I don't get it either. I haven't heard from the FTDNA Whitfield yet. But
I've started to do some Whitfield research. Perhaps I'll come up with
something.
-Michael
> 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.
>>
>
--
Second VP, the Cooley Family Association of America
Administrator, the Akins DNA Project
Administrator, the Ashenhurst DNA Project
Administrator, the Bishop DNA Project
Administrator, the Eldridge DNA Project
Administrator, the alt-McDowell DNA Project
Co-Administrator, the Cooley DNA Project
Co-Administrator, the McDougall DNA Project
Instructor "Genealogy and Family History," the Osher Lifelong Learning
Institute (OLLI)
B.A. Humboldt State University, History
Received on Tue Nov 05 2013 - 18:42:13 MST