Orin Where are we in the standardization of the marker values. I know that the values have changed through testing methodolgy changes and different labs report different values. Also, that some of our results have been added top the DNA databases such as Y Base. Have our results been updated to reflect these changes on our database and others? Can we get a "Conversion Chart" added to our results page showing which set of numbers we are using and the changes needed to compare with another databases (lab's) data? What is the status of the Phase III portion of the project? Has any research shown the paternal link patterns/markers on another portion of the DNA that can be used? Similarly, has the MtDNA patterns been linked to the nuclear DNA? It is inconceivable to me that more areas of the "junk" DNA have not become usable for testing. The concept of paternal line and maternal line only being passed down between generations defies logic. There has to be DNA areas where females carry the paternal as well a maternal heritage, regardless of MtDNA or Nuclear DNA is tested. It does not matter what religious belief system you have, they all believe in some type of guiding hand in our evolution or creation. With that in mind, a one sided representation (paternal or maternal line) of the genetic history makes no sense. When the say that 97% of our genetic material is the same as a Chimp (I believe this is the correct monkey), how are they comparing? I know we have different number of Chromosones and more paired sequences. Similar comparasions are made between humans and fruit flies. All that tells me it a lot of the genetic material would be in the "junk" DNA catagory and possibly carry our genetic blending and history. Enough of my rambling. Dick

At 03:35 PM 1/4/2006, D Wells wrote: >Orin > >Where are we in the standardization of the marker values. I know >that the values have changed through testing methodolgy changes and >different labs report different values. Also, that some of our >results have been added top the DNA databases such as Y Base. Have >our results been updated to reflect these changes on our database and others? I am in the process of updating the Wells site When I am finished it will have all the 37 marker values (actually 45 values because DYS464 can return 6 values and we have seen three cases of this). I will also be adding the Haplogroups and an explanation of what that means which I will probably also post on the various lists. This update will include many who tested in Phase I as the extended values sans DYS464 are now there although a few have no yet been posted. >Can we get a "Conversion Chart" added to our results page showing >which set of numbers we are using and the changes needed to compare >with another databases (lab's) data? I am going to have to look up the differences as they exist now. I am not sure if there are any different reporting values unless Family Tree DNA is still differing from Relative Genetics somewhere. Relative Genetics and Sorenson seem to now be in step with each other. When you search Sorenson you can select the values on our website by electing the Relative Genetics latest sets. I will let everyone know when this is ready. >What is the status of the Phase III portion of the project? I am afraid I don't really know. I have not talked to Dr. Woodward since I went to Salt Lake City two years ago I think. Time to quiz him again I guess. >Has any research shown the paternal link patterns/markers on another >portion of the DNA that can be used? Not to my knowledge. They are using some other markers for testing of the Haplogroups. That is the deep ancestry like 20,000+ years ago - won't help your genealogy much but it seems to interest a lot of people to know they have a pattern similar to the Vikings. They can use the Y-chromosome DNA results to predict the haplotypes but mutations can make it shift. >Similarly, has the MtDNA patterns been linked to the nuclear DNA? Not as far as I know. >It is inconceivable to me that more areas of the "junk" DNA have not >become usable for testing. The concept of paternal line and >maternal line only being passed down between generations defies >logic. There has to be DNA areas where females carry the paternal >as well a maternal heritage, regardless of MtDNA or Nuclear DNA is >tested. It does not matter what religious belief system you have, >they all believe in some type of guiding hand in our evolution or >creation. With that in mind, a one sided representation (paternal >or maternal line) of the genetic history makes no sense. Well, the y-chromosome is the exclusive realm of the males. Females do not carry it - ever. Similarly, the mtDNA is only passed on by the females even though males and females have it. The male simply does no pass it on except in very rare instances where something gets screwed up. These both differ from the Nuclear DNA (all the rest of the Chromosomes) because THEY are mixed each time a new child is formed. Roughly half of the DNA comes from the father and half from the Mother. This causes the various changes from generation and ends up diluting the ancestral DNA by 50% for each generation. If you go down just 4 generations you are down to roughly 6.25% of the DNA contributed by each of the gg-grandparents. So even if they can figure out how to make this work it is going to be a delicate process. We DO know that certain genes tend to be dominent, so this may, in the end, be the key to the Autosomal (Nuclear) DNA. But they are not there yet. >When the say that 97% of our genetic material is the same as a Chimp >(I believe this is the correct monkey), how are they comparing? I >know we have different number of Chromosones and more paired >sequences. Similar comparasions are made between humans and fruit >flies. All that tells me it a lot of the genetic material would be >in the "junk" DNA catagory and possibly carry our genetic blending and history. First off they are looking at 2.3 billion base pairs of DNA (I have seen some estimates of 3 billion). So when they are saying there is a 3% difference, we are talking about 69 million base pairs the are the exclusive domain of the Human. A bacterium only has 4 million (another reference says 600 thousand). So this 3% is far from a trivial matter. And I really don't know what they are comparing. There are a number of articles on the Internet dealing with this for those curious enough to want search it out. I suspect the articles are written by the geneticists for their peers which means they are not going to be easy for us lay people to plow though. I really do no know what is present in the "junk" DNA but I am sure the researchers do and they are doing what they can to find the tools for us to work with better. What they have to do is find markers that are stable enough to be passed from generation to generation without much change. Yet, it would be helpful to us to have a few that are less stable and would give us a better grip on how branches of families connect to each other. Unfortunately either this does not exist or they have not found them yet. >Enough of my rambling. > >Dick > > >==== WELLS-UK Mailing List ==== >Post your queries periodically as new subscribers come on all the time. > >============================== >New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your >ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. >Learn more: >http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 Orin R. Wells Wells Family Research Association P. O. Box 5427 Kent, Washington 98064-5427 <OrinWells@wells.org> http://www.wells.org Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb