RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: supermoussi on Wednesday 24 July 13 13:03 BST (UK)
-
For those that are thinking of surname testing it is best to have a realistic view of what can be expected otherwise it can lead to disappointment.
For starters it should be noted that the nationality with the largest number of test results is American. Reasons are obviously that they have five times the population of Britain and also 25% greater GDP per capita, i.e., they have more money to spend.
The US is a melting pot from all over the world and so has a different ethnic breakdown compared to Britain. Even when you look at the part of the American population that has British origins, its breakdown is still different than that in old blighty. Whereas the largest part of the UK's populace are English, then the Scottish and finally the Welsh and Irish. American has a much larger proportion of Scottish and Irish, due to the Highland Clearances, Potato Famine, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29)
When you add in the keen interest in Scottish Clans and Irish Septs that has been fuelled by tacky badge companies the result is that Scottish and Irish surname projects tend to be better represented than English or Welsh ones. This will obviously mean that if you're Scottish or Irish you will have a better chance of finding a match with your test than if you are English or Welsh.
As the English are the biggest part of Britain's population, what can they expect from joining a Surname DNA project? If we look at a project for a typical English name, say Green, we will get an idea:-
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/green/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/green/default.aspx?section=yresults)
The results are split into about 40 groups of people who have found matches which are listed in the top half, and then an "Ungrouped" section right at the bottom which lists people who have had zero matches. There are approximately 150 results in the top matched section and also 150 in the "Ungrouped" section. Most have an earliest Ancestor with a location of either the US or unknown. Ones that have a known specific British origin (i.e. with a name, date and place) are thin on the ground.
On the face of it, if a random person called "Green" were to test today they would have a 50% of finding a match. Seeing as it is likely that only a subset of British Green families emigrated to the US, the natural conclusion would be that a modern day British person of the name "Green" would have an even lower (possibly much lower) chance of finding a match than 50%. Even if you find a match what do you find out? In most cases all you will find is that you have other members of your surname family in America, and will not find any information that can help extend your tree back in time.
Seeing as it is going to cost you $129, $208, or $308 to test (depending on whether you take the 37, 67 or 111 marker tests - note that testing 12 markers is 99.99% useless) you need to weigh up whether such odds make it worthwhile.
The same sort of picture applies to Welsh names, e.g. the Price Project:-
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pricesurnamedna/default.aspx?section=yresults (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pricesurnamedna/default.aspx?section=yresults)
If we look at a Scottish Clan project it is interesting to note the difference. For example the McDonald project has 1500 test results (only about half have the McDonald name though) which makes the English/Welsh surname projects look puny:-
http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tables.htm (http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tables.htm)
CONCLUSIONS
By far the best chances you have of finding a match is to actually go out and find another person that has a possible link to your paper trail or has the same surname and comes from the same location as your ancestors. If you just take the test blindly though it is going to be pot luck whether you get a match or find any useful information. Although more results will slowly eke out over time it is a fact of life that many lines will die out over time so many will always remain unmatched.
-
I agree that if you are interested in taking a Y-DNA test then it is best to have a hypothesis and to test other surname lines that you are interested in at the same time. All the surname projects are run by volunteer project administrators some of whom do a better job than others. By far the majority of projects for high-frequency surnames are led by project administrators in America and most of these projects are dominated by American participants and have few British testees. Taking a blind test with one of these projects is not likely to yield much in the way of useful results in the short term. However, there does seem to be a growing interest in DNA testing in the UK and that could well change in the future.
There are some surname projects that offer free DNA tests. It's always worth checking the list in the ISOGG Wiki:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Free_DNA_tests
The Phillips DNA Project in particular has done an excellent job of reaching out to participants in the British Isles. The match rate in their project for British participants is much lower than that for Americans but the situation is improving all the time.
It is also worth checking out the website of the Guild of One-Name Studies to see if the Guild member has a DNA project associated with their one-name study. Guild members have a special deal with Family Tree DNA and can purchase 37-marker tests all year round direct from the Guild for £80 including postage. Phillips is one of the surnames registered with the Guild.
I would add one word of caution. There are many surname lines that are destined for extinction. You cannot go back and get DNA samples from deceased people in twenty or thirty years time so if you want to get the DNA record you have to get it while you still have the chance, even if the results aren't likely to help you immediately. Testees at FTDNA can nominate a beneficiary so even if they get nothing from the results it's possible that their results will yield breakthroughs in the future.
-
The Lost Cousins has an interesting article on DNA testing for ancestry purposes, which the US journal Science described as "recreational genetics" or "vanity tests".
I am not sure whether I can provide a link for copyright reasons but if you google “Lost Cousins Newsletter 13.3.13”, you should find the article easily enough.
-
I view DNA testing similarly to how I see other genealogy methods. I might not find all the answers right away after finding a new resource, but over time, collecting bits of evidence can help build a more accurate picture of my ancestors.
While an inexpensive 12-marker YDNA test isn't going to tell you a lot, it gets people interested and understanding the potential of further testing. And for that reason, I think it is well worth it.
-
I would add one word of caution. There are many surname lines that are destined for extinction. You cannot go back and get DNA samples from deceased people in twenty or thirty years time so if you want to get the DNA record you have to get it while you still have the chance, even if the results aren't likely to help you immediately. Testees at FTDNA can nominate a beneficiary so even if they get nothing from the results it's possible that their results will yield breakthroughs in the future.
I could not agree more with this statement as my surname showed 117 in 2002 and I am the last of my line with it.
It does not appear in GOONS and their are very few in 192 or Skype sites.
Makes me wish that I had had a son .. but 'Cest la Vie'
Joe
-
While an inexpensive 12-marker YDNA test isn't going to tell you a lot
If you are relatively unusual it may be interesting, but if you are a dead typical Brit it has a 70% chance of just saying that you are a dead typical Brit (e.g., Haplogroup R1b), and won't be good enough to confirm that you are related to someone with the same surname.
Many people are not impressed when this is all they get.
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source. Looking at history and the origins of our species, over thousands if not millions of years, in caves, jungles, plains, in wars etc, even today, there was/is still a level of raping of women. From the past there would be little or no records of who raped who, and therefore, the real traceable origins will be unknown. But, it seems conclusions are being made by what is found by DNA research as the these origins. If the accuracy is based on supposition, how can this research be seen as accurate?
Regards
Malky
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source.
c.98% of our DNA is the same as that found in Chimpanzees.
From the past there would be little or no records of who raped who, and therefore, the real traceable origins will be unknown.
Non-Paternal Events, or NPEs, is a term used in DNA-speak for children born via adoption, affairs or rapes, i.e. where the biological father is different to the father that raised the child.
They are common across all social classes and we all have them if you go back enough generations. It is not uncommon for people to find that their Y-DNA matches people of a different surname.
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source. Looking at history and the origins of our species, over thousands if not millions of years, in caves, jungles, plains, in wars etc, even today, there was/is still a level of raping of women. From the past there would be little or no records of who raped who, and therefore, the real traceable origins will be unknown. But, it seems conclusions are being made by what is found by DNA research as the these origins. If the accuracy is based on supposition, how can this research be seen as accurate?
Regards
Malky
************************
Genetic genealogy is not based on supposition. Two men who share a common male-line ancestor will have matching or very similar Y-DNA signatures. The closer the match, the closer the relationship. Here is a link to the guidelines used to evaluate these matches; however, Family Tree also presents customers with a list of matches deemed to have shared a common male-line ancestor within the past 500 years and contact information for each of them.
http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=48
Once a family's Y-DNA signature has been established, it can be used to identify other descendants who have not been able to trace their line by traditional means and to distinguish them from unrelated families with the same surname. In the Britton DNA Project, we have identified 10 Britton families, each with its own unique Y-DNA signature.
Lindsey Britton
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source.
On the Y-line, which normally coincides with the surname, all men do carry some markers known as SNPs that were shared by our distant ancestors from thousands and thousands of years ago. SNPs occur in a cumulative sequence and the exact sequence of SNPs that men inherit depends on which particular branch of the Y-tree they belong on. You can see the Y-SNP tree here:
http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html
There is a simplified diagram here which might make it easier to understand:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml
The mtDNA tree can be found here:
http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm
For genealogy purposes with Y-DNA testing we're only concerned about the markers found on the low-hanging branches of the tree. For mtDNA you are given a list of your "differences" from a reference sequence. These differences can either be compared against the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence (an inferred ancestral sequence) or the Cambridge Reference Sequence (the first full mt genome to be sequenced).
Autosomal DNA is another story altogether.
-
For those that are thinking of surname testing it is best to have a realistic view of what can be expected otherwise it can lead to disappointment.
For starters it should be noted that the nationality with the largest number of test results is American. Reasons are obviously that they have five times the population of Britain and also 25% greater GDP per capita, i.e., they have more money to spend.
The US is a melting pot from all over the world and so has a different ethnic breakdown compared to Britain. Even when you look at the part of the American population that has British origins, its breakdown is still different than that in old blighty. Whereas the largest part of the UK's populace are English, then the Scottish and finally the Welsh and Irish. American has a much larger proportion of Scottish and Irish, due to the Highland Clearances, Potato Famine, etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29)
.......
Britain was also "a melting pot" and the English also suffered from "famine" (corn laws,unemployment , esp late 1830s ect) and also land "cleareances" (enclosure)
The thing is , is that so many trees out there , especially in America , seem to be wrong . I am not blaming Americans for this , as these trees are strongly encouraged and promoted by the big companys . Also i guess a lot of Americans do not know the ins and outs of English peasant/working class history and why would they ?
But , for example
Say you have an American (the biggest dna testers) researcher who's ancestor arrived in America from England during the early 1700s . His ancestor is called John Smith , born Smithsbridge , Smithshire , England . Through research he has linked his John to a Lord Smith of Smith Castle , Smithsbridge , everything seems to fit . The researcher then sets up a one name study and starts a dna project . Others join the project and find they share a common ancestor . But what if that ancestor was more likely to be an English transported convict , transported to Maryland for , say , poaching , or went over as an indentured servant . Whose family had worked on the land around Smithsbridge for generations BUT are not related to the fuedal Lord Smith at all ? . Which is the most likely , when the vast majority of English were of the peasant/working class ? and when most of the everday peoples records might not have survived at all ?
I came across an online biography about an American family with the same uncommon surname as my family in North Yorkshire , England . The biography of this family says that "ALL" the family of this surname at one time had "lived in a castle in Scotland" ???. But my family of this surname were agricultural labouers (i have them at about 1700) and not ,as far as i'm aware, from Scotland . They are also in an area where in the Parish Register people are dying young , at various times , as if from hunger and disease . Some end up in the slums of Leeds , or are transported to Australia or end up in the local Workhouse . In my mind i just cannot link the Scots "castle" people with my English "agricultural labourer" people of the same surname and it just does not inspire confidence in joining the project i'm afraid
-
The thing is , is that so many trees out there , especially in America , seem to be wrong .
