Supposedly common ancestor born in the 1740s. He has several male children (lines). One line is tested at 5 generations. My line and another is tested at 6 generations. My line has a 3 marker mutation at DYS 458 and a 1 marker mutation at DYS 570 and DFY 534. Ancestry give the other 6 generation test a genetic distance of 3 and my line a genetic distance of 5. Does this mean that my common ancestor is not the 1740s ancestor but one farther back, a different line, say the father or grandfather or cousin of the 1740. ancestor?
|
The test can only tell you whether it is plausible that the two lines are be related within the time frame. It cannot pinpoint the number of generations. Close cousins often have larger genetic distances than very distant ones.
If you will list the values at markers where there are differences, we can tell more. You need to list the number of markers each person tested also. It looks like you tested at FTDNA and not Ancestry.
|
I've just seen your posting as I'm not used to having to come to this site now for posting messages. We had a Huge and Great bunch of threads going at GenForum which they have now shut down and we can no longer post to, but anyway.... Talk about Mismatches!!! My father's and others who "appear" to match his YDNA, have the most widespread mismatch count in all of our family name as far as I can tell. Our mis-matches range anywhere from 1 all the way up to 8, 9, 10 and I think even 11 !! At those spread points Family Tree DNA (where we all pretty much had our testing done), said we had a "NO Match" situation in anything that was at a 6 pt. spread (so to speak). However, I've now seen a few cases where within the very same Immediate Family, they were so discouraged with the outcome of their mismatching situation, that they actually paid to have testing done all the way down to a newborn baby grandson just to see how their Mismatches came out. The results were astounding (in my opinion)...they had 11 mismatches between Father to son to grandfather to son to grandfather to newest infant born grt. grandson (or something like that), even getting the Uncle's in on the testing, so now...bottom line is, I don't pay much attention to the distance of the mismatches anymore. If Ancestry or FTDNA or whomever does your YDNA tests says you have mismatches, Whoopeee big deal, I just ignore them and continue to feel fairly pleased that I am still getting some matches to some "genetic cousins" out there who have added so much to our ever growing family trees. I know there are some who can probably explain all of this away, but its been since 2006 since we did our initial Ydna testing and we've only had ONE near exact match and even that is off by One marker, but at a really rapidly mutating marker so it could go askew from line to line. Just wanted to add my two cents worth here in case this was any consolation to you at all. Or this may not be the subject in which you sought answers for and if that is the case, just ignore this post and my apologies for misunderstanding your post. Take care and good luck.
|
Thank you for the reply. I guess what I was really asking was, is my line from a different Hallmark ancestor than the other 6 generation tested? The one tested at 5 generations had a distance of three also.
|
Assuming you tested 67+ markers, the results are close enough to show that all three are related, i.e., consistent with the 1740s ancestor. Only the paper trail can pinpoint the exact ancestor, though.
If you post the values at the mismatching markers for all three, I can do some more analysis.
The mutation at DYS458 was almost certainly a one-event multi-step mutation, and should be given a genetic distance of 1. A 2-step mutation would be more ambiguous, but more likely to have occurred in one event. Multi-step mutations occur about 5% of the time in father-son studies. This is why it is best to use the infinite-alleles method, in which mismatches count as 1.
|
Were any of the early tests done at Relative Genetics, DNAHeritage or Ancestry? There were several nomenclature changes about 2008. Some people might have the old results. And there is still the need to convert 4 of the markers to FTDNA nomenclature.
|