|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 9:46:49 GMT -5
Throughout the years, a lot of different labelling systems for Y-Chromosome haplogroups have been used. I found this chart that attempts to sort them out. www.dnaconsulting.ws/conversion.html |
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 9, 2004 10:48:13 GMT -5
The differences in names is understandable. Each researcher egotistically names a piece of DNA and feels it is his discovery. Researchers like to keep their discoveries to themselves so as to be the first. Some resort to underhand methods. Watson practically stole the radiographic photographs of DNA from Franklin and used the famous photograph to structure DNA. The photograph showed that DNA was clearly a helix. Watson and Cricks prior efforts were very backward. Franklin did not know her photographs were used by Watson and received no credit at all. That is what researchers are like and the reason they falsify data or make up results.
Considering the unimportance of the Y chromosome, it is surprising so much research has gone into it. It is mostly full of "junk" DNA. Male vanity I suppose! In any case it only refers to the paternal line and excludes the other males who equally contributed to the genetic make-up of an individual man. So even if Russians have little Central Asian K haplogroups it proves nothing other than the paternal line is not of Central Asian origin. The other males in the male ancestry are not included and could have been anything. Frankly too much is made of Y chromosome haplogroups particularly going back to 40 kya. For example, I am Maltese, but my paternal ancestor was Scottish. So what. Does that mean I am less Maltese than another man because his haplogroup is E3b and mine R1b? Come on, lets get a life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 10:55:23 GMT -5
For example, I am Maltese, but my paternal ancestor was Scottish. So what. Does that mean I am less Maltese than another man because his haplogroup is E3b and mine R1b? Come on, lets get a life. Yes, but for most of human history, people have been to localized to certain regions, and scenarios such as yours were uncommon. I agree with you that Y-chromosomes are imperfect for these purposes, but they're still a useful 'exploratory tool', at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 9, 2004 11:28:30 GMT -5
What do you mean? I am one of the few on this forum who was born in the same country as the parents, grandparents, ggparents, gggparents, ggggparents and so on. My only foreign element was a man born in the 1700s. I doubt too many people can say that about their ancestry. Prodigal Son thinks he is Russian when he is of mixed European origin and only 3/8ths Russian/Belarussian. So I am as pure a Malt as you can get, yet my Y chromosome haplogroup says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 9, 2004 17:27:30 GMT -5
Graeme, individually you are right, Y-chromosome, don't tell much about your ancestors...  but, with some tools like statiscs, If we take a sample (well chosen sample, representative of a given population), that is a lot of information about the ancestors of that population... thus, this information is valid only for the group, and never for anyone individually on that same group... that test could only tell something about the genetics of a distant relative, guilty of 1/1024% of your genetic code. but please multiply with hundreds and hundreds of samples of a given population, you start getting all the picture... Do you agree with me, Graeme? |
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 9, 2004 18:04:18 GMT -5
Throughout the years, a lot of different labelling systems for Y-Chromosome haplogroups have been used. I found this chart that attempts to sort them out. www.dnaconsulting.ws/conversion.htmlGood site, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 10, 2004 10:49:50 GMT -5
Yes as an indicator of a large sample of say Maltese men, then finding a certain Y chromosome haplogroup does have some validity to the origin of the male ancestors of that group. I was looking at it purely from the individual not group value.
Good point Vitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Jul 30, 2004 19:33:58 GMT -5
Is there a conversion chart where it compares Y chromosome and mtDNA results? I vaguely remember something of that sort from the recent Haplogroup H sub-clades foundings. That a certain sub-clade of H equals to R1b1 etc. I may be totally off as I'm writing this from memory. Any ideas? By the way, great site, Melnorme. |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jul 30, 2004 20:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Jul 30, 2004 20:14:19 GMT -5
Well, I didn't make it. ;D Actually, the YCC webpage is much better, but harder to comprehend at first glance. Ah, yes. I remember seeing this one. I couldn't make anything out of it. ;D So, does this chart include mtDNA conversion or no? Bare with me, I've never been too good with science.  |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jul 30, 2004 20:37:36 GMT -5
Ah, yes. I remember seeing this one. I couldn't make anything out of it. ;D So, does this chart include mtDNA conversion or no? Bare with me, I've never been too good with science. Hmm, I'm not aware of any direct relationship between mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes. But, there are some 'Y/mtDNA combinations' that are typical of certain groups of people. For example, E3b and U6 among Northwest Africans. Perhaps these typical regional combinations are what such a chart would illustrate? |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Jul 30, 2004 21:18:46 GMT -5
Hmm, I'm not aware of any direct relationship between mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes. But, there are some 'Y/mtDNA combinations' that are typical of certain groups of people. For example, E3b and U6 among Northwest Africans. Perhaps these typical regional combinations are what such a chart would illustrate? I'm pretty sure that's what I mean. This is the sub-clade chart of Haplogroup H: www.familytreedna.com/Hclade.htmlThere was also an abstract of an article where it identifies certain sub-clades of H with Y chromosome groups. Like a H11 groups with R1a1 (I just made this one up, I don't remember if it was H11 or not) kind of comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Valery on Jul 31, 2004 11:09:14 GMT -5
>identifies certain sub-clades of H with Y chromosome groups. Like a H11 groups with R1a1
Rusalka, it's a brief abstract on mtDNA coding region RFLPs. "HVR-1" means "HVS1" and definitely not something like "HV ~ R1"
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Jul 31, 2004 12:41:49 GMT -5
>identifies certain sub-clades of H with Y chromosome groups. Like a H11 groups with R1a1 Rusalka, it's a brief abstract on mtDNA coding region RFLPs. "HVR-1" means "HVS1" and definitely not something like "HV ~ R1" Valery,I know that they are not equal to each other, what I mean is the study was comparing these to each other, from what I remember. Region-wise. I'll try to find it. I know about the HVR1 HVR2 sequences, I had mine tested, actually. Anyway, will get back to you on this -hopefully. FTDNA's archives are not the easiest to browse. |
|