Yes, that is another good point. So even if you are one of the very lucky ones and do get a DNA match, and then are lucky again in that the people you match claim to know specific British details about their ancestor, it still has a fair chance of being wrong. Not good odds of finding something reliable. :-\
In my mind i just cannot link the Scots "castle" people with my English "agricultural labourer" people of the same surname and it just does not inspire confidence in joining the project i'm afraid
What you need to do is find possible English or Scottish descendants of your line and then get tested together (if they can't afford it you will need to sub them). Once you do this you will then be able to advance your research. It often takes money and effort to trace lines down to living people but can be done.
If you just take the test in blind hope though you may as well just burn £200. ;)
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source...
The above assumes that evolution of the human species has stopped; it has not. Evolution at the molecular level is a continuing process. Changes in our DNA have occurred since the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens and are still occurring.
While most of our DNA reflects the "single source", some is de novo. Changes happen according to molecular clocks whose ticks can be measured (or estimated) in generations. Careful observation and analysis allow scientists to track emergence of branches of the human family and their ages.
-
As a genetic genealogist, I resist the term "Surname Tests" and prefer the more specific "Y-STR Tests". Surnames (i.e., inherited family names) are a relatively recent development and are not so fixed and immutable as often believed.
- Disclosure: I am biased in favor of Y-STR testing. As a surname project administrator, I've seen it help many further their family histories.
The practice of using surnames came to most of Europe after 1000 AD and became universal in England as recently as 1400. Common surnames often have multiple origins (founders);. many who bear the name will not be genetically related to each other within a genealogical time frame.
Another writer mentioned NPE (non-paternal events) which result in a child bearing the name of other than its biological father's birth name. The effects of NPE tend to be cumulative as the name is passed down to succeeding generations. It's estimated that 30% to 40% of people have NPE somewhere in their family trees. Often, the fact of a NPE is found only after a Y-STR test and can present a means of overcoming a genealogical brick wall..
So what are realistic expectations for a Y-STR test?
Chances for matching are certainly improved if one recruits a known descendant of one's direct paternal ancestor to test as well. Only a NPE or wrong genealogy will result in a non-match. The downside is that a match merely confirms what one already knew.
For a "blind test" (potluck) one's matching chances much depend upon the makeup of the database to which your results are compared. A bigger database is better than a smaller one. A database with more people who have a reasonable chance of matching you is better than one with fewer. (For example, Englishmen should probably not test with a company specializing in Chinese DNA.) More inclusive is better than more restrictive.
One's chances also depend on the resolution of the test. A minimal test (12 markers) does not, in most instances, yield enough precision to eliminate ambiguities.
The frequency of your surname is a factor. Rare surnames have a much better chance of matching with the same name than do common names. However, if the name is near extinction, you may not have a close match with anyone living.
Aside: If one has a common, multi-origin name, the Y-STR test can be especially helpful in focusing research on one lineage over others with the same name.
Country of residence is presently another factor. It is true that Americans of English heritage represent only a portion of the English gene pool and that acceptance of this methodology, by comparison, has lagged in England. Participation is growing though and there's no reason why it won't eventually achieve similarly as for Americans of many ethnic backgrounds.
Most DNA surname projects for common names will have about half of participants showing Y-STR matches with surnames other than the one of the project. They can not be grouped into a "Green family" because -- no matter who else they match -- they do not match other Greens.
Expectations may not be met immediately; patience and persistence are recommended. The results have a long shelf-life and may result in matches appearing years later. Often, matches depend on the unknown person who would match you getting tested.
Y-STR testing (or DNA testing of any kind) is not a substitute for traditional, documentary genealogy; it is merely a complement. To expect DNA to come labeled with names, dates, places and other identifiers is to expect more than it can deliver.
-
What I cannot understand about the family tracing bit of DNA research is, if we all originated at/from a single source, we all should be carrying a level/marker of DNA from that source.
A simple analogy would be 'Chinese Whispers.'
We are all of one descent from hundreds of thousands of years ago, but it is within the last few thousands of years that we have become different and isolated.
A good book I have read many times, and if you're interested in reading further about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion
Regards to the thread topic; I have recently discovered my paternal surname is not actually consistent with a paternal lineage. My 2xgreat-Grandfather was illegitimate, and because of that, he took on the surname of his mother and not his father, whoever that was.
What options do I have available in helping me narrowing down possible surnames for that illusive father?
-
The original post on this thread shows one reason why DNA genealogy is a flawed "science" it is based on misconceptions.
...The US is a melting pot from all over the world and so has a different ethnic breakdown compared to Britain. Even when you look at the part of the American population that has British origins, its breakdown is still different than that in old blighty. Whereas the largest part of the UK's populace are English, then the Scottish and finally the Welsh and Irish....
Those English ancestors would they be Roman-English, French-English, Viking-English, German-English, Angles, Saxons, Jutes or one of any group of immigrants from all over Europe and beyond? Similarly with Scotland, Wales & Ireland, the history of the countries has involved peoples from all over Europe (and beyond) inhabiting the land and interbreeding with those living there at the time.
When considering DNA there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh or Irish.
At present DNA is about as useful to genealogy as a bucket shop selling histories of a family surname.
Cheers
Guy
-
Well said, Guy!
I agree with you wholeheartedly! ;D
I was a little less subtle when I started my own thread some time ago:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=647118.
-
When considering DNA there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh or Irish.
Interesting consideration, Guy. Do you often "consider" there aren't any great-great-Grandparents because you can't see them? :)
-
When considering DNA there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh or Irish.
Interesting consideration, Guy. Do you often "consider" there aren't any great-great-Grandparents because you can't see them? :)
Misquoting from The Bible: " . . . . and some fell on stony ground."
-
The original post on this thread shows one reason why DNA genealogy is a flawed "science" it is based on misconceptions.
...The US is a melting pot from all over the world and so has a different ethnic breakdown compared to Britain. Even when you look at the part of the American population that has British origins, its breakdown is still different than that in old blighty. Whereas the largest part of the UK's populace are English, then the Scottish and finally the Welsh and Irish....
Those English ancestors would they be Roman-English, French-English, Viking-English, German-English, Angles, Saxons, Jutes or one of any group of immigrants from all over Europe and beyond? Similarly with Scotland, Wales & Ireland, the history of the countries has involved peoples from all over Europe (and beyond) inhabiting the land and interbreeding with those living there at the time.
When considering DNA there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh or Irish.
At present DNA is about as useful to genealogy as a bucket shop selling histories of a family surname.
Cheers
Guy
Thanks Guy ........ that's put the cat amongst the pigeons ;D ;D
-
[When considering DNA there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh or Irish. At present DNA is about as useful to genealogy as a bucket shop selling histories of a family surname.
It is indeed quite true that DNA cannot be used to tell you whether you are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish but that is not what genealogical DNA tests are being used for. Y-chromosome DNA tests are used within surname projects to determine whether or not two men are related within a genealogical time frame. The more markers that are tested and the more markers that match the more confident you can be that the relationship is correct. As with any genealogical tool a DNA test is not used on its own but in combination with other genealogical evidence. The problems with DNA tests only arise when people draw false inferences from the haplogroups and try to claim that a Y-line is of Viking, Celt, Norman or Pictish origin.
Autosomal DNA tests using over 700,000 markers can be used to confirm close relationships within the last five generations or so. There have been reports of people being reunited with close family members (eg, half-siblings, first cousins) by having a match in one of the large autosomal DNA databases.
The mitochondrial DNA test is less useful for genealogy purposes because even with the full mitochondrial sequence test if two people have an exact match the common ancestor could still have lived over 400 years ago. It's also much more difficult tracing the female line because the surname changes with every new generation.
-
Missing the point again! ;D
What Guy said was: There is no such thing as English DNA.
Because it is very hard to define what you mean by "English"?
Angles?
Saxons?
Anglo-Saxon? (not quite the same as the previous 2)
Jutes?
Frisians?
Vikings?
Romans?
Celts? Of which variety?
Normans?
Spanish? (allegedly from the Armada!)
etc., etc.
And that's not even starting on Welsh, Irish or Scots! ;D
-
Oh dear see this thread has now gone to the dogs.
why do people do it? ???
-
What Guy said was: There is no such thing as English DNA.
Because it is very hard to define what you mean by "English"?
Angles?
Saxons?
Anglo-Saxon? (not quite the same as the previous 2)
Jutes?
Frisians?
Vikings?
Romans?
Celts? Of which variety?
Normans?
Spanish? (allegedly from the Armada!)
etc., etc.
And that's not even starting on Welsh, Irish or Scots! ;D
We are not using DNA tests to find out whether we are Celts, Romans, Normans or anything else. DNA testing cannot give us answers like that for the very reasons that Guy has already stated. DNA testing does, however, have a very legitimate use for genealogy as described earlier.
-
. DNA testing does, however, have a very legitimate use for genealogy as described earlier.
Could somebody, in one or two simple sentances of plain Engilsh without jargon, please explain what that is?
-
You might like to read this article written by Kelly Wheaton:
https://sites.google.com/site/wheatonsurname/beginners-guide-to-genetic-genealogy
It is written from a US perspective but the basic principles still apply.
-
R1B is not typical Brit at all it is Typical western europe. The present royal family are R1B has was the last Russian Tsar and the last German royalty. SO please get facts right.
Guy Angles Saxons and Jutes are German therefore would fall into your English German lines :)
Lindsay DNA testing and results is based on probabilities and therefore not 100% Therefore some supposition is indeed used.
K Garrad Guy is technically correct. The division of English Welsh and Scottish is fairly modern. The Welsh are in fact Celts and have French blood. The Scots or should that be Gaels have Viking blood and thus are descendents of the North Germanic people and we English are a mis match of German French Italian and other European countries. So Guy was actually stating what couldnt be seen and you have failed to see this.
Devon A-DNA at 5 generations has I believe only a 10% accuracy and therefore not worth anything.
Now on to a pet hate of mine the US and genealogy. Some Americans are happy to accept anything they are told. As an example there is a book available on Wyatt genealogy in the US that has a relationship and children from the said relationship which could not have taken place when the Wyatt male actually died at 13 with no children of his own. Try telling the US Wyatt descendents this and they will call you an ass because it is written down. Therefore they are being told by DNA companies that XYZ is how it is and they accept it without question. One US researcher told me in an email only yesterday on this subject that she uses DNA becuase she cant afford to come to the UK and carry out a paper trail research project. Now she couldnt understand that without the paper trail she couldnt say with any certainty that what the DNA was showing her was in fact correct
Rob
-
Lindsay DNA testing and results is based on probabilities and therefore not 100% Therefore some supposition is indeed used.
Devon A-DNA at 5 generations has I believe only a 10% accuracy and therefore not worth anything.
Rob, I'm just replying to the above two points you raise. You are right that DNA testing can only ever give you a probability that two people are related within a given time frame. However, the more markers that are tested the more confident we can be in the predictions. For example if two men take a Y-chromosome DNA test and match on all 67 markers, the predictions are that in 90% of cases those men would share a common ancestor within the last five generations:
http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=9#923
We do not use DNA testing on its own and instead we use it in combination with the documentary evidence in order to draw conclusions about our genealogical research.
The autosomal DNA tests look at 700,000 SNPs (markers) and offer highly accurate relationship predictions in recent generations. They are much more accurate than the legal paternity and relationship tests which use no more than 16 autosomal STR markers. An autosomal DNA test can conclusively prove a parent/child or sibling relationship and can identify first and second cousins. Relationship predictions become more difficult beyond the second cousin level but that is largely because of the random way in which autosomal DNA is inherited which makes it more difficult to predict the relationships. Cousin marriages can also confuse the picture and make relationships appear closer than they really are. When two second cousins take an autosomal DNA test it is 99% certain that they will share enough DNA in common for them to show up as a match. If two fourth cousins take an autosomal DNA test there is only a 50% chance that they will share enough DNA in common to have a match. For fifth cousins the probability is down to 10%:
http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=17#628
See also these autosomal DNA statistics:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics
Autosomal testing is therefore much better for confirming close relationships. However, you still get matches with lots of distant cousins simply because we all have thousands and thousands of distant cousins. Again the DNA is used in combination with the paper trail. The test will give you a match with a predicted fourth cousin and you then have to go back to your family tree and try to work out how you are related.
-
. DNA testing does, however, have a very legitimate use for genealogy as described earlier.
Could somebody, in one or two simple sentances of plain Engilsh without jargon, please explain what that is?
Lizdb, Doesn't look as if your going to get 1 or 2 sentences in plain English, does it?! ::) ;D :-X
-
I rest my (our) case.
-
Devon,
It is interesting that you and the link you provide is at a direct conflict with people who work in the field on a daily basis. You do however agree with what I stated about A-DNA.
With regards to the 67 marker test and the 90% accuracy. There is still that 10% chance that the results will be wrong. The question this raises though is how unique is DNA or rather the markers and the pattern these markers produce? In criminal cases you are give a figure of 1/????? chance of this being another person. In the US a few years ago a man was convicted of Rape based on DNA evidence. After serving a number of years the police arrested another male for rape who admitted to the rape the first male was convicted of. When his DNA was tested (I do not know to what degree and I cant now find the media piece I am paraphrasing from) it was an exact match of the first male. Whilst this is rare it does lend to the problem of being able to say I am of that family does it not?
Rob
-
Could somebody, in one or two simple sentances of plain Engilsh without jargon, please explain what that is?
DNA testing can be used as a tool in combination with documentary records to verify relationships within a genealogical timeframe.
-
How?
-
It is interesting that you and the link you provide is at a direct conflict with people who work in the field on a daily basis. You do however agree with what I stated about A-DNA.
Could you possibly clarify and provide links to the information that is in conflict with the data I provided? Who are the people you are referring to?
With regards to the 67 marker test and the 90% accuracy. There is still that 10% chance that the results will be wrong. The question this raises though is how unique is DNA or rather the markers and the pattern these markers produce? In criminal cases you are give a figure of 1/????? chance of this being another person. In the US a few years ago a man was convicted of Rape based on DNA evidence. After serving a number of years the police arrested another male for rape who admitted to the rape the first male was convicted of. When his DNA was tested (I do not know to what degree and I cant now find the media piece I am paraphrasing from) it was an exact match of the first male. Whilst this is rare it does lend to the problem of being able to say I am of that family does it not?
Probabilities are just that. They give an indication of the possible range of dates in which the common ancestor might have lived. If there is a 90% probability that two men will share a common ancestor within five generations this simply means that in 9 out of 10 cases the common ancestor will be found to have lived within five generations and in one case the common ancestor will be found to live outside of those five generations. This does not in any way imply that 10% of the results are wrong. That is what we would expect on the evidence available. There is a 50% chance that if you toss a coin you will get a heads. That doesn't imply that there is anything wrong with the the result if you happen to get a tails instead.
Forensic DNA is a different matter altogether. Forensic DNA tests use 10 (in the UK) or 13 (in the US) autosomal STR markers. The autosomal tests used for genealogy use 700,000 autosomal SNP markers and are much more accurate than the forensic DNA tests. I seem to remember that there was a case in Arizona where two random men were shown to have identical DNA signatures. The forensic DNA databases have also never been opened up for inspection by independent experts. You might like to read some of the links here:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Forensic_DNA
-
How?
You might like to read this article I was commissioned to write for Sense About Science:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/41/sense-about-genealogical-dna-testing
-
Its more than 2 or 3 sentences!
I am not trying to be awkward, but everything I have seen about DNA testing just reads like gobblygook to a lay person (and I am not totally thick, do have a basic knowledge of genetics etc), and those who are fans of it can write at great length, but to the run-of-the mill family historian, it just goes over the head.
I cannot see any worthwhile use in it, but seeing as people were saying it has a very legitimate use in genealogy, I was prepared to be openminded and invited someone to tell us exactly how. How does it have a use, how can it be used as a tool?
-
Devon the fact I said that you and I agree on the use of A-DNA is a non starter in genealogy. If you wish to meet the person I am speaking of could I suggest you subscribe to the rootsweb DNA mailing list and look for a person named Gregg. I have deleted the emails I have had from him over the past few days otherwise I would have gladly supplied his email address for you. Be warned if you come across this person he doesnt take kindly to anyone suggesting anything other than what he agrees with so much so calling me and a couple of others goofs etc
-
Liz I think in my own view that the only legitimate use in genealogy for DNA is proving who is the father of a child but both have to be alive. Oh wait we call that paternity testing :D
-
As an example of what I was saying, look at this thread (which no one has replied to)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=659649.0;topicseen
How is that complicated phrase a help in his family history research?
A valid question.
(Red writing - yes, acorngen, I totally agree. That is my stance on the subject. But I was giving those who keep saying it is useful a chance to tell us all how, but have not got very far)
-
Excuse me
On what I know so far, I dont see the point of DNA testing, and yes, I am sure I have expressed that view, BUT I WAS trying to be open and was simply asking for those that do see it to explain it.
The fact that no-one seems able to that , and that now I am being insulted, seemed to just underline that probably it doesnt have a lot of point. If it did then hopefully someone would have been keen to explain it simply to me, and to probably hundreds of others who, like me, do not understand the jargon, and on the face of it cant see what use it has, but were willing to listen to an explanation - I WAS trying to be fair.
I wont post again on this thread - but will read it from time to time, in case I do get my explanation, as I am genuinely interested.
-
Its more than 2 or 3 sentences!
Genetic science is complicated and is composed of multiple complex concepts. I doubt that it CAN be fully explained in two or three sentences with no jargon. (God knows, I've tried!) But, here's another stab at simplifying:
- The DNA in our cells is inherited from our parents, roughly equally from each.
- An exception is DNA of the Y chromosome (Y-DNA), which is inherited only by males (it defines maleness) and only from fathers. Y-DNA is relatively stable over many generations and similarity of two haplotypes (i.e., particular patterns) indicates that both sample donors share a direct paternal ancestor. Differences (mutations) between haplotypes yield time-probability windows as to how many generations separate the two donors; in general, the more diffirences, the greater the separation.
- Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is another exception. It is inherited by both genders, but only from mothers. Present technology does not permit identification of a specific direct maternal lineage from mtDNA.
- Autosomal DNA (AuDNA) is the DNA in the
23 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes; it is inherited about equally from each parent, who each got roughly half from each of their parents. However, AuDNA is subject to recombination and "swapping" of DNA segments between each chromosome in a pair, thus complicating analysis and interpretation. (Oops. One of the 23 pairs is the gender-determining XX or XY; only 22 pairs are autosomal.)
Experts would say the above is an over-simplification; it leaves much out. They'd be right.
I am not trying to be awkward, but everything I have seen about DNA testing just reads like gobblygook to a lay person (and I am not totally thick, do have a basic knowledge of genetics etc), and those who are fans of it can write at great length, but to the run-of-the mill family historian, it just goes over the head.
I cannot see any worthwhile use in it, but seeing as people were saying it has a very legitimate use in genealogy, I was prepared to be openminded and invited someone to tell us exactly how. How does it have a use, how can it be used as a tool?
Using DNA in genealogy requires learning some new concepts, though the skills of analysis and evaluation learned in documentary genealogy will also be helpful. An example may illustrate:
- Suppose your family history research leads you to two men, both with the same name, born about the same time in the same area. From the available documentation, each is an equally likely candidate. Which is your ancestor?
- Y-DNA would be a way to answer the question. Each man would have passed their DNA to their direct filial descendants and comparisons of the haplotypes would (likely) exclude one candidate and point to the other.
For an example using mtDNA, review the investigation showing that the skeletal remains found in Leicester were actually those of Richard III. (He, it turns out, had an uncommon form of mtDNA.) The investigation relied about equally on documentary genealogy and DNA comparisons. See http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/04/richard-iii-dna-bones-king.
-
Liz I think in my own view that the only legitimate use in genealogy for DNA is proving who is the father of a child but both have to be alive. Oh wait we call that paternity testing :D
You have that the wrong way round Rob.
DNA can only prove that a person is not the father of a child it cannot prove a person is the father, there is always an element of doubt.
Cheers
Guy
-
DNA can only prove that a person is not the father of a child it cannot prove a person is the father, there is always an element of doubt.
Guy
With the new autosomal DNA tests which look at 700,000 markers there is no longer any element of doubt. You can conclusively prove parent/child relationships. I have tested myself and both parents and the predicted relationship was accurate in both cases. I've provided images below showing the match menu with the predicted relationships and the chromosome browser view showing how I have inherited half of my DNA from each parent. I have obscured the names of my matches for privacy reasons.
-
Plenty of attachments - and very pretty!
But essentially meaningless without some sort of explanation as to what all those pretty colours mean?
With the new autosomal DNA tests which look at 700,000 markers there is no longer any element of doubt. You can conclusively prove parent/child relationships.
But then your attachments talk about mother, father, 3rd cousins, 4th cousins, 5th cousins?
How is that conclusive?
-
The first image shows the first page of my match list. I've had to remove names but there are five matches in the screenshot. The first two people on the match list are my parents who were correlty predicted to be my parents. The other three matches are three genetic cousins found in the database. The company's algorithms predict the relationship based on the amount of shared DNA.
The bottom image is the chromosome browser view. I've selected both of my parents in this view and the browser is showing each chromosome and the amount of and DNA I have in common with each parent. A child receives 50% of his or DNA from one parent and 50% from the other parent.
You can see more chromosome browser examples of different relationships here:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Chromosome_Browser_Examples
-
It is totally meaningless as proof simply because of the thousands of millions of people who have never had their DNA tested.
At this moment in time a tiny proportion of living people in the UK have had their DNA tested and assumptions have had to be made by extrapolating data.
Apart from that you show no chain of evidence, no proof that cross-contamination of samples did not occur etc. etc.
Cheers
Guy
-
It is totally meaningless as proof simply because of the thousands of millions of people who have never had their DNA tested.
At this moment in time a tiny proportion of living people in the UK have had their DNA tested and assumptions have had to be made by extrapolating data.
Apart from that you show no chain of evidence, no proof that cross-contamination of samples did not occur etc. etc.
I was responding to your original question by demonstrating that with the new autosomal DNA tests it is now possible to prove parent/child relationships. Obviously if you wish to prove relationships for legal reasons then a chain of custody is required. However, I've never had any suspicions that I was adopted. I suppose there is a remote chance that my parents faked my birth certificate and that I am not really who I thought I was. Then when I asked them to supply DNA samples they did not send in their own samples but instead tracked down my real parents and got them to send in DNA samples instead, assuming of course that these people were still living after these years. However, such a scenario seems pretty unlikely to me. Nevertheless, the DNA tests still show that I have matches with two biological parents.
The autosomal DNA tests have only been available for a few years and it will take time for the databases to reach critical mass, but I already have quite a few British and Australian people in my match lists mostly at the fourth or fifth to distant cousin level. At present autosomal DNA testing is best used to test a hypothesis (eg, do two people share the same great-grandfather) and to do this you need to test both parties to see if they share the appropriate percentage of DNA for the expected relationship. However, as the databases grow in size we will see many more people finding meaningful matches. There have been a number of examples in the US of adoptees finding lost half-siblings, first cousins and even their biological parents through matches in the autosomal DNA databases.
For Y-chromosome DNA testing there are now over half a million Y-DNA results in the Family Tree DNA database, the world's largest Y-DNA database. Although the Americans are by far the largest group there are plenty of British people in the database. It's not so much the size of the database that's important but rather whether or not there is a project for your surname and how many people with your surname have tested. Unless you suspect you are descended from an illegitimate line you are more likely to match people with the same surname. If you're descended from an illegitimate line then it is often a waiting game, but there are many people who do get matches with other surnames that provide them with clues as to the identity of the father.
With Y-DNA you don't actually have to test that many people. If you have an ancestor born in 1700 in Devon and you test a paternal line descendant of son A and son B and the results match then you have verified both those male lines back to the point where they share the common ancestor.
-
May I ask everyone to please respect other persons points of view.
If the thread becomes a slanging match it will be locked or sent off into the void ::)
Come on folks , we are all here to help one another :)
This topic has now been placed under Mod. watch.
ev
No wonder most people have given up on replying on these DNA threads - there is too much bad blood in them
The NHS says I've got good blood ;)
-
For Y-chromosome DNA testing there are now over half a million Y-DNA results in the Family Tree DNA database, the world's largest Y-DNA database. Although the Americans are by far the largest group there are plenty of British people in the database.
Unfortunately the large American settler families have very large numbers of people who have tested meaning you often find surname projects have several very very large American groups, a few smaller ones and a very very big unmatched section.
When you consider the 300,000,000 population of America is made a up of a diverse mixture of European, African, Asian people, and it is they whose results mainly make up the database, it gives a very poor representation of Britain's modern 70,000,000 population. It would be nice if it did, but it just doesn't.
The average Brit who takes an STR test without finding some good possible matches to test also, will more than likely not find a match. They would be better off taking SNP tests or mtDNA tests. At least they would definitely get something for their money...
To be relevant to some of the recent posters, let's look at the prospects for them. If someone of the surname Garrad or Etchells tested what are the odds of them finding a match? It looks pretty grim to me.
-
Unfortunately the large American settler families have very large numbers of people who have tested meaning you often find surname projects have several very very large American groups, a few smaller ones and a very very big unmatched section.
When you consider the 300,000,000 population of America is made a up of a diverse mixture of European, African, Asian people, and it is they whose results mainly make up the database, it gives a very poor representation of Britain's modern 70,000,000 population. It would be nice if it did, but it just doesn't.
The average Brit who takes an STR test without finding some good possible matches to test also, will more than likely not find a match. They would be better off taking SNP tests or mtDNA tests. At least they would definitely get something for their money...
To be relevant to some of the recent posters, let's look at the prospects for them. If someone of the surname Garrad or Etchells tested what are the odds of them finding a match? It looks pretty grim to me.
Although there are many projects, particularly those for common surnames, which are dominated by Americans, there are also some projects which have very good representation from the UK. In my Devon Project, for example, only about 10% of the nearly 300 members are Americans because most of them can't meet the project entry criteria. The Brits are by far and away the largest group in the project, but I have project members living in many different countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Argentina, France, Japan, etc). The Brits are in fact the second largest group in the FTDNA database after the Americans. The Australians and Canadians have also embraced DNA testing and many of them have well documented pedigrees where it is easy to make the connection with the UK. A lot of the British-led DNA projects are those run by members of the Guild of One-Name Studies, many of which are for rarer surnames. There are also many projects which are now offering free DNA tests to people with documented British ancestry. If anyone is interested in testing they should check the list first to see if they qualify for a free test:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Free_DNA_tests
If someone wishes to take a Y-DNA test to find matches with the same surname then they should check the relevant surname project first to see how many people are in the project and where they are from. If there are no documented British lines in the project then they probably will not get much out of the test. However, I do know some Brits who've tested and had matches with Americans who have more documentary information than they do. This can be particularly helpful if someone is perhaps brickwalled in London. There are also many surnames for which there is currently no surname project. Etchells and Garrard are indeed two such examples. A single Y-STR test for either of these surnames would not actually be very helpful unless other people with the surnames were tested for comparison purposes.
Whether or not there is a surname project people will still get matches. It's just that the matches they get will not necessarily be very relevant. In my Devon DNA Project only about 5% of the project members have no matches at any of the testing levels, and not even at 12 markers. At the other extreme I have an Irish man in my surname project who has 19 matches at 111 markers, all with different surnames, but not a single match with his own surname.
In general people will get much more out of a Y-STR test than an mtDNA test, an autosomal DNA test or a Y-SNP test. The mtDNA database is much smaller and unless you do the expensive full sequence test your matches could share a common ancestor thousands of years in the past. The autosomal databases are in their infancy and are much more US-centric than the Y-STR databases. It's also much more difficult making the connections with autosomal DNA. Y-SNP testing is fine if people are interested in deep ancestry but currently has no practical application for genealogy.
-
There are also many surnames for which there is currently no surname project. Etchells and Garrard are indeed two such examples. A single Y-STR test for either of these surnames would not actually be very helpful unless other people with the surnames were tested for comparison purposes.
Even less relevant for me, as my surname is Garrad, and has been through the centuries back to 1550, when we find a John Garar! ;D
I wish I could lay claim to either the fortune of the former Crown Jewellers (Garrards) or the record-decks empire (Garrard again!). I have the odd mis-spelling as Garrod, and my grandfather's divorce in 1926 as Garrard, but that's it.
-
Even less relevant for me, as my surname is Garrad, and has been through the centuries back to 1550, when we find a John Garar! ;D
I wish I could lay claim to either the fortune of the former Crown Jewellers (Garrards) or the record-decks empire (Garrard again!). I have the odd mis-spelling as Garrod, and my grandfather's divorce in 1926 as Garrard, but that's it.
Surname spellings have only become fixed in the last 100 or so years and it's common to find different variant spellings in different branches of a family tree. Although there is no Garrard/Garrad project there are in fact five Garrards in the FTDNA database though some of these could be females who have taken mtDNA or autosomal DNA tests. I would guess that Garrard/Garrad all have a common root. This is the sort of thing that you can only discover through DNA testing. It's rare to find trees that can be documented back beyond the 1500s but the DNA record can help to fill in the gaps if you test the right people. Sometimes you can get random matches with other spellings of a name that you hadn't expected to be variants. DNA also helps to verify existing trees. The links become increasingly uncertain the further back in time you go.
-
I am well aware of mis-spellings; having my name mis-spelled almost every day!
(Your post today being typical! ;D)
But, my paternal line have been very consistent in spelling the surname, or having the surname spelled, as Garrad throughout the census era and before!
However, that's irrelevant - the fact remains that, for me at least, DNA testing would be of no significance whatsoever.
-
Having a g't grannie who was a bit of a goer, will add to the general confusion considerably ;D
It's a wise bairn that kens his ain faither!
Skoosh.
-
I am well aware of mis-spellings; having my name mis-spelled almost every day!
(Your post today being typical! ;D)
But, my paternal line have been very consistent in spelling the surname, or having the surname spelled, as Garrad throughout the census era and before!
However, that's irrelevant - the fact remains that, for me at least, DNA testing would be of no significance whatsoever.
I can well understand you having problems with your surname. It's very easy to jump ahead and assume that there is an R in the name as that is the most well known spelling. I'm glad I'm not the only one to make the mistake!
Do you not have any desire to verify your family history research? As a family historian I like to check every available record for my surname. Each new record brings new information. I wouldn't reconstruct a family tree without checking the censuses just as I wouldn't accept that a reconstructed tree was correct without the additional evidence from the DNA testing. I've found it very satisfying that I've been able to use DNA testing to add to the existing evidence that I've acquired from the documentary research. I have two well documented lineages that share a common ancestor in the mid-1400s, and by testing descendants from each line we've shown that our assumptions were correct and we don't have any "go-getting" mothers in these direct lines.
-
Ding ding ding ;) What's this round 3 or maybe 4 ???
Personally i think DevonCruwys and KGarrad are loving every minute of this ;D ;D
When trying to find who my grandfather was i did come across a fella who i have no doubt is him but without DNA from him and my father we will never know. My father is still living but this other fella died years ago. His cousin did offer DNA if my father wanted to be tested. What was the use? It would either eliminate this fella or just say dad was "one of their lot" but it wouldnt pin point to the pacific person who fathered him. It still wouldnt prove 100% this fella was my grandfather so to me it was of very little use.
-
When trying to find who my grandfather was i did come across a fella who i have no doubt is him but without DNA from him and my father we will never know. My father is still living but this other fella died years ago. His cousin did offer DNA if my father wanted to be tested. What was the use? It would either eliminate this fella or just say dad was "one of their lot" but it wouldnt pin point to the pacific person who fathered him. It still wouldnt prove 100% this fella was my grandfather so to me it was of very little use.
This scenario is in fact something that you could prove with the new autosomal DNA tests. You would need to test yourself or your father and someone who is descended from the person you believe to be your grandfather. This could be a male or female descendant. The test would reveal how much DNA you share in common which can be used to predict the relationship. Two first cousins would normally share 12.5% of their DNA. There are other relationships where the same amount of DNA is shared (eg, half-aunts/uncles, half-nephews/nieces) but these can usually be ruled out by the ages of the people testing and the documented paper trails. See:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics
-
Interesting discussion.
I had been quite sceptical about the value of these DNA resources for the various reasons mentioned above but, after going to a talk at a family history fair last weekend and hearing how the autosomal test works I have decided to go ahead and try this.
I have a specific problem (brick-wall) in my family tree which I have been trying for several years to overcome but seem to have hit a block with the lack of baptism records in Mayo for the period about 20 years before the famine.
At about the same time as, or shortly after, my great-grandfather and his newly-married wife arrived in England in 1851, there were two other persons, one male, one female, bearing the same family name who appeared in the same place too. All three lived very close to each other and seem to have been godparents to each others' children.
The other two married in England so I know the name and occupation of their father. Irish records of that time do not supply these details so I cannot find that of my own G2grandfather. However, both the other couples moved to the US at different times, initially to the same area.
For some years now I have been in touch with a descendant of the female of the same name. After hearing how the Family Finder (autosomal) test works, we have decided to both apply for the test, listing family names but not specifying that we want a direct comparison.
