the potential to cause > disruption to US genealogy companies and to the DNA testing companies. The > New York Times has a good review of the issues: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/business/international/behind-the-european-privacy-ruling-thats-confounding-silicon-valley.html > > See here for the ECTJ Press Release > > http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf > > And here for the Decision, opinions and application: > http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-362/14 > > > -- > Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com <javascript:;> > http://stevencperkins.com/ > Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html > Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ > Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ > S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html > S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com <javascript:;> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

List 11 new sequences have appeared - submitted directly by FTDNA customers. Most of the sequences appear to be submitted as the results of advertising by the administrators of the groups for Haplogroup I and H/HV - well done. As usual I have added the sequences to my 'Checker' program to ensure accuracy of transcription. The sequences belong to Haplogroups: H1a, H1ba, H1bf, H1j4, H1m, H2a1, H2a2a1, H11a, H18, I4a, J1c5 Ian www.ianlogan.co.uk -------------- KT827075(Sweden) FTDNA Haplogroup J1c5 07-OCT-2015 A73G G185A G228A A263G C295T 315.1C C462T T489C A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G A5198G C7028T A8860G A10398G A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A C14766T T14798C A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C KT827363(Russia) FTDNA Haplogroup H1m 07-OCT-2015 C150T A263G A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8860G T11878C C14136T G15323A A15326G A16299G T16519C KT827380 FTDNA Haplogroup H1ba 07-OCT-2015 A93G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8860G A15326G C16270T T16519C KT827381(Italy) FTDNA Haplogroup H18 07-OCT-2015 C150T A263G 315.1C G709A A750G A1438G T1717C A4769G A8860G T11864C G13708A G14364A T15287C A15326G T16519C KT828339(Bulgaria) FTDNA Haplogroup H2a2a1 07-OCT-2015 A73G 315.1C KT833130(Ireland) FTDNA Haplogroup H1bf 07-OCT-2015 T152C A263G 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A A4769G A8860G A11596G C13230T T13768C A15326G A16183- T16189C 16193.1C C16239T T16519C KT833146 FTDNA Haplogroup H1a 07-OCT-2015 A73G A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G T2483N G3010A A4769G T5580N T5788C A8701N A8860G A15326G T16140C A16162G C16301T T16519C KT851984 FTDNA Haplogroup H1j4 07-OCT-2015 A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G A1438G G3010A T4733C A4769G G7598A A8860G G10325A A15326G A16312G T16519C KT851985(Canada) FTDNA Haplogroup H2a1 07-OCT-2015 C194T A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G G951A C1833T T3150C A8860G T13326C A13434R A15326G C16354T KT851986 FTDNA Haplogroup H11a 07-OCT-2015 T152C T195C A263G 309.1C 315.1C A750G T961G A1438G G3736A A4769G G4820A A5515G T8448C A8860G G13759A A15326G A16293G T16311C KT851987(Israel) FTDNA Haplogroup I4a 07-OCT-2015 A73G T199C T204C T250C A263G 315.1C 573.1C 573.2C A750G A1438G G1719A A2706G T3199C A4529T A4769G C7028T G8251A G8519A A8860G T10034C A10083G T10238C A10398G T10742C A10819G G11719A G12501A C12705T A13780G C14766T G15043A A15326G A15924G T16093C G16129A C16223T C16292T G16391A T16519C

Does anyone have a list of SNPs that are included? On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Al Aburto via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I think it is useful because they test about 15000 Y-SNPs , about 3000 more > than the original Geno 2.0 ... > Al > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Doris Wheeler via < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > What is this new test? I see that it transfers to FF, so is it autosomal? > > Is it different from FF, Ancestry, 23andMe? Is there any "added value" > for > > someone who has already done Y-DNA, mtDNA and atDNA... and maybe the > > original National Geographic Y test? > > > > Thank you for any insight. > > > > Doris > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Orin, Yes estimating time to Y Adam is fraught with difficulties, but isn't it just "human nature" to try to do so. Perhaps it is our curiosity to know the seemingly unknowable which makes us human. Long may we play the game of estimating time to Y Adam. John. Sent from my iPad > On 12/10/2015, at 5:23 am, Orin Wells via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > There is a major problem with all of this "scientific" computation to > estimate the earliest ancestor. That is the computed frequency of > mutation on the various markers. I suggest, and maybe I am completely > wrong, that the frequency is just an estimation based on the observable > mutations currently. When I can identify men who have a MRCA who lived > 400 and 500 years ago who are clearly identified by genealogical records > and they have absolutely no mutations between them I really have to > question the accuracy of trying to pin down a common ancestor for all of > us so precisely. > >> On 10/10/2015 10:06 PM, AJ Marsh via wrote: >> Hi Sam, >> >> A good summary. The only comment I would make is that you suggest Y-DNA Adam lived 60,000 years ago which was the accepted figure for a long time, but there are different opinions. Yesterday I read 115,000 years ago somewhere if I recall correctly, and I believe I have seen estimates out to 250,000 years plus. >> >> The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around 234,900 years ago, >> http://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ . For the present I would suggest 234,900 years ago is as good a scientific guess as any, but it would not surprise me to see the estimates stretch out further over time. >> >> Using SNP mutation counting for estimates is good, but I keep having nagging feelings that over very long periods of time evolutionary selection might prune out less beneficial SNPs, which may mean for very long time periods our estimates might be low if we base them on all SNPs surviving at a constant rate without evolutionary pruning. There was a time when a x3 fudge factor was used to allow for evolutionary pruning. >> >> Then if we test everybody on earth, and find a single surviving Neanderthal Y-DNA line, Y-DNA Adam estimates might jump out by a factor of 2. >> >> Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. >> >> John. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >>> On 11/10/2015, at 5:08 pm, Sam Sloan via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> >>> It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this nature >>> can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from just >>> one man who lived 60,000 years ago. >>> >>> The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome that >>> they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because females to >>> not have a Y-Chromosome. >>> >>> By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men have a >>> similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that they >>> all have a common origin. >>> >>> This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common >>> origin who is the DNA father of us all. >>> >>> We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is >>> because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent father of >>> us all, and not his father. >>> >>> What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common >>> Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, but we >>> want to find the one man who is the most recent. >>> >>> There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. However >>> the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became extinct, >>> except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male Ancestor >>> survives in all of us today. >>> >>> We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. The >>> Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really the >>> first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had brothers. >>> However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended on >>> the straight male line. >>> >>> Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA >>> mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate of >>> mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other >>> men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many generations ago >>> the man who is the father of us all lived. >>> >>> By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father of us >>> all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. >>> >>> This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we can >>> definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. There >>> must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found their >>> bones yet. >>> >>> We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. >>> >>> Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass >>> down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male and >>> female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not know >>> how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We >>> would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women >>> have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a >>> chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and happens >>> more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam and >>> the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably >>> lived thousands of years earlier than he did. >>> >>> This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been >>> published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the street on >>> 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were >>> four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black people >>> did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. >>> >>> Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The Chinese >>> are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just >>> convenient terms people used. >>> >>> However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is the >>> father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, there >>> have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. The >>> changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just within >>> those 2,000 generations. >>> Sam Sloan >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Orin Wells > 253-630-5296 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes. One son bore one of the following mutations: AF4, AF5, AF7, AF8, AF9, AF10, AF13, L1086, L1087, L1088, L1091, L1092, L1094, L1096, L1097, L1102, L1103, L1104, L1106, L1107, L1108, L1109, L1110, L1111, L1113, L1114, L1115, L1117, L1119, L1122, L1126, L1131, L1133, L1134, L1138, L1139, L1140, L1141, L1144, L1146, L1147, L1148, L1151, L1152, L1154, L1156, L1157, L1158, L1159, L1160, L1161, L1163, L1233, L1234, L1236, L1085, AF3, L1089, L1090, L1093, L1095, L1098, L1099, L1101, L1105, L1116, L1118, L1120, L1121, L1123, L1124, L1125, L1127, L1128, L1129, L1130, L1132, L1135, L1136, L1137, L1142, L1143, L1145, L1150, L1155, or L1235 and the other did not. Well, that's we know it today. Doug McDonald________________________________________ From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Sam Sloan via [genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 3:24 PM To: AJ Marsh; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Cc: Orin Wells Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Developments I just thought of something I have not seen anybody else say. If we agree that our Most Recent Common Ancestor was a man named Adam and he must have had at least two sons, then we should call his two sons DNA-Cain and DNA-Able. Can we find how they were different? Sam Sloan On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Orin, > > Yes estimating time to Y Adam is fraught with difficulties, but isn't it > just "human nature" to try to do so. Perhaps it is our curiosity to know > the seemingly unknowable which makes us human. Long may we play the game > of estimating time to Y Adam. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 12/10/2015, at 5:23 am, Orin Wells via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > There is a major problem with all of this "scientific" computation to > > estimate the earliest ancestor. That is the computed frequency of > > mutation on the various markers. I suggest, and maybe I am completely > > wrong, that the frequency is just an estimation based on the observable > > mutations currently. When I can identify men who have a MRCA who lived > > 400 and 500 years ago who are clearly identified by genealogical records > > and they have absolutely no mutations between them I really have to > > question the accuracy of trying to pin down a common ancestor for all of > > us so precisely. > > > >> On 10/10/2015 10:06 PM, AJ Marsh via wrote: > >> Hi Sam, > >> > >> A good summary. The only comment I would make is that you suggest > Y-DNA Adam lived 60,000 years ago which was the accepted figure for a long > time, but there are different opinions. Yesterday I read 115,000 years ago > somewhere if I recall correctly, and I believe I have seen estimates out to > 250,000 years plus. > >> > >> The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around > 234,900 years ago, > >> http://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ . For the present I would suggest > 234,900 years ago is as good a scientific guess as any, but it would not > surprise me to see the estimates stretch out further over time. > >> > >> Using SNP mutation counting for estimates is good, but I keep having > nagging feelings that over very long periods of time evolutionary selection > might prune out less beneficial SNPs, which may mean for very long time > periods our estimates might be low if we base them on all SNPs surviving at > a constant rate without evolutionary pruning. There was a time when a x3 > fudge factor was used to allow for evolutionary pruning. > >> > >> Then if we test everybody on earth, and find a single surviving > Neanderthal Y-DNA line, Y-DNA Adam estimates might jump out by a factor of > 2. > >> > >> Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know > myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full > bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when > wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even > some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have > to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 > rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will > leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. > >> > >> John. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >>> On 11/10/2015, at 5:08 pm, Sam Sloan via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this > nature > >>> can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from > just > >>> one man who lived 60,000 years ago. > >>> > >>> The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome > that > >>> they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because > females to > >>> not have a Y-Chromosome. > >>> > >>> By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men > have a > >>> similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that > they > >>> all have a common origin. > >>> > >>> This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common > >>> origin who is the DNA father of us all. > >>> > >>> We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is > >>> because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent > father of > >>> us all, and not his father. > >>> > >>> What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common > >>> Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, > but we > >>> want to find the one man who is the most recent. > >>> > >>> There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. > However > >>> the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became > extinct, > >>> except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male > Ancestor > >>> survives in all of us today. > >>> > >>> We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. > The > >>> Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really > the > >>> first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had > brothers. > >>> However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended > on > >>> the straight male line. > >>> > >>> Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA > >>> mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate > of > >>> mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other > >>> men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many > generations ago > >>> the man who is the father of us all lived. > >>> > >>> By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father > of us > >>> all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. > >>> > >>> This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we > can > >>> definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. > There > >>> must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found > their > >>> bones yet. > >>> > >>> We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. > >>> > >>> Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass > >>> down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male > and > >>> female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not > know > >>> how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We > >>> would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women > >>> have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a > >>> chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and > happens > >>> more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam > and > >>> the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably > >>> lived thousands of years earlier than he did. > >>> > >>> This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been > >>> published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the > street on > >>> 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were > >>> four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black > people > >>> did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. > >>> > >>> Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The > Chinese > >>> are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just > >>> convenient terms people used. > >>> > >>> However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is > the > >>> father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, > there > >>> have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. > The > >>> changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just > within > >>> those 2,000 generations. > >>> Sam Sloan > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > > Orin Wells > > 253-630-5296 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sam, My oldest known genetic Y-mutation is P305 which occurred about 100,000 years ago in a man in Africa. P305 is considered the ancestor to more than 99.9% of male lineages today. Generally, "Y-chromosome Adam" (the supposed genetic father of all men) is estimated from 300,000 to 150,000 years ago. I do not have any update studies on these ages. Y-Adam is a reoccurring theme here and makes for some interesting and varying theories, and I look forward to future studies. The news media dubbed the popular term "Y-chromosome Adam" or "Y-Adam" and is not to be confused with Biblical Adam, whose origins are from a Hebrew word symbolizing the "first" man on earth from a theological point of view. The Hebrew scribes adopted much of the creation story from the Babylonians when the Judean Hebrews were taken into captivity. From there the Judean Hebrews became known as "Jews" prior to there release from exile. With Cain and Abel's occupation as farmer and sheep herder, they would represent a far advanced human culture than the Biblical Adam, who would represent the first primitive (human) man. The creation story was not written to be taken literally, but as an allegory and a morality story. Lee I just thought of something I have not seen anybody else say. If we agree that our Most Recent Common Ancestor was a man named Adam and he must have had at least two sons, then we should call his two sons DNA-Cain and DNA-Able. Can we find how they were different? Sam Sloan

I agree with John. Of course we cannot pin it down precisely; but with a good sampling of living men, we can not, and should not, resist trying to determine a range. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 11, 2015, at 1:55 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Orin, > > Yes estimating time to Y Adam is fraught with difficulties, but isn't it just "human nature" to try to do so. Perhaps it is our curiosity to know the seemingly unknowable which makes us human. Long may we play the game of estimating time to Y Adam. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 12/10/2015, at 5:23 am, Orin Wells via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> There is a major problem with all of this "scientific" computation to >> estimate the earliest ancestor. That is the computed frequency of >> mutation on the various markers. I suggest, and maybe I am completely >> wrong, that the frequency is just an estimation based on the observable >> mutations currently. When I can identify men who have a MRCA who lived >> 400 and 500 years ago who are clearly identified by genealogical records >> and they have absolutely no mutations between them I really have to >> question the accuracy of trying to pin down a common ancestor for all of >> us so precisely.

Hi Sam, A good summary. The only comment I would make is that you suggest Y-DNA Adam lived 60,000 years ago which was the accepted figure for a long time, but there are different opinions. Yesterday I read 115,000 years ago somewhere if I recall correctly, and I believe I have seen estimates out to 250,000 years plus. The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around 234,900 years ago, http://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ . For the present I would suggest 234,900 years ago is as good a scientific guess as any, but it would not surprise me to see the estimates stretch out further over time. Using SNP mutation counting for estimates is good, but I keep having nagging feelings that over very long periods of time evolutionary selection might prune out less beneficial SNPs, which may mean for very long time periods our estimates might be low if we base them on all SNPs surviving at a constant rate without evolutionary pruning. There was a time when a x3 fudge factor was used to allow for evolutionary pruning. Then if we test everybody on earth, and find a single surviving Neanderthal Y-DNA line, Y-DNA Adam estimates might jump out by a factor of 2. Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. John. Sent from my iPad > On 11/10/2015, at 5:08 pm, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this nature > can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from just > one man who lived 60,000 years ago. > > The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome that > they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because females to > not have a Y-Chromosome. > > By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men have a > similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that they > all have a common origin. > > This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common > origin who is the DNA father of us all. > > We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is > because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent father of > us all, and not his father. > > What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common > Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, but we > want to find the one man who is the most recent. > > There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. However > the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became extinct, > except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male Ancestor > survives in all of us today. > > We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. The > Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really the > first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had brothers. > However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended on > the straight male line. > > Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA > mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate of > mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other > men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many generations ago > the man who is the father of us all lived. > > By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father of us > all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. > > This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we can > definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. There > must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found their > bones yet. > > We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. > > Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass > down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male and > female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not know > how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We > would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women > have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a > chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and happens > more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam and > the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably > lived thousands of years earlier than he did. > > This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been > published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the street on > 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were > four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black people > did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. > > Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The Chinese > are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just > convenient terms people used. > > However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is the > father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, there > have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. The > changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just within > those 2,000 generations. > Sam Sloan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I just thought of something I have not seen anybody else say. If we agree that our Most Recent Common Ancestor was a man named Adam and he must have had at least two sons, then we should call his two sons DNA-Cain and DNA-Able. Can we find how they were different? Sam Sloan On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Orin, > > Yes estimating time to Y Adam is fraught with difficulties, but isn't it > just "human nature" to try to do so. Perhaps it is our curiosity to know > the seemingly unknowable which makes us human. Long may we play the game > of estimating time to Y Adam. