Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116602778

Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:26:18 +0000


You did not mention that there are exceptions to your description below - Y-DNA and mtDNA. You are only speaking of autosomal DNA.

The Y chromosome of my Shetland Islands Bruce participant appears to have come directly, and intact except for a few inconsequential mutations, from the Royal Bruce of Scotland family. The same can be said for my Stewart participant sharing the same Y chromosome as James V of Scotland, and my Sinclair participant having the same Y chromosome as William the Conqueror (although not a direct lineal descendant of the latter). Curiously all are R1b. More to the point, all these men inherited the chromosome as a unit (the recombining part at the tips being an exception) and so despite the large number of generations (e.g., 30) separating them and their ancestors of 1000 or so years ago they are in the position of having "bragging rights" as to having one of their 46 chromosomes that can be traced via genealogy and DNA research to a known figure in the early history of Europe.

David F.

-------------- Original message --------------

> Its even worse than your observation of a "finite number of genes". Because
> of "crossover" in which the matched pairs of chromosomes split and exchange
> whole segments of themselves with each other (about three parts per
> chromosome I have read), we don't inherit genes one by one each generation,
> but in large hunks. By only the 10th generation back the math suggests you
> start having ancestors from which you inherited no genetic materials
> whatsoever.
> So from about the 10th generation back most of one's ancestors are only
> "behavioral ancestors" in that their matings were a causal link which
> eventually led to oneself. They leave us no genetic material. That's why
> at about the 10th generation back I get more interested in tribes, clans,
> and regional populations. Their gene pools become our meaningful deep
> genetic ancestral origins further back in time.
> Incidently, I am not discounting the importance of "behavioral ancestry".
> We are nature-plus-nurture creatures. The family cultural (behavioral)
> traditions handed down from generation to generation are as important to us
> as the genetic handdowns. And a family line which has believed it descends
> from Bruce of Scotland could very well have preserved a family culture for
> centuries which reflects that genealogical origin.
> Ken

This thread: