GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-12 > 1009056441


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re 6 markers disclosed
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:27:21 -0400
References: <131.6178bad.2955750d@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C24319C.64E54513@route66web.com>


At 12:09 AM 22/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I don't mean to be inflammatory but

Gee Allan that's not the impression I've gotten about
you this past year. Nothing wrong with a good debate
though.

>Guess my point is that with the thousands of ancestors
>each and every one of us has in recordable history, who
>contribute their DNA to "what we are" , even those back
>ten generations have no real contribution. It is ludicrous
>to attach importance beyond that since their blood has
>been totally diluted.

I disagree. While our blood may be diltuted 2 to
the nth generation the really fascinating thing is that
with the Y chromosone it can be 100% pure for
hundreds of years (depending when the mutation
could have occurred). Thus, of all your ancestrial lines
only one (your direct male line of decent) leaves the most
trace in you that can be determined. This makes me
feel more connected to my "surname" ancestors.

I view it in terms of a card shark analogy. The dealer
takes one card out of a deck of 52 cards and puts it
on the bottom and gingerly shuffles it so the card remains
on the bottom so it can be dealt when wanted. In the same
way our DNA is shuffled nth times but the Y chromosone
is kept in place so it will be played when the hand is
dealt. It is not really watered down very much.

To me genealogy is about tracing your line back as
far as one can. Otherwise it would not be a hobby
as we would be happy with just knowing our recent
relatives. The most useful application of the Y
chromosone is not most recent common ancestors
(which is quite subjective) but in weeding out other
lines due to different haplotypes. At this point in the
technology, matching with someone doesn't tell you
as much as not matching with someone. My favourite
genealogical project is actually determining the origins
of my surname. Nobody has proven this yet. Some
have held that we branched off the Galbraith family
while my research led me to suspect that we may have
been a branch of the Crawford family. This is
something that could be answered if a common
haplotype pattern emerges in our surname project
that can be compared to a common pattern for
other surnames. If not the ethnic origin angle will
prove useful. In terms of Scotland and Ireland, some
of the surnames are known to be imports (ie. Norman
and Scandinavian) while some are native (ie. it has
been recently reported that some Irish DNA are unique
to Ireland). As a hypothetical angle, in my case, a
European origin would tend to favour Crawford while
a British Isles origin may favour a Galbraith.

This is my food for thought. Merry Christmas!



Peter A. Kincaid
Hampton, NB, Canada

This thread: