GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118254716


From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] DNA Analysis for Conventional Genealogy vs. Deep Ancestry
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:18:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <00b901c56c4d$5696c450$82e2b1d8@vr1hk3m6e66qcq>


I wonder if the genealogical questions are really being pushed out by the
"deep ancestry" discussions. It is my impression that everyone on the list
is interested in the genealogical use of DNA.

Secondly, I wonder if the "anthropological" bias of some of the people on
this list is a bad thing for genealogical DNA discussions at all. As a
project administrator I quite like the extra cross pollination