If we are correct in concluding that, as they behaved like siblings, our great grandparents were in fact brother and sister, then we should both be sent information of the match, as the relationship should be well within the parameters of the test. If not, then it seems unlikely that out of all the database, they would pick this particular match rather than any other ones (based just on surname matches etc.). I have a fairly detailed tree that should be able to identify the direct links with anyone else on my other lines, within about 5 generations of me, that might happen to be in the database.
I look forward to getting the test done and will keep you posted on the outcome.
DW
-
Dudley, Thanks for sharing your experiences. This is exactly how DNA testing works best. You need to have a specific scenario in mind and you need to test the right people to prove or disprove the hypothesis. You should get a definitive answer from your autosomal DNA tests. Good luck!
-
Dudley would that talk have been at Doncaster by any chance? If so I was at that talk and as much as I respected what was said the talk was very vague in reality and had so much in it that was wrong and not well researched. I also felt it was not a talk about the uses of DNA (which I still say are non existent and why i asked the question I did and got the reply in the end that I wanted) but more about selling more tests. If it was at Doncaster I dont suppose you got the speakers email address that you could share with me in private please.
-
Dudley would that talk have been at Doncaster by any chance? If so I was at that talk and as much as I respected what was said the talk was very vague in reality and had so much in it that was wrong and not well researched. I also felt it was not a talk about the uses of DNA (which I still say are non existent and why i asked the question I did and got the reply in the end that I wanted) but more about selling more tests. If it was at Doncaster I dont suppose you got the speakers email address that you could share with me in private please.
Hi acorngen,
It was the talk at Doncaster and I also could not see how the tests in the talk would help with my particular brick-wall but waited after the talk and asked a question framing the problem and how could the tests answer it, and then got what seemed like a very straightforward explanation of the autosomal test that seemed worth following up.
Unfortunately, we ran out of time and had to rush off so I did not get the speakers email address but when I got home I went to the company website and found more information on how the process works. Not sure that I understand it all, but discussed it (by email) with my potential third cousin and he found a comparison website that seemed to show the company had advantages over some other companies offering similar tests, so we decided to go for it.
This is definitely being done in the spirit of an experiment but after looking on the website, I noted that there were projects involving several of the names on my family tree.
I have supplied names and dates of my most distant ancestors on the male and female lines and family names only, with country of origin, for my great-grandparents.
As far as I am aware, there is only one family name in common between myself and the potential third cousin and there are clearly other projects involving both that name and others from my list, already in their system.
It is to be hoped that the test will find the relationship that we think probably exists between us (although of course, we may be mistaken there) and that any other relationships that it might find within other lines of my family, I probably have enough documentary evidence to confirm or deny. It is on this basis that I hope to be able to establish my own personal confidence level in the test, though I appreciate that I may have to wait some time to get sufficient feed-back.
It's still quite a lot of money to perhaps get around one brick-wall but I've already made several trips to Dublin looking for further evidence on that as well as other parts of my tree, and even spent a week in Mayo without any further success, so not as much as my trips cost.
-
DW I was at that talk and asked the question shouldnt Genetic genealogy and genealogy be kept seperate. I still think they should be tbh. What he probably didnt tell you with him selling the idea for money is that A-DNA is only accurate enough to be of any real use to 4 generations after that the chance of two people being a match is around the 10 percent mark.
I deliberately didnt stop back to ask questions after because I would have kept him talking for hours on the subject. Whilst I dont profess to know the ins and outs of how DNA is formed etc I have done quite a bit of research on the subject.
I was pleased though when he brought up the fact that the Neanderthal genome had been mapped and that significant tests have been done to show there was interbreeding between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, something which I have been arguing was the fact for a long time now. I was also pleased that he showed that africa had no neanderthal DNA again something I had argued. The only part of my argument not yet proved is that aborigine man (AUS and NZ) are the closest modern people to Neanderthal.
Back to this subject though. If the DNA does show a match how will you actually prove where the connection lies?
-
Hi again acorngen,
The speaker on Saturday did point out the restrictions on the A-DNA matching and it is clearly stated on the website with the percentage match levels that would indicate each level of relationship and the corresponding confidence levels.
However, the problem we want to solve is that we have documentary evidence that indicate quite a high likelihood that the other researcher and I are third cousins. Our great-grandparents had the same family name, arrived in the same place in England, from Ireland at about the same time, and on two different censuses were found living as close neighbours and their names appear as godparents for each other's children. The only thing we don't have is any document saying that they were actually related.
I have traced all 8 great grandparents, all with distinct family names. So any third cousin should appear on my list as such. According to what I understand of the test methodology, if any closer relationship was indicated, it should only be because one of them has a double-dose of genes from the same family further back (but not much further or too diluted to make much difference, so perhaps one or two generations further back). If a relationship, but more distant, was indicated then, the two potential siblings would be cousins at closest and would then be towards the limit at which this test could confirm what particular relationship.
However, there is no reason to suppose that we have any other lines in common, so if there is a relationship strong enough to show up on this test, then it is only likely to be on this one line.
Of course, to demonstrate that the test parameters quoted by the company are correct, it would be nice to see the results from a sibling and one or two first cousins, and some second cousins across a variety of lines, and other third cousins too for which I do have full documentary evidence, but that's wishful thinking, though I might suggest it to a few others among my contacts, if we appear to get a result here.
-
I am enjoying this discussion.
The only part of my argument not yet proved is that aborigine man (AUS and NZ) are the closest modern people to Neanderthal.
Just butting in to say that I was always led to believe that Indigenous Australians and the Maori were a completely different people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people
I am certain there must be huge numbers of studies undertaken on this subject. (I have not googled yet. :))
-
Just butting in to say that I was always led to believe that Indigenous Australians and the Maori were a completely different people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people
The Australians and Maoris are not a different people. We are all descended from a common root in Africa. This interactive map, based on Y-DNA and mtDNA evidence, is now somewhat out of date, but it gives you an idea of how it works:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
It's also now been found that the Aborigines were not isolated in Australia and there has been recent admixture:
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/32kZ6D9PXsnaeLPVkcgN8H/The-4000yearold-Indian-link.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/rock-art-may-show-austs-first-foreigners/story-fn3dxiwe-1226689366982
This article provides a good summary of the current thinking on our relationship with Neanderthals and Denisovans:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals
-
A surname test on a surname which originates from not just one place but many like Etchells would be totally meaningless until a huge database of such examples was compiled.
It is a habitational name from a piece of land added to an estate.
In a similar way another name I have an interest in is Guy which stems from a guide, an occupational name.
Again a huge database would have to be compiled to produce any remotely interesting data.
This is where the current extrapolated data peddled about fails.
Extrapolated statistics can be made to suit any argument requiring support, but that does not make them accurate.
Perhaps supporters of DNA testing will reveal what proportion of the current world population has donated samples to the Database.
80% ; 50% ; 25% ; 10% ; 1% or is it perhaps even less?
Until the bulk of the world's population has been DNA tested all results are nothing less than wild guesses as there is no way to gauge how unique DNA actually is.
It is simply supposition.
Cheers
Guy
-
Oh dear Devon you have fallen into the same error that every geneticist seems to make. First upstanding Hominids are to date only being found in Africa I will grant you. That said Africa is really the only place of significant size with many millions of acres undeveloped and has such we cannot say that modern hominids started out in Africa at all.
Likewise the genome of Cor Magnon man et al have not been mapped and therefore you cannot say with any degree of certainty that there was cross polination has we hominids evolved and until such time you cannot say our common ancestor originated anywhere.
For example what about Neanderthals could they not be the start of the evolutionary change for homo sapiens? Of course they could. What about the missing link that has yet not been found conclusively. Yes Lucy is as near as dammit to that but even with her skeletal remains there are enough inconsistencies to suggest that as yet we have not located the whole chain.
Looking at what you link in your post it would seem you are singing of the same hymn sheet as Chris Pommery and with that in mind could it also be possible that you also have some connection with the myfamily DNA company? If so shouldnt you come out and say so?
Has I said at the talk on Saturday genetic genealogy and historic genealogy should be two seperate disciplines.
Rob
-
A surname test on a surname which originates from not just one place but many like Etchells would be totally meaningless until a huge database of such examples was compiled.
It is a habitational name from a piece of land added to an estate.
In a similar way another name I have an interest in is Guy which stems from a guide, an occupational name.
Again a huge database would have to be compiled to produce any remotely interesting data.
This is where the current extrapolated data peddled about fails.
Extrapolated statistics can be made to suit any argument requiring support, but that does not make them accurate.
Perhaps supporters of DNA testing will reveal what proportion of the current world population has donated samples to the Database.
80% ; 50% ; 25% ; 10% ; 1% or is it perhaps even less?
Until the bulk of the world's population has been DNA tested all results are nothing less than wild guesses as there is no way to gauge how unique DNA actually is.
It is simply supposition.
Cheers
Guy
For a surname project you don't need to test the entire population of the world. You only have to test sufficient people with your surname to establish how many people with the surname are related. The standard practice is to test at least two people from each documented line to make sure that the two results match up and there has not been an NPE (non-paternity event). Some surnames are very rare and you would only have to test a small number of people to learn about the surname. Other surnames are very common and you would have test large numbers of people with the surname to get any insights. The number of people tested worldwide is therefore irrelevant. The important point is how many people with the surnames you are interested in have been tested and how many different lineages for the surname are represented. Some projects are very mature and have tested lots of people, others are just starting up and still have a long way to go.
-
Oh dear Devon you have fallen into the same error that every geneticist seems to make. First upstanding Hominids are to date only being found in Africa I will grant you. That said Africa is really the only place of significant size with many millions of acres undeveloped and has such we cannot say that modern hominids started out in Africa at all.
Likewise the genome of Cor Magnon man et al have not been mapped and therefore you cannot say with any degree of certainty that there was cross polination has we hominids evolved and until such time you cannot say our common ancestor originated anywhere.
For example what about Neanderthals could they not be the start of the evolutionary change for homo sapiens? Of course they could. What about the missing link that has yet not been found conclusively. Yes Lucy is as near as dammit to that but even with her skeletal remains there are enough inconsistencies to suggest that as yet we have not located the whole chain.
Looking at what you link in your post it would seem you are singing of the same hymn sheet as Chris Pommery and with that in mind could it also be possible that you also have some connection with the myfamily DNA company? If so shouldnt you come out and say so?
Has I said at the talk on Saturday genetic genealogy and historic genealogy should be two seperate disciplines.
Rob
I have no commercial connection with Family Tree DNA but I do run several projects there and have paid for many DNA tests out of my own pocket with FTDNA and with other companies too.
I don't know what you mean by "historic genealogy" but genetic genealogy is a separate discipline from population genetics. People take genetic genealogy tests to help with family history research. Population genetics is a science studied by academics at universities worldwide and is helping us to understand more about the evolution of our species. There are still many gaps in our knowledge, and there will always be some degree of uncertainty. However, the Neanderthal findings are very robust.
