Surname Tests - Realistic Expectations

[Ruskie]

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. 

[DevonCruwys]

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 This interactive map, based on Y-DNA and mtDNA evidence, is now somewhat out of date, but it gives you an idea of how it works: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

[Guy Etchells]

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

[acorngen]

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

[DevonCruwys]

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.

[DevonCruwys]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[DevonCruwys]

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.

[Ruskie]

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.