It is a good job that surnames were not around 4,000 years ago as, if they were, then - according to this research - half the population of Europe would have the same surname. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Bunch via Sent: 27 April 2016 12:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? Oops, sorry for the duplicate reply, Chris -- I meant to post this to the list the first time... __________________ Hi Chris, Good questions!  I haven't read the Telegraph article, so I'm only shooting from the hip here.  I assume that the claim is made in light of the fact/inference that y-chromosome SNP mutations must occur first in a single individual, to be passed on to that individual's descendants.  I would suppose the claim is made in regard to what was formerly called the R1b haplogroup.  As to the point of making the claim on the basis of only 1,200 samples -- well, that's statistics for you.  Far more that 1,200 people have (since?) had their y-chromosome DNA tested, and although strange "new" (aka, "previously undiscovered") haplogroups are occasionally found, and although subgroups of "old" established groups are CONSTANTLY being discovered as commercially available tests become more comprehensive, the main result still stands -- again, that's statistics for you. On the question of what happened to the descendants of all the other men alive at the time, I believe the answer lies in the notion of the "random walk" (also known as the drunkard's walk); Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this.  To put it briefly, all lineages tend to die out over time except the ones that don't (this is only a half-facetious summarization).  This has interesting implications not only in terms of carriers of DNA mutations, but also in terms of surname bearers (and, consequently, our individual one-name studies).  The Plant brothers (of GOONS fame) have written a number of interesting JOONS articles with the idea of the random walk as an implicit subtext. -Mark Bunch (GOONS #6223) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:19:12 +0100 > Subject: [G] DNA conclusions? > From: [email protected] > > A recent claim in the UK's Daily Telegraph - as pointed to by today's > "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" - was that half of today's > European men are descended from a single man who lived some 4,000 > years ago. Leaving aside what happened to all the boys descended from > the many thousands of other men alive at that time - let alone this > man's close relations (mass > genocide?) - how can people make such sweeping generalisations based > on the DNA of just 1,200 people? I could better understand if the > study was of a few million people. > > The same goes for this "Eve" person we are all meant to be descended from. > Was she the only female alive at the time? Did she wonder around > Africa killing off all the others? > > Chris > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > 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 _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- 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

That approximately describes the situation of surnames in China, I think.  Alas that printed telephone directories are becoming a thing of the past -- my kids will have to struggle to understand the aphorism, "more Chins than a Chinese phone book".     :^) ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:59:48 +0100 > Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? > From: [email protected] > > It is a good job that surnames were not around 4,000 years ago as, if they > were, then - according to this research - half the population of Europe > would have the same surname.