-
For a surname project you don't need to test the entire population of the world. You only have to test sufficient people with your surname to establish how many people with the surname are related. The standard practice is to test at least two people from each documented line to make sure that the two results match up and there has not been an NPE (non-paternity event). Some surnames are very rare and you would only have to test a small number of people to learn about the surname. Other surnames are very common and you would have test large numbers of people with the surname to get any insights. The number of people tested worldwide is therefore irrelevant. The important point is how many people with the surnames you are interested in have been tested and how many different lineages for the surname are represented. Some projects are very mature and have tested lots of people, others are just starting up and still have a long way to go.
You have exemplified why a DNA test for a surname such as Etchells is as relevant as a bucketshop heritage peddled by fraudsters.
When a surname group which is formed from a habitation name such as Etchells there are many thousands if not millions of primary sources to that name.
In other words there is not just one genetic lineage but thousands of genetic lineages.
It follows that to get any worthwhile data the DNA database will have to be large to enable to determine if one lineage is associated with other lineages for the same surname.
The most likely scenario is that large numbers of different unrelated lineages will develop from the one location and that those unrelated lineages will probably be contained in other surname groupings.
In a similar manner what those supporting DNA ignore is that if the total DNA database worldwide is only 1% of the world population all there theories of how the lineages are linked is only that a theory.
Until significant numbers are reached, meaning at least 50% and more accurately as close to 100% coverage is reached DNA testing is as accurate as sticking a needle into a parish register and choosing a name.
The reason being is until close to 100% testing is reached there can be no assurance that DNA sequences are unique.
It could be (though I doubt it is) duplicated millions of times in untested unrelated individuals.
Cheers
Guy
-
When a surname group which is formed from a habitation name such as Etchells there are many thousands if not millions of primary sources to that name.
In other words there is not just one genetic lineage but thousands of genetic lineages.
It follows that to get any worthwhile data the DNA database will have to be large to enable to determine if one lineage is associated with other lineages for the same surname.
The most likely scenario is that large numbers of different unrelated lineages will develop from the one location and that those unrelated lineages will probably be contained in other surname groupings.
In a similar manner what those supporting DNA ignore is that if the total DNA database worldwide is only 1% of the world population all there theories of how the lineages are linked is only that a theory.
Until significant numbers are reached, meaning at least 50% and more accurately as close to 100% coverage is reached DNA testing is as accurate as sticking a needle into a parish register and choosing a name.
The reason being is until close to 100% testing is reached there can be no assurance that DNA sequences are unique.
It could be (though I doubt it is) duplicated millions of times in untested unrelated individuals.
Cheers
Guy
Y-DNA testing for surname projects is a comparison process. If you want to find out if a line descending from John Etchells born in 1815 in London is related to a line that traces back to William Etchells born in 1745 in Yorkshire you don't have to test the entire population of the world. You just have to test one person from each line and see if the results match. If they match you know the two lines share a common ancestor, and that the two lines are related even if you can't find the paper trail connection. You don't have to test everyone else from the same two lines with the same surname as you can reasonably infer that their results would match too. It's therefore not necessary to test anything like 100% or even 50% of people with a surname to find out how many different lineages there are and which ones are related. A few Y-DNA test results can actually go a very long way. If two results don't match it becomes more complicated. All surnames, even those that are very rare and have a single origin, have multiple genetic lineages on the Y-line. There are only just over 1500 people with the surname Etchells in the 1881 census so you would not expect there to be too many different lineages. There will also be other variant spellings that could be related. The biggest problem with Y-DNA testing is that so many lineages become extinct and lines that you would like to test have no living descendants. That is why we study surnames by combining DNA testing with documentary records. It's particularly important to look at the early distribution of the surname in medieval records (lay subsidy rolls, hearth tax returns, protestation returns, etc).
We are also not looking for unique DNA signatures. It's not like forensic DNA testing where each signature is unique to an individual. A Y-DNA test does not identify an individual as multiple people will share the same DNA signature, and often you will have matches not just with your own surname but with other surnames as well. If someone's result is at odds with the paper trail then DNA testing can often help to find clues to the biological surname of the father.
-
Just butting in to say that I was always led to believe that Indigenous Australians and the Maori were a completely different people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people
The Australians and Maoris are not a different people. We are all descended from a common root in Africa. This interactive map, based on Y-DNA and mtDNA evidence, is now somewhat out of date, but it gives you an idea of how it works:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
It's also now been found that the Aborigines were not isolated in Australia and there has been recent admixture:
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/32kZ6D9PXsnaeLPVkcgN8H/The-4000yearold-Indian-link.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/rock-art-may-show-austs-first-foreigners/story-fn3dxiwe-1226689366982
This article provides a good summary of the current thinking on our relationship with Neanderthals and Denisovans:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals
Understand what you are saying Devon. The interactive map shows that people moved into the continent of Australia around 74 - 65,000 years ago. The map does not show the colonisation of New Zealand or the Pacific Islands. Presumably these people migrated via New Guinea. So if you support the out of Africa theory then yes, they (we) are the same people.
I was refering to acorngen's theory about Indigenous Australians and New Zealanders being the closest modern people to Neanderthals. I was just attempting to point out that New Zealanders (ie the Maori) are comparatively recent arrivals having migrated from otherPacific islands only several hundred years ago. So many differences must have developed in the interim thousands of years between Pacific Islanders and Indigenous Australians.
I also realise that there have been theories around regarding Indigenous Australian's interaction with various other peoples such as Egyptians, Indians, and others.
-
Y-DNA testing for surname projects is a comparison process. If you want to find out if a line descending from John Etchells born in 1815 in London is related to a line that traces back to William Etchells born in 1745 in Yorkshire you don't have to test the entire population of the world. You just have to test one person from each line and see if the results match. If they match you know the two lines share a common ancestor, and that the two lines are related even if you can't find the paper trail connection. You don't have to test everyone else from the same two lines with the same surname as you can reasonably infer that their results would match too.
That is where the theory breaks down and is one of the points you are missing.
In a surname like Etchells the ancestor could carry a surname Smith, Jones, Williams or any other surname under the sun.
The surname stems from a location it does not mean his ancestors became know as Etchells.
Other descendants of the same common ancestor could and in many cases would carry a different surname. This is almost a certainty if they remained in the location the subject moved from.
It also means that many of the people who came from a single common location and carrying the name Etchells may not have any genetic relationship.
It's therefore not necessary to test anything like 100% or even 50% of people with a surname to find out how many different lineages there are and which ones are related.
Totally wrong if one wishes to accurately (i.e. 100% accurate) find out how many different lineages are possible for a given surname every person carrying that surname must be tested otherwise only an estimate can be given. Extrapolating figures gives estimations not accuracy.
The entire DNA field is based on the theory that DNA sequences are unique identifiers, however as only a minuscule percentage of the world population has had their DNA tested that it only a theory. It may be accurate or it may prove to be wildly optimistic, nobody at this moment in time can say.
A few Y-DNA test results can actually go a very long way. If two results don't match it becomes more complicated. All surnames, even those that are very rare and have a single origin, have multiple genetic lineages on the Y-line. There are only just over 1500 people with the surname Etchells in the 1881 census so you would not expect there to be too many different lineages. There will also be other variant spellings that could be related. The biggest problem with Y-DNA testing is that so many lineages become extinct and lines that you would like to test have no living descendants.
Again you miss the point. In a name which stems from a location as in a name that stems from an occupation the chance of different lineages is substantially higher than that where the surname is a patronymic name.
Indeed where a surname stems from multiple locations there is a small chance that there could be as many different lineages as there are people in a particular generation.
It also follows that not everyone from a particular location will adopt or be given that location's name as their surname. Therefore different members of the same family may leave the family location at different times and end up with completely different surnames, some could be given occupational names and end up as Smiths, others could end up with a patronymic name such as Williamson etc. etc.
That is why we study surnames by combining DNA testing with documentary records. It's particularly important to look at the early distribution of the surname in medieval records (lay subsidy rolls, hearth tax returns, protestation returns, etc).
We are also not looking for unique DNA signatures. It's not like forensic DNA testing where each signature is unique to an individual. A Y-DNA test does not identify an individual as multiple people will share the same DNA signature, and often you will have matches not just with your own surname but with other surnames as well. If someone's result is at odds with the paper trail then DNA testing can often help to find clues to the biological surname of the father.
I can agree with much of these last two paragraphs but then you spoil it by mentioning a biological surname.
What on earth is a biological surname?
Do you mean the surname of a biological father, or are you referring to some hypothetical name given to those carrying a particular DNA sequence?
Perhaps you may gather I do not have a problem the the theory of DNA sequencing but I do have a big problem with the claims some make "based" on DNA sequencing.
Cheers
Guy
-
That is where the theory breaks down and is one of the points you are missing.
In a surname like Etchells the ancestor could carry a surname Smith, Jones, Williams or any other surname under the sun.
The surname stems from a location it does not mean his ancestors became know as Etchells.
Other descendants of the same common ancestor could and in many cases would carry a different surname. This is almost a certainty if they remained in the location the subject moved from.
It also means that many of the people who came from a single common location and carrying the name Etchells may not have any genetic relationship.
That is precisely the point I was making and the main reason why we do DNA testing because we want to investigate these relationships, and see how many different genetic lineages there are for a surname and to see which surnames from a particular region are related.
Totally wrong if one wishes to accurately (i.e. 100% accurate) find out how many different lineages are possible for a given surname every person carrying that surname must be tested otherwise only an estimate can be given. Extrapolating figures gives estimations not accuracy.
We use DNA testing as a complement to documentary research. In any type of research there are always going to be limitations on time, money and the availability of records. If someone wishes to study a surname and test every single living descendant then they are quite free to do so if they have the financial resources available. It's always better to have the additional evidence from the DNA rather than to extrapolate from the documentary records alone which are never 100% accurate. The DNA test results also help to fill in gaps in the paper records by finding matches between different lines where there is no documentary link.
The entire DNA field is based on the theory that DNA sequences are unique identifiers, however as only a minuscule percentage of the world population has had their DNA tested that it only a theory. It may be accurate or it may prove to be wildly optimistic, nobody at this moment in time can say.
You've got this back to front. The DNA field is based on the fact that we all share many markers in common. The more markers we share in common the closer we are related. These markers are not unique identifiers. Sometimes several hundred people can have matches even when you test 67 Y-STR markers. You don't need to test the whole world's population to answer specific research questions. You only need to test selected people from the lines in question as previously explained. Testing the whole population of India or China is not going to help anyone researching a surname line from Yorkshire or Devon.
Again you miss the point. In a name which stems from a location as in a name that stems from an occupation the chance of different lineages is substantially higher than that where the surname is a patronymic name.
Indeed where a surname stems from multiple locations there is a small chance that there could be as many different lineages as there are people in a particular generation.
It also follows that not everyone from a particular location will adopt or be given that location's name as their surname. Therefore different members of the same family may leave the family location at different times and end up with completely different surnames, some could be given occupational names and end up as Smiths, others could end up with a patronymic name such as Williamson etc. etc.
Again, as I said before that is precisely why we do these studies to try and work which lines are related and which ones aren't.
What on earth is a biological surname?
Do you mean the surname of a biological father, or are you referring to some hypothetical name given to those carrying a particular DNA sequence?
I do mean the surname of the biological father. It does sometimes happen in a DNA project that the DNA results do not match the documented trees. Sometimes there might be an error in the research, but on other occasions there's been something like a concealed illegitimacy or adoption. If the father's name is not known then matches with other surnames can sometimes provide clues as to the identity of the actual father.
-
Devon,
I am not saying that the Neamderthal link is robust. I have seen the data that has proved the link to modern homo sapiens and backs up my own arguments made as an archaeology student and then slapped down by the paleontologists of the day.
Historic genealogy is that which we all do as a hobby ie family history. Genetic genealogy is using the human genome and the selected markers within that to discern if there are any genetic connections. Whilst the A-DNA or even Y-DNA will say yeah you two in all probability are related genetically they do not say with certainty you are related. Has more markers are examined then this may become much clearer however has was pointed out at the last talk I went to the cost of getting to this point is astronomical and the chances of it coming down to an affordable figure any time soon is highly unlikely. In fact we were told to expect the cost of testing to go through the roof again in the very near future due to new markers being added to the test.
I have no problem with genetic DNA however I do believe that marketting this has a way to prove a family connection is in reality nothing more than a scam
Guy,
Chris Pommery did say there is a hope that the data base they are producing along with new ways of comparing results based around algorithms and computers to hopefully bring together different surnames that have the same genetical makeup
Rob
-
I was referring to acorngen's theory about Indigenous Australians and New Zealanders being the closest modern people to Neanderthals. I was just attempting to point out that New Zealanders (ie the Maori) are comparatively recent arrivals having migrated from other Pacific islands only several hundred years ago. So many differences must have developed in the interim thousands of years between Pacific Islanders and Indigenous Australians.
I think you're right that the Maoris took a different path. The migratory routes are still theories rather than proven facts. All non-Africans have a certain small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. It's the Melanesians and Polynesians who share a small percentage of Denisovan DNA. Denisovan DNA is supposedly not found outside these populations.
-
When I made my first statement about Neanderthal genes being in Homo Sapiens it was based on the fact that many people today have the Neanderthal look. The aboriginies more so than any other race that I have seen. Compare a picture of how we believe Neanderthal looked and compare that with Aboriginies and you will see my point.
When the tests were done to see where Neanderthal migrated to do you know if they tested indigenous populous or just what I call the imported populous
Rob
-
I am not saying that the Neamderthal link is robust. I have seen the data that has proved the link to modern homo sapiens and backs up my own arguments made as an archaeology student and then slapped down by the paleontologists of the day.
I was the one who said the link with Neanderthals is robust. What are you saying is wrong with the Neanderthal research?
Historic genealogy is that which we all do as a hobby ie family history. Genetic genealogy is using the human genome and the selected markers within that to discern if there are any genetic connections. Whilst the A-DNA or even Y-DNA will say yeah you two in all probability are related genetically they do not say with certainty you are related. Has more markers are examined then this may become much clearer however has was pointed out at the last talk I went to the cost of getting to this point is astronomical and the chances of it coming down to an affordable figure any time soon is highly unlikely. In fact we were told to expect the cost of testing to go through the roof again in the very near future due to new markers being added to the test.
I have no problem with genetic DNA however I do believe that marketting this has a way to prove a family connection is in reality nothing more than a scam.
I've not heard the term historic genealogy used before. Family history is the usual terminology. Genetic genealogy is the application of DNA testing to family history. Genetic genealogy uses DNA testing in combination with documentary records. DNA testing is not very effective when used on its own.
DNA tests are now very cheap starting at about $49 (£33) for a Y-DNA or mtDNA test. The autosomal DNA tests now cost just $99 (£62). The cost of testing is coming down all the time and the resolution of the tests is increasing. You can now have your whole genome sequenced for just a few thousand dollars. It would have cost you billions of dollars ten years ago. The tests do tell you that two people are related on a particular line with 100% certainty. The uncertainty is over the timeframe in which they are related. The more markers tested the better you can estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor. It is not a scam. People are paying for the tests because they work, and because they are able to find family connections which they wouldn't necessarily find with the paper records alone. It works best if you have a particular research hypothesis to test.
-
When I made my first statement about Neanderthal genes being in Homo Sapiens it was based on the fact that many people today have the Neanderthal look. The aboriginies more so than any other race that I have seen. Compare a picture of how we believe Neanderthal looked and compare that with Aboriginies and you will see my point.
When the tests were done to see where Neanderthal migrated to do you know if they tested indigenous populous or just what I call the imported populous
You cannot make inferences about ancestry based on appearances. The whole Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. DNA was extracted from bones found in a cave in Croatia. Thousands and thousands of indigenous people have now been tested from around the world. You can only make limited inferences about the migratory patterns of Neanderthals because only a limited range of artefacts and bones have survived.
-
I disagree with you over making inferences based on bones and structure of those bones. Do you know what the distiguishing features of Neanderthal man is? Apart from brain size etc that is? It is the prominent brow ridges and the square jaw line. Of course this is not a fact based science and I for one would not say it is the only way to distinguish this race from another. However my own observations on the whole subject have been proven correct.
If you read my posts properly you will see that I know the whole genome has been matched. It is how I am able to say with certainty that my observations and assumptions have proven correct.
Can you point me to any scientific based websites and not news reports that show how many people from each continent were tested, their ethnography and the results please
Rob
-
Can you point me to any scientific based websites and not news reports that show how many people from each continent were tested, their ethnography and the results please
Rob
This is a massive subject and if you need the answers this is something you would have to research yourself. You can search on PubMed or Google Scholar for all the Neanderthal and Denisovan papers.
The Max Planck Institute is the lab that's done all the Neanderthal and Denisovan research:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/index.html
Michael Hammer's lab at the University of Arizona has also done a lot of work on Neanderthals and Denisovans:
http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/michael_hammer.html
There are a variety of different databases for the different DNA tests. The massive autosomal STR databases are mostly for forensic use and now have literally millions of test results.
The Genographic Project is well on the way to collecting 100,000 indigenous samples from around the world but they've mostly done Y-DNA and mtDNA analysis on these samples at present though the autosomal SNP testing is probably now well under way:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
The SMGF database has getting on for 100,000 indigenous samples, though again these were Y-DNA and mtDNA samples. AncestryDNA acquired the database and are now doing autosomal SNP testing on the database. There is a map somewhere on the SMGF website showing the distribution of samples:
http://www.smgf.org/
For autosomal SNP testing there is the Human Genome Diversity Project:
There is also the 1000 Genomes Project:
http://www.1000genomes.org/
There also all the large consumer databases. You'll find a list here:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/DNA_databases
There are all sorts of research samples in different locations which it's difficult to quantify. You'd really have to read the scientific papers to see which datasets were used for comparison.
-
Now that is where I have a problem because I was told that the Neanderthal genome testiing to see if there were any links to modern Homo Sapien were brand new samples and a set number from each continent but the person who gave the talk couldnt say what ethnography was built into but Ill do some digging thx
Rob
-
You have exemplified why a DNA test for a surname such as Etchells is as relevant as a bucketshop heritage peddled by fraudsters.
When a surname group which is formed from a habitation name such as Etchells there are many thousands if not millions of primary sources to that name.
In other words there is not just one genetic lineage but thousands of genetic lineages.
It follows that to get any worthwhile data the DNA database will have to be large to enable to determine if one lineage is associated with other lineages for the same surname.
The most likely scenario is that large numbers of different unrelated lineages will develop from the one location and that those unrelated lineages will probably be contained in other surname groupings.
I've seldom seen someone miss a point so spectacularly.
There is more than one reason why surname projects with organizations like FTDNA are dominated by people in the US. The one we seem to be neglecting is that people in the US are much more often looking for their recent ancestral origins than people in the UK or even Canada are. (Canada was, overall, settled much later than the US, so we have less difficulty pinpointing our origins in England or elsewhere.)
What these people don't know is precisely this: which Etchells clan, say, they belong to. Their ancestor arrived on a boat, maybe as recently as 1800ish, and there they are stuck. Nobody is looking to prove that all people named Etchells in the world belong to one big extended family, for the love of Pete. They are not looking for linkages between lineages; they are looking for their own lineage.
Even though I was able to find my mother's father's father's origin in England, after much sweat, I found myself still stuck. It turned out that the surname he had passed down to her was completely fake. I am 100% confident that I have identified him as a person registered at birth in Cornwall as Hill. The ages and names of the two individuals (my gr-grfather and his doppelgänger), the various names in their families, the fact that Mr. Hill had a sister whose given names included my gr-grfather's fake surname which the Hill sister also adopted, the complete lack of any overlap between them in time, all made this indisputable. But whether his father was really Mr. Hill is the question. Maybe there was some truth to his tale about his fake surname (that no one ever knew was fake) being his real father's name.
So I seemed to have an either/or question: either he was a genetic Hill, or he was a genetic X, his adopted surname. X is a very uncommon name; not much hope of finding a match, or of being able to rule it out by the lack of a match. But Hill? Several hundred of them in the FTDNA project, mostly in the US with unknown British origins. I should be able to rule Hill in or out.
This raised the possibility of YDNA testing producing two good outcomes: me confirming that my gr-grfather was a Hill, by matching one or more people with that surname, and someone in the US finding the source of their surname, i.e. a source of themself, by matching my Hill YDNA for which I have a paper trail back to Cornwall/Devon.
The Cornish being the great emigrators, it seemed likely that if my man was a Hill, some relation would have ended up in the US, likely having emigrated in connection with mining.
And lo and behold, yes. I got a very close YDNA match (probability 75% at 12 generations, 99% at 24 generations) with someone in the US whose grandfather had emigrated from the same area of Cornwall in the 1840s, in connection with mining ... whose name is not Hill. No, it's the surname of my great-grandfather's paternal grandmother, who was married to Hill. Which doesn't count at all.
But it does do one thing for me: any doubt that might have persisted that my fake-named gr-grfather was the Mr. Hill from Cornwall whom I had identified as his real identity is pretty much dispelled by this match. The coincidence of matching YDNA with someone whose line, for generations, lived 20 miles away from where my Mr. Hill was born would be way too much.
This development doesn't actually help me find the ancestors, but it confirms I am at least on the right track -- the match is from exactly the geographic location where I expected it to be.
Obviously the idea that all the Hills in the British Isles are related, and my maternal grandfather's family's YDNA will prove that, is an utter nonsense and it would never have occurred to me to even think of that.
I'm sure it's nice to have one's ancestral lines all traceable back to Domesday and beyond just by finding the dusty papers or pixels to show them. Some of us aren't that lucky and do not yet know what we are looking for, even. That's what we are after finding out: what to look for, and where.
I didn't expect to create another insane mystery when I had the YDNA tested; I hoped to confirm or deny the work I had done, and probably help somebody make the trans-Atlantic leap to find their own ancestors if they had not yet been able to. So far I've muddied the waters, but with info that is essential to my ongoing search.
-
btw -- hello, Debbie! You will recognize my Mr. X. ;) Sshh! But as you can see, I have got no further ahead .......
-
btw -- hello, Debbie! You will recognize my Mr. X. ;) Sshh! But as you can see, I have got no further ahead .......
