Thanks Michael for the mention here and for your further analysis. I think
these lines of inquiry could prove fruitful.
It'd be great if one of the 3 Whitfield men whose Y-DNA matches ours would
respond to our emails and share their pedigree. Why do a Y-DNA test, allow
it to be seen by the public, and post your email address, but then ignore
every request for more info? I just don't get it.
-Don
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, <ancestr2_at_host187.hostmonster.com> wrote:
> Don's discussion about comparing Y-STR markers DYS464 between the Stokes
> Cooleys and the William H and James born in PA has got me thinking. Here
> are some points, most of which make reference to group CF01 of the DNA
> Project:
>
> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Cooley/default.aspx?section=yresults
>
> The genetic distance of 3 at DYS338 for the first Wm H tester (#239164)
> afforded some doubt about the connection between the two sets of Cooleys.
> But the second tester for Wm H has a genetic distance of 0 at that
> location. Mutations can happen with any location at any time. It is
> reasonable, then, to consider that the mutation for the first tester's
> line occurred during the six-generation descent to the tester. For all
> practical purposes, I believe, there is no genetic difference at that
> marker between the two groups.
>
> The James Cooley descendant is a genetic distance of one to the second Wm
> H tester. Per the following page at FTDNA, two men having a 36/37 match
> have a 95% chance of having a common ancestor within 10 generations.
> Interestingly, the chances are the same with 66/67 markers! In other
> words, if two people match at 37 markers, they are likely to match at 67
> markers. Our study has shown that to be true. Indeed, markers 38-67 for
> the first Wm H tester completely matches us.
>
> http://www.familytreedna.com/faq-markers.aspx
>
> Don's email has prompted me to look more closely at DYS464. It's a
> multiple copy marker having, most commonly, four copies. It's also the
> most variable of the STRs and the most volatile. In other words, there's a
> greater chance of mutation with that marker than with any other marker.
> Furthermore, the values are always listed numerically ("12-13-15-16,"
> never "13-12-16-15"), and any differences between two testers is never
> more than a genetic distance of 1. This mode of calculation is unique the
> that marker.
>
> So, the James tester is a genetic distance of 2 from us at 37 markers--and
> is likely a genetic distance of 2 at 67 markers, since the chances are
> nearly 100% that he will match us at markers 38-67. The Wm H and James
> line, in other words, is as genetically close to our modal as I am!
>
> So, all of this leads again to the conclusion that Wm H and James were
> likely closely related to John. But how? Don's observation about DYS464
> may be a clue:
>
> He noted that our DYS464 value of 12-13-15-16 is rare among the R1a1a
> subclade and that 12-15-15-16 is far more numerous. In fact, it's common
> among McDonalds and might have been Somerled's own value. I don't know
> that that necessarily means that it's ancient in our case, but the fact
> that it's numerous likely means it's older than our DYS464. Therefore. Wm
> H's DYS464 value *might* represent the "parent" value.
>
> The first thing to remember is the volatility of STRs in general at that
> of DYS464 in particular. The values can go both up and down (additions and
> deletions). What may now be 12-15-15-16 may have once been 12-13-15-16. We
> won't know until we know. But for now I'm willing to make the following
> speculations:
>
> * Wm H and James were likely brothers, probably no more than 1st cousins.
>
> * At a genetic distance of 2, the James Cooley descendant is likely
> related to us within 14 generations. (I'm 9 generations from John and also
> a genetic distance of 2).
>
> * Judging from the numbers found in the general population, James's DYS464
> is likely the "parent" value.
>
> The seemingly jumbled alphabet soup of DNA means nothing without analyzing
> it against the record, whether that record be archaeological, historic,
> genealogical, or the result of population studies. For example, the "Young
> Scandinavian" marker is known as that because of the high degree of
> Scandinavians who have it. It's presence in Britain confirms the
> historical account of migration. But we're not going to know the true
> significance of DYS464 to us, or the extent of our relationship to Wm H
> and James until a paper trail is established. DNA, however, has provided
> some light on the matter.
>
> Also thanks to Don for pointing out the several Whitfields that match.
> I've invited the FTDNA Whitfield to join the project. But we do know that
> he matches 37/37 to Don and, therefore, we know he is 12-13-15-16 at
> DYS464. We also know that there's a high degree of probability that he
> will match in all 67 markers and, therefore, is an exact match to our
> modal values. We know from the FTDNA chart that a 37/37 or 67/67 match has
> a 95% probability of a relationship within 6 generations. Likely, then, he
> is not only more closely related to us than to Wm H and James, he may very
> well be a descendant of John's. Any number of explanations is possible,
> but it's possible that one of John's sons might have had a so-called "base
> born" son. Now, wouldn't that be special. :)
>
> -Michael
>
> --
> <a href="http://newsummer.com/distlist">distlist 0.9</a>
> See http://ancestraldata.com/listarchive/johncooleylist/ for list
> information.
>
Received on Tue Nov 05 2013 - 16:59:37 MST