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 12/10/2015, at 5:23 am, Orin Wells via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > There is a major problem with all of this "scientific" computation to > > estimate the earliest ancestor. That is the computed frequency of > > mutation on the various markers. I suggest, and maybe I am completely > > wrong, that the frequency is just an estimation based on the observable > > mutations currently. When I can identify men who have a MRCA who lived > > 400 and 500 years ago who are clearly identified by genealogical records > > and they have absolutely no mutations between them I really have to > > question the accuracy of trying to pin down a common ancestor for all of > > us so precisely. > > > >> On 10/10/2015 10:06 PM, AJ Marsh via wrote: > >> Hi Sam, > >> > >> A good summary. The only comment I would make is that you suggest > Y-DNA Adam lived 60,000 years ago which was the accepted figure for a long > time, but there are different opinions. Yesterday I read 115,000 years ago > somewhere if I recall correctly, and I believe I have seen estimates out to > 250,000 years plus. > >> > >> The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around > 234,900 years ago, > >> http://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ . For the present I would suggest > 234,900 years ago is as good a scientific guess as any, but it would not > surprise me to see the estimates stretch out further over time. > >> > >> Using SNP mutation counting for estimates is good, but I keep having > nagging feelings that over very long periods of time evolutionary selection > might prune out less beneficial SNPs, which may mean for very long time > periods our estimates might be low if we base them on all SNPs surviving at > a constant rate without evolutionary pruning. There was a time when a x3 > fudge factor was used to allow for evolutionary pruning. > >> > >> Then if we test everybody on earth, and find a single surviving > Neanderthal Y-DNA line, Y-DNA Adam estimates might jump out by a factor of > 2. > >> > >> Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know > myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full > bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when > wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even > some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have > to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 > rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will > leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. > >> > >> John. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >>> On 11/10/2015, at 5:08 pm, Sam Sloan via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this > nature > >>> can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from > just > >>> one man who lived 60,000 years ago. > >>> > >>> The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome > that > >>> they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because > females to > >>> not have a Y-Chromosome. > >>> > >>> By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men > have a > >>> similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that > they > >>> all have a common origin. > >>> > >>> This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common > >>> origin who is the DNA father of us all. > >>> > >>> We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is > >>> because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent > father of > >>> us all, and not his father. > >>> > >>> What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common > >>> Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, > but we > >>> want to find the one man who is the most recent. > >>> > >>> There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. > However > >>> the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became > extinct, > >>> except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male > Ancestor > >>> survives in all of us today. > >>> > >>> We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. > The > >>> Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really > the > >>> first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had > brothers. > >>> However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended > on > >>> the straight male line. > >>> > >>> Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA > >>> mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate > of > >>> mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other > >>> men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many > generations ago > >>> the man who is the father of us all lived. > >>> > >>> By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father > of us > >>> all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. > >>> > >>> This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we > can > >>> definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. > There > >>> must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found > their > >>> bones yet. > >>> > >>> We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. > >>> > >>> Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass > >>> down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male > and > >>> female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not > know > >>> how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We > >>> would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women > >>> have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a > >>> chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and > happens > >>> more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam > and > >>> the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably > >>> lived thousands of years earlier than he did. > >>> > >>> This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been > >>> published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the > street on > >>> 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were > >>> four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black > people > >>> did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. > >>> > >>> Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The > Chinese > >>> are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just > >>> convenient terms people used. > >>> > >>> However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is > the > >>> father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, > there > >>> have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. > The > >>> changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just > within > >>> those 2,000 generations. > >>> Sam Sloan > >>> > >>> ------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > > Orin Wells > > 253-630-5296 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Jim Bartlett wrote on Sunday, October 11, 2015 7:47 AM Two different "Adams" are being discussed here: one who started "humans"; and the MRCA Adam, who lived much later. The MRCA Adam's age can be estimated using Y-DNA (and refined as we sample the human race better.) The time of the original human on an evolutionary scale cannot be fixed in a person, or determined by Y-DNA. He existed within some wide evolutionary range. This the pitfall when one coins a human name with a type of human species. It makes a convenient reference point and pop culture tag, but can be misleading and cannot be readily define. Lee

Giving legal effect to DNA inheritance: "The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession." Rachel Treichler Who's the real aristocrat? Queen demands DNA to be tested in court to settle dispute over 330-year-old baronet title (...but could ruling mean a Utah Mormon is our king?) By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor For The Mail On Sunday Daily Mail, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 10 October 2015 ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court- settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html Her Majesty: The Queen has commanded Britain's most senior judges to decide if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a lineage row The Queen has commanded Britain’s most senior judges to decide if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a dispute over a hereditary title, in a move that could have far-reaching consequences for the aristocracy. Her Majesty personally ordered Lord Neuberger, Britain’s most senior judge, and six other justices of the Supreme Court to rule on a bitter family dispute over who is the rightful heir to an ancient baronetcy. The feud was unexpectedly sparked by an innocent family tree project involving a distinguished lineage dating back to the 13th Century. Scientific analysis dramatically revealed that the last baronet came from a different bloodline to his relatives, suggesting there may have been an illegitimate child in a previous generation. The two rival branches of the family have now spent thousands of pounds on a legal battle over which is the true lineage. The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession. Experts say the case will be difficult for the judges to decide, as it will be pitting the modern science of genetics against hundreds of years of tradition. One peer warned it would open a ‘can of worms’ but Charles Kidd, editor of Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, said: ‘I think it’s inevitable that DNA will become a factor in these sorts of disputes.’ The Pringle of Stichill baronetcy dates back to 1683 and distinguished members of the family included a physician to George III. The most recent baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the Commandant General of the Royal Marines during the Falklands War, having survived an IRA car bomb. When he died two years ago, it was expected his eldest son Simon – a 56-year-old insurer from Sussex – would become the 11th baronet. However, Murray Pringle, a 74-year-old accountant from High Wycombe, believes he is the true heir. There is no land or property associated with the title, and he would not have any claim on the £1.5 million estate left by the last baronet. DNA evidence now suggests that the 8th Pringle of Stichill baronet was not in fact the father of the 9th baronet, and so the title should have passed to his second son Ronald and then to his elder son Norman Murray, rather than his cousin and most recent baronet, Falklands commander Sir Steuart His claim is based on DNA samples provided for a Clan Pringle DNA project that unexpectedly indicated that the 10th baronet was not genetically related to his cousins and the extended Pringle family, but that Murray is descended from a legitimate branch of the family. The 8th baronet, Army officer Sir Norman Robert Pringle, married a Florence Madge Vaughan at the turn of the 20th Century and had three sons. The eldest, Sir Norman Hamilton Pringle, became the 9th baronet. Sir Norman’s only son, Sir Steuart, succeeded him as the 10th baronet. However recent scientific analysis of the DNA project results revealed he was unrelated to the clan. Experts say the title should have gone to the 9th baronet’s younger – legitimate – brother Ronald and then to his eldest son Murray. Simon registered his claim to the Baronetcy with the Crown Office in June 2013 and Murray did the same in September that year, together with the DNA evidence. Last year it was decided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council must give its opinion ‘as to which of the applicant or respondent should be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage’. The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Queen herself had to sign the letter requesting that the committee consider the matter, under the little-used Judicial Committee Act 1833. The last case dealt with by a baronetcy committee of the Privy Council was in 1927. The case will be heard in November. Because Simon Pringle does not dispute the DNA evidence, if the judges rule that it can be used in the case then the baronetcy will pass to the other side of the family and Murray Pringle would replace Sir Steuart as the 10th baronet. The Crown Office has confirmed that DNA evidence has never been used to settle any claim to a hereditary title before, but that if the case is successful, genetic material could be used in future cases. Neither Murray nor Simon Pringle wished to comment on the case last night. Ruling could spark bizarre claims on the British throne Of all the noble titles that have been fought over across the centuries, none has been more prized than the Royal succession – and the possibility of DNA evidence being used in such disputes could generate yet more claims on the throne. One such possibility involves the secret marriage between the future King George IV and his mistress Maria Fitzherbert. Although that 1785 union was not technically valid, George considered Catholic Maria his ‘true wife’, despite later marrying Princess Caroline of Brunswick. The marriage to Maria is thought to have produced three children, and already one possible descendant, a Mormon lawyer in Utah, is saying he will have a DNA test ‘out of curiosity’ to see if he has Royal blood. Last night James Ord, 39, from Salt Lake City, joked that if DNA was introduced in such cases he may be able to make a claim to the throne. Mr Ord, a distant cousin of an American seaman rumoured to be one of George’s children, said the story was ‘family lore’. ‘I want to know my history because it fascinates me,’ said Mr Ord. ‘But of course I won’t have any legal claim on Buckingham Palace!’ The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic tests is unlikely. The only monarch from whom DNA has been extracted is Richard III (1452-1485) – whose skeleton was found under a Leicester car park in 2012 – and that raised doubts over Royal lineage. An analysis matching the genes of Richard with those of his descendants showed that at some point an adulterous affair had broken the blood line. Academics have speculated that if, as has been rumoured, Edward III (1312-1377) was cuckolded, his son John of Gaunt might not, in fact, be his child. This could call into question the claim of Henry VII (1457-1509), who seized the throne from Richard III, to have Royal blood, claiming legitimacy through John of Gaunt. Intriguingly, the Queen claims her ancestry back to Henry VII. Read more: [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-co urt-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.h tml References 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html

I don't know if you subscribe to rootsweb or not. Is this news likely to unnerve Lord Kenyon? Is this likely to make some fearful of DNA testing while making others more eager to be tested?Dick > Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:51:43 -0400 > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Will DNA Be Used to Settle Inheritance Dispute? > From: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > > Giving legal effect to DNA inheritance: "The peerage authorities were called > upon to decide if the genetic material could be used to determine who should > inherit the Pringle of Stichill baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen > herself to order that a powerful but little-known court of top judges should > make the ruling. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that > DNA evidence can be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future > claim to the peerage. This could have huge implications for the whole of the > British aristocracy – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it > means ‘pretenders’ emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of > succession." > Rachel Treichler > Who's the real aristocrat? Queen demands DNA to be tested in court to settle > dispute over 330-year-old baronet title > (...but could ruling mean a Utah Mormon is our king?) > By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor For The Mail On Sunday > Daily Mail, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 10 October 2015 > ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court- > settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html > Her Majesty: The Queen has commanded Britain's most senior judges to decide > if DNA evidence can be used for the first time to settle a lineage row > The Queen has commanded Britain’s most senior judges to decide if DNA > evidence can be used for the first time to settle a dispute over a > hereditary title, in a move that could have far-reaching consequences for > the aristocracy. > Her Majesty personally ordered Lord Neuberger, Britain’s most senior judge, > and six other justices of the Supreme Court to rule on a bitter family > dispute over who is the rightful heir to an ancient baronetcy. > The feud was unexpectedly sparked by an innocent family tree project > involving a distinguished lineage dating back to the 13th Century. > Scientific analysis dramatically revealed that the last baronet came from a > different bloodline to his relatives, suggesting there may have been an > illegitimate child in a previous generation. > The two rival branches of the family have now spent thousands of pounds on a > legal battle over which is the true lineage. > The peerage authorities were called upon to decide if the genetic material > could be used to determine who should inherit the Pringle of Stichill > baronetcy, and it was up to the Queen herself to order that a powerful but > little-known court of top judges should make the ruling. > If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agrees that DNA evidence can > be admitted in the case, it can then be used in any future claim to the > peerage. > This could have huge implications for the whole of the British aristocracy > – and possibly even the Royal Family itself – if it means ‘pretenders’ > emerge with genetic evidence to prove their right of succession. > Experts say the case will be difficult for the judges to decide, as it will > be pitting the modern science of genetics against hundreds of years of > tradition. > One peer warned it would open a ‘can of worms’ but Charles Kidd, editor of > Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, said: ‘I think it’s inevitable that DNA > will become a factor in these sorts of disputes.’ > The Pringle of Stichill baronetcy dates back to 1683 and distinguished > members of the family included a physician to George III. > The most recent baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle, was the Commandant General of > the Royal Marines during the Falklands War, having survived an IRA car bomb. > When he died two years ago, it was expected his eldest son Simon – a > 56-year-old insurer from Sussex – would become the 11th baronet. However, > Murray Pringle, a 74-year-old accountant from High Wycombe, believes he is > the true heir. > There is no land or property associated with the title, and he would not > have any claim on the £1.5 million estate left by the last baronet. > DNA evidence now suggests that the 8th Pringle of Stichill baronet was not > in fact the father of the 9th baronet, and so the title should have passed > to his second son Ronald and then to his elder son Norman Murray, rather > than his cousin and most recent baronet, Falklands commander Sir Steuart > His claim is based on DNA samples provided for a Clan Pringle DNA project > that unexpectedly indicated that the 10th baronet was not genetically > related to his cousins and the extended Pringle family, but that Murray is > descended from a legitimate branch of the family. > The 8th baronet, Army officer Sir Norman Robert Pringle, married a Florence > Madge Vaughan at the turn of the 20th Century and had three sons. The > eldest, Sir Norman Hamilton Pringle, became the 9th baronet. Sir Norman’s > only son, Sir Steuart, succeeded him as the 10th baronet. > However recent scientific analysis of the DNA project results revealed he > was unrelated to the clan. > Experts say the title should have gone to the 9th baronet’s younger – > legitimate – brother Ronald and then to his eldest son Murray. > Simon registered his claim to the Baronetcy with the Crown Office in June > 2013 and Murray did the same in September that year, together with the DNA > evidence. > Last year it was decided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council > must give its opinion ‘as to which of the applicant or respondent should be > entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage’. > The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Queen herself had to sign the letter > requesting that the committee consider the matter, under the little-used > Judicial Committee Act 1833. > The last case dealt with by a baronetcy committee of the Privy Council was > in 1927. The case will be heard in November. > Because Simon Pringle does not dispute the DNA evidence, if the judges rule > that it can be used in the case then the baronetcy will pass to the other > side of the family and Murray Pringle would replace Sir Steuart as the 10th > baronet. > The Crown Office has confirmed that DNA evidence has never been used to > settle any claim to a hereditary title before, but that if the case is > successful, genetic material could be used in future cases. > Neither Murray nor Simon Pringle wished to comment on the case last night. > Ruling could spark bizarre claims on the British throne > Of all the noble titles that have been fought over across the centuries, > none has been more prized than the Royal succession – and the possibility of > DNA evidence being used in such disputes could generate yet more claims on > the throne. > One such possibility involves the secret marriage between the future King > George IV and his mistress Maria Fitzherbert. > Although that 1785 union was not technically valid, George considered > Catholic Maria his ‘true wife’, despite later marrying Princess Caroline of > Brunswick. > The marriage to Maria is thought to have produced three children, and > already one possible descendant, a Mormon lawyer in Utah, is saying he will > have a DNA test ‘out of curiosity’ to see if he has Royal blood. > Last night James Ord, 39, from Salt Lake City, joked that if DNA was > introduced in such cases he may be able to make a claim to the throne. > Mr Ord, a distant cousin of an American seaman rumoured to be one of > George’s children, said the story was ‘family lore’. ‘I want to know my > history because it fascinates me,’ said Mr Ord. ‘But of course I won’t have > any legal claim on Buckingham Palace!’ > The chances of any of the Royal Family submitting to genetic tests is > unlikely. The only monarch from whom DNA has been extracted is Richard III > (1452-1485) – whose skeleton was found under a Leicester car park in 2012 > – and that raised doubts over Royal lineage. > An analysis matching the genes of Richard with those of his descendants > showed that at some point an adulterous affair had broken the blood line. > Academics have speculated that if, as has been rumoured, Edward III > (1312-1377) was cuckolded, his son John of Gaunt might not, in fact, be his > child. > This could call into question the claim of Henry VII (1457-1509), who seized > the throne from Richard III, to have Royal blood, claiming legitimacy > through John of Gaunt. Intriguingly, the Queen claims her ancestry back to > Henry VII. > Read more: > [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-co > urt-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.h > tml > > References > > 1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267859/Queen-demands-DNA-test-court-settle-dispute-330-year-old-baronet-title-ruling-mean-Utah-Mormon-king.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There is a major problem with all of this "scientific" computation to estimate the earliest ancestor. That is the computed frequency of mutation on the various markers. I suggest, and maybe I am completely wrong, that the frequency is just an estimation based on the observable mutations currently. When I can identify men who have a MRCA who lived 400 and 500 years ago who are clearly identified by genealogical records and they have absolutely no mutations between them I really have to question the accuracy of trying to pin down a common ancestor for all of us so precisely. On 10/10/2015 10:06 PM, AJ Marsh via wrote: > Hi Sam, > > A good summary. The only comment I would make is that you suggest Y-DNA Adam lived 60,000 years ago which was the accepted figure for a long time, but there are different opinions. Yesterday I read 115,000 years ago somewhere if I recall correctly, and I believe I have seen estimates out to 250,000 years plus. > > The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around 234,900 years ago, > http://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ . For the present I would suggest 234,900 years ago is as good a scientific guess as any, but it would not surprise me to see the estimates stretch out further over time. > > Using SNP mutation counting for estimates is good, but I keep having nagging feelings that over very long periods of time evolutionary selection might prune out less beneficial SNPs, which may mean for very long time periods our estimates might be low if we base them on all SNPs surviving at a constant rate without evolutionary pruning. There was a time when a x3 fudge factor was used to allow for evolutionary pruning. > > Then if we test everybody on earth, and find a single surviving Neanderthal Y-DNA line, Y-DNA Adam estimates might jump out by a factor of 2. > > Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > >> On 11/10/2015, at 5:08 pm, Sam Sloan via<genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this nature >> can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from just >> one man who lived 60,000 years ago. >> >> The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome that >> they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because females to >> not have a Y-Chromosome. >> >> By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men have a >> similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that they >> all have a common origin. >> >> This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common >> origin who is the DNA father of us all. >> >> We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is >> because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent father of >> us all, and not his father. >> >> What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common >> Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, but we >> want to find the one man who is the most recent. >> >> There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. However >> the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became extinct, >> except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male Ancestor >> survives in all of us today. >> >> We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. The >> Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really the >> first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had brothers. >> However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended on >> the straight male line. >> >> Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA >> mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate of >> mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other >> men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many generations ago >> the man who is the father of us all lived. >> >> By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father of us >> all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. >> >> This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we can >> definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. There >> must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found their >> bones yet. >> >> We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. >> >> Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass >> down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male and >> female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not know >> how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We >> would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women >> have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a >> chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and happens >> more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam and >> the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably >> lived thousands of years earlier than he did. >> >> This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been >> published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the street on >> 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were >> four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black people >> did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. >> >> Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The Chinese >> are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just >> convenient terms people used. >> >> However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is the >> father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, there >> have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. The >> changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just within >> those 2,000 generations. >> Sam Sloan >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > -- Orin Wells 253-630-5296

I had to just pop in here, you guys are so smart and it makes me feel sort of like a dirty dishwater blonde bimbo. Yikes. Do enjoy reading all of it though. Thanks. Becky n AZ On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this nature > can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from just > one man who lived 60,000 years ago. > > The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome that > they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because females to > not have a Y-Chromosome. > > By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men have a > similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that they > all have a common origin. > > This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common > origin who is the DNA father of us all. > > We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is > because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent father of > us all, and not his father. > > What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common > Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, but we > want to find the one man who is the most recent. > > There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. However > the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became extinct, > except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male Ancestor > survives in all of us today. > > We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. The > Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really the > first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had brothers. > However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended on > the straight male line. > > Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA > mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate of > mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other > men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many generations ago > the man who is the father of us all lived. > > By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father of us > all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. > > This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we can > definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. There > must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found their > bones yet. > > We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. > > Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass > down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male and > female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not know > how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We > would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women > have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a > chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and happens > more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam and > the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably > lived thousands of years earlier than he did. > > This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been > published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the street on > 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were > four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black people > did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. > > Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The Chinese > are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just > convenient terms people used. > > However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is the > father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, there > have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. The > changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just within > those 2,000 generations. > Sam Sloan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Two different "Adams" are being discussed here: one who started "humans"; and the MRCA Adam, who lived much later. The MRCA Adam's age can be estimated using Y-DNA (and refined as we sample the human race better.) The time of the original human on an evolutionary scale cannot be fixed in a person, or determined by Y-DNA. He existed within some wide evolutionary range. Jim - www.segmentology.org > On Oct 11, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Lee Ramsey via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > John, > > I've always associated "Y-Adam" with the first anatomical human beings (homo > sapiens sapiens) which emerged from the archaic homo sapiens about 200,000 > years ago. I like the clarity of associating the symbolic first human > person with the first species of human beings. The name Adam does not > represent subspecies of the human race. Perhaps the term "pre-Adam" could > be used for the subspecies. > > Lee > > > The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around 234,900 > years ago, > > Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know > myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full bipedal > walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when wives became > boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even some magpies and > chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have to define each > aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 rooms, with > attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will leave it to > others to resolve these tricky definitions. > > John. > > >

John, I've always associated "Y-Adam" with the first anatomical human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) which emerged from the archaic homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. I like the clarity of associating the symbolic first human person with the first species of human beings. The name Adam does not represent subspecies of the human race. Perhaps the term "pre-Adam" could be used for the subspecies. Lee The latest YFull experimental tree estimates Y-DNA Adam at around 234,900 years ago, Over time there have different ways of defining "human". I don't know myself what is the best definition. It could be development of full bipedal walking, or tool use, or speech, or building dwellings, or when wives became boss of the family, but perhaps some would argue that even some magpies and chimpanzees can do all of these things. So then you have to define each aspect, like defining a dwelling as being a minimum of 3 rooms, with attached garage, wide screen TV, and A beer fridge. I will leave it to others to resolve these tricky definitions. John.