Hello there! Yours is a more difficult situation. It is sometimes a waiting game. If you can identify a suitable candidate then targeted testing can help. There is a very well known case of a Hill who was not a Hill who found his identity through DNA testing and it was the Y-DNA tests that provided the first clues:
http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/
Dick Hill's book is well worth reading.
-
Now that is where I have a problem because I was told that the Neanderthal genome testiing to see if there were any links to modern Homo Sapien were brand new samples and a set number from each continent but the person who gave the talk couldnt say what ethnography was built into but Ill do some digging thx
Rob
Not wishing to be a killjoy but could any further talk of Neanderthals go in a seperate thread please? Neanderthals pre-dated surnames by quite a few years.. ;)
Here's one for you:- http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=663580.0 (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=663580.0)
-
It is sometimes a waiting game. If you can identify a suitable candidate then targeted testing can help. There is a very well known case of a Hill who was not a Hill who found his identity through DNA testing and it was the Y-DNA tests that provided the first clues:
Ha, eh? Just goes to show how dirt-common the surname is. ;) Yes, I had seen his story talked about at the FTDNA site.
Yes, what are needed here are more testees with the surname my Mr. Hill matches with, and we are working on that! I had immediate luck when I posted here at RootsChat recently -- a contact from someone else with a matching pair in the surname project in question, i.e. the one my Mr. Hill matched with. And I have actually just now encouraged that person, who is in the US and is, with their own match, a weak match with my testee and his match, but who seems to hook up with a Devon line, to get someone known to be from the Devon line into your project. I can't contribute any more myself, since it is a certainty that my James Hill c1795 has no male descendants, other than his grandson / my great-grandfather's several sons and their descendants, and James Hill himself remains an unknown factor ...
This case still stands as an excellent example of what YDNA testing can be used for, even if we don't yet have enough data! Of course, we may never have; there may be no living people whose genes carry the evidence needed here (i.e. who are male-line descendants of James Hill's male-line ancestors). Male lines not infrequently die out -- this one would have were it not for my gr-grfather's long and active reproductive life; I have an extinct surname in my own tree, where the last two brothers died childless in the early 1800s (while their sisters were fruitful). However, I am considering autosomal testing as well, and you never know.
-
If you are relatively unusual it [a 12-marker YDNA match] may be interesting, but if you are a dead typical Brit it has a 70% chance of just saying that you are a dead typical Brit (e.g., Haplogroup R1b), and won't be good enough to confirm that you are related to someone with the same surname.
And just an anecdote on that. My Mr. Hill is R1b2 - dead typical. I would not even consider even reading the 12-marker matches. It would take me days. ;)
I have tested my male relations (both sides of my family) only to the 37-marker level. I need to step that up, and also get haplogroups properly tested (more SNPs) to rule out "ghost matches" - YDNA matches that are merely coincidental.
My other testee is I2b1/M233, much rarer in England. I have a paper trail in a village in Wiltshire back to the 1500s (no living memory beyond the late 1800s, but the paper is convincing).
I was contacted last month by someone who is two steps out from my testee at 25 markers. He is one of the poor USAmericans trying to find his roots. He has tested to 67 markers, so I identified his kit in his surname project and compared it with my testee's to 37 markers, and found they were a full 6 more steps out at that point -- a total of 8 steps out. No match at all, really. So even 25 markers is pretty useless testing.
His story is interesting, though. He can trace his surname back in the US quite a way -- to the first immigrant, before 1700. Beyond that, there are the usual wild and woolly family trees we see in the US. Someone has decided that immigrant came from Durham, but nobody seems to know why. He is rightly suspicious. So maybe someday someone in England will test, and will match closely enough that he will get pointed in the right direction. But at those distances, there is every possibility that the immigrant did not leave behind brothers who reproduced, at least down to the 20th century.
What his test may have done, however, is help somebody else solve a mystery.
Say he is Smith, and the other person is Jones.
Smith and Jones are 2 steps out at 37 markers. That is pretty close.
Jones has an "unknown Jones" ancestor in a particular US county in the early 1800s.
Smith knows that his grx2 grandfather was the not yet married sheriff of that county at exactly the time "unknown Jones" was born.
Given the closeness of their YDNA match -- 2 steps out at 37 markers, so far -- Smith may have provided the solution to Jones's mystery: unknown Jones appears likely to be a result of a "non-paternal event". There might have been a Ms. Jones whose son's father was Sheriff Smith -- or a Ms. X whose son by Sheriff Smith took the name of his stepfather Jones, or the philandering wife of a Mr. Jones ... or a woman named Jones, or who was married to or later married a Mr. Jones, who was assaulted by Sheriff Smith ...
So sometimes one's results, at least in the short term, may be more altruistic than directly useful to one's self. ;)
-
Janey, You're quite right that you usually can't read anything into 12 or 25-marker matches. However, there are a few people who happen to have very rare values for one or two of the markers in the 12-marker panel and in these rare cases a 12-marker match is a good indicator of a genealogical match. However, I would always feel happier with results for more markers. Roughly 5% of the men in my Devon project have no matches even at 12 markers and that includes quite a few R1b men. At the other extreme some people have over 7000 matches at 12 markers!
Autosomal testing might possibly help in your situation if you can find a comparative candidate from the line in question. Fourth cousins only have a 50% chance of matching so there are diminishing returns the more generations you have to go back in time.
-
Hi again,
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I was hoping to take an Autosomal DNA test to try to break down a break wall and would keep everyone updated on how it goes. As it's a bit off-track for this thread, in order not to gate-crash, I have started a new thread here:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=664639.0
I'll be very interested in contributions, explanations and feedback.
-
Devon you said that DNA tests were getting cheaper and would go cheaper still however we have now been told at three different talks that DNA tests will increase in price over the next 2 years has they are moving away from 12 marker and 37 marker tests to a 99 marker test. They expect the cost to rise back up to the £500 mark again. FTDnA is supposedly going to be the first to add to this and will also at a cost but cheaper than a full test review the sequencing they hold for those who have already been tested.
Family history is different from genealogy but both come under the same umbrella. Genetic Genealogy is not family history. Historical genealogy is not family history either. The latter is all about finding out all you can about your family. Historical genealogy is the finding of the names in your tree. Yes it may be being pedantic
Rob
-
Devon you said that DNA tests were getting cheaper and would go cheaper still however we have now been told at three different talks that DNA tests will increase in price over the next 2 years has they are moving away from 12 marker and 37 marker tests to a 99 marker test. They expect the cost to rise back up to the £500 mark again. FTDnA is supposedly going to be the first to add to this and will also at a cost but cheaper than a full test review the sequencing they hold for those who have already been tested.
Family history is different from genealogy but both come under the same umbrella. Genetic Genealogy is not family history. Historical genealogy is not family history either. The latter is all about finding out all you can about your family. Historical genealogy is the finding of the names in your tree. Yes it may be being pedantic
Rob
Rob, I think you must have misheard or misinterpreted what you were told. The tests are getting cheaper. Four years ago an autosomal DNA test would have cost you $499. Now these tests cost just $99 and you also get double the number of markers tested for less money. The mtDNA Plus test that I bought a few years ago for about $150 now costs just $49. The 12-marker Y-DNA test now costs $49. It would have cost $219 in the year 2000. However, for genealogy purposes you would need a 37-marker test which now costs $149 through a project but can usually be purchased in a sale at Christmas for $119 (about £80). For most people wanting to match with the same surname the 37-marker test will suffice but some people will need to upgrade to 67 markers. The 111-marker test is for special situations and more advanced users. The next big advance is full Y-chromosome sequencing but that's likely to be beyond the means of the average family historian for a good few years yet. It currently costs over $1000.
Genealogy is the process of assembling the names in a tree. Family history includes the wider process of putting the flesh on the bones. DNA testing is a tool that is used in combination with documentary records - it is the application of genetics to genealogy. Historical genealogy is not a phrase that I've come across in the family history world. Most of our genealogy is historical so the adjective seems somewhat unnecessary.
-
Debbie's right. It isn't that tests are getting more expensive (because they are actually getting cheaper, as she describes), it's that the low-level YDNA tests in particular are being phased out.
I imagine one reason for this is that customers get rather peeved when a 12-marker test tells them essentially nothing. I think this is probably at least partly the company's fault, since the 12-marker test is kind of a shiny-object marketing ploy to draw people in, and they really don't explain that they are unlikely to learn anything useful from it (especially if they are the common or garden English R1b1a2 Y haplogroup, which is really all most people will learn).
The 37-marker test really is the minimum to start with for male surname line matching. My example of how even a 25-marker test can be misleading is an indication (2 steps out at 25 markers, 8 steps out at 37 markers). Testing beyond that can be done to refine matches that are found at 37 markers.
I have only just recently realized how much the cost of the autosomal has fallen and I'm likely going to go for a couple of them. I may be consulting you about that, Debbie. ;)
(A comparative candidate for triangulating is exactly what would help! There are none in my line -- no descendants of the 1817-marriage couple except the males in my line from their grandson and some descendants of his sister, their granddaughter. The new administrator for the surname project that my kit matched is trying to get one of his own very close matches, who has an established Devon line of the name, to get the kit into the surname project -- and hopefully then into yours as well!)
-
I have only just recently realized how much the cost of the autosomal has fallen and I'm likely going to go for a couple of them. I may be consulting you about that, Debbie. ;)
Do get in touch if you have any questions about autosomal DNA testing. I suggest you start another thread.
-
No I didnt hear wrongly at all and this guy actually works for FTDNA he was quite explicit and even put up slides showing what the new tests are expected to cost althogh he did say he wasn't sure when the tests would be rolled out. He also said that the 12 marker and the other one which I forget will disappear altogether when this new test goes live.
If I had recorded the lecture I would put it up online but unfortunately I forgot my dictaphone.
Rob
-
No I didnt hear wrongly at all and this guy actually works for FTDNA he was quite explicit and even put up slides showing what the new tests are expected to cost althogh he did say he wasn't sure when the tests would be rolled out. He also said that the 12 marker and the other one which I forget will disappear altogether when this new test goes live.
If I had recorded the lecture I would put it up online but unfortunately I forgot my dictaphone.
Rob
Rob, Whose lecture did you attend? Chris Pomery is the FTDNA rep for England, and Alasdair Macdonald is the FTDNA rep for Scotland.
I think you have misunderstood what was said. DNA testing is rather like computer processing power or televisions. The costs are tumbling all the time but you now get much more for your money - more STR markers and more SNPs. While some people might want the latest TV or computer with all the bells and whistles the cheaper models will always provide all the basic functions.
The test that was probably being referred to is the full Y chromosome sequence test. This is currently only available from a company called Full Genomes Corporation and costs over $1000. However, such a test is overkill for the average family historian. Full Y chromosome sequencing will allow researchers to compile a complete phylogenetic tree for the Y chromosome. There will no doubt be chips that will allow people to test for the more recent SNPs that will be of most relevance for genealogy. There seem to be hints that FTDNA will be announcing something new at their group administrators' conference in November.
If you come to WDYTYA Live in London in February we can answer all your questions there.