Kevin, Had one project member with sample problems and many re tests took longer I think. But on a brighter note, the last BigY in my project took about 5 weeks, which I was very pleased with. John. Sent from my iPad > On 10/10/2015, at 11:45 pm, Kevincamp via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I just noticed a kit in my project (Kit N135695) who ordered a 37 marker > upgrade on 2/26/2015 and who is still waiting for his results! He was > batched on 3/4/15 in batch 612. > > 226 days and counting! Expected due date: 10/14/2015 - 10/28/2015 > > Can anyone beat this number? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

List, I have over the past couple of years learned a lot about my extended family and my R-L617 subclade from YElite, and BigY. In my case I have tested on these tests 8 of my surname from adjoining villages related over the past 500 years, but with mostly unknown relationships. This has enabled the 8 to be linked in a firm tree structure based on Y SNPs discovered at about 100 to 150 year intervals, with tentative common ancestors identified at various branch points. Further, 4 more of different surnames have tested who are related to my line perhaps 800 years ago, and by sharing information we have the tentative name of the common ancestor living 800 years ago. These tests like BigY have also started a new age in genealogy where we can discover the meanderings of our ancestors even further back, over the past 3,000 to 4,000 years. In my case I have discovered the first traces of the R-L617 subclade tree structure, starting possibly in Iberia 3,000 to 4,000 years ago, and branching out into Northern Europe and the rest of the World from the Bronze Age onwards. For me this has been one of the most interesting developments in genetic genealogy. Who knows how far this story will develop if archaeological DNA testing stumbles across some of the early R-L617 family. You need to get lucky, but if you are not in the game, you can't get lucky. Since the BigY sale was announced I and a number of other L617s have spent a lot of time contacting known L617s, and making them aware of the sale, and the benefits of testing. Our efforts have resulted in at least 5 new tests for persons in the R-L617 subclade. When these new tests are completed, we will have over 20 L617s tested on either YElite, or BigY. Having 20 or more tested is a huge benefit, as the amount we can learn depends on having distant kin tested to compare to. But these things have to start somewhere...... with the first test which often primes the pump. The YElite test at fullgenomes.com is the most comprehensive of its type. BigY at familytreedna.com is middle of the road, a good test, attractive at sale price, and has the advantage of good FTDNA customer matching systems, surname and haplogroup projects etc which are not too difficult for new people to DNA to use. Lower cost offerings by fullgenomes.com are 2x and 4x coverage full genome tests, which enable lower budget individuals to get onto the lower rungs of the Y SNP testing ladder. This posting was intended by me to be just 2 lines, saying "don't forget to consider taking advantage of the BigY sale ending on 11 Oct 2015". Also spread the word to others. You don't need to be pushy, just make others aware, some will test, some won't. That is my message! John. Sent from my iPad

I just found out about this dna web site:  https://dna.land/ allen

It is now an accepted scientific fact (as much as any facts of this nature can ever be recognized) that all men alive today are descended from just one man who lived 60,000 years ago. The reason we can be sure of this is that all men have a Y-Chromosome that they pass down to their sons, but not to their daughters because females to not have a Y-Chromosome. By doing DNA studies of this Y-Chromosome, we can see that all men have a similar Y-Chromosome with only minor variations. This tells us that they all have a common origin. This means that if we could go back in time we could find that common origin who is the DNA father of us all. We know that this man had at least two sons. The reason we know this is because if he had only one son that son would be the most recent father of us all, and not his father. What we are now seeking is the MRCA which means Most Recent Common Ancestor. There are no doubt many men who are the fathers of us all, but we want to find the one man who is the most recent. There were other men before him and he also probably had brothers. However the family lines of those other men died out. Their Y-DNA became extinct, except through him. Only the Y-DNA of the Most Recent Common male Ancestor survives in all of us today. We call this man who is our most recent common ancestor our DNA-Adam. The Bible tells us that Adam was the first man. However, he was not really the first man. He had a father and a grandfather and he probably had brothers. However, he was the most recent man from whom all of as are descended on the straight male line. Through DNA studies, we are able to calculate the rate at which Y-DNA mutates. There are minor mutations all the time. Once we know the rate of mutation and we know how far different is our DNA from the DNA of other men, then we can calculate backwards and determine how many generations ago the man who is the father of us all lived. By this method, it has been determined that the man who is the father of us all lived 60,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years. This was not the first man. The first human that we know about that we can definitely say was human was Lucy who lived three million years ago. There must have been people around long before Lucy, but we have not found their bones yet. We also know where Lucy lived. She lived in what is now Ethiopia. Can we find out the earliest female? This is more difficult. Women pass down mtDNA. A woman gives her mtDNA to all of her children, both male and female. It does not mutate much and does so slowly. Thus, we do not know how long ago the earliest female who is the mother of us all lived. We would call her DNA-Eve. However, it is even possible that not all women have a common origin. Perhaps a long time ago there was a man who had a chimpanzee as a girlfriend. Cross-breeding is not impossible and happens more often than we realize. We can be almost certain that the DNA-Adam and the DNA-Eve did not know each other or sleep together. DNA-Eve probably lived thousands of years earlier than he did. This book does not bear a date of publication, but we know it had been published by 1952. It was sold by street-vendors standing on the street on 125th Street in Harlem. By then, the general wisdom was that there were four races of man, Black, White, Chinese and American Indian. Black people did not like being called Black. They preferred to be called Negro. Actually, the Blacks are not black nor are the Whites white. The Chinese are not yellow and the American Indians are nor red. These are just convenient terms people used. However, we know that 60,000 years ago there was just one man who is the father of us all. In general, a male generation lasts 30 years. So, there have been 2,000 generations between the Y-DNA Adam and the men today. The changes in skin color and other physical attributes took place just within those 2,000 generations. Sam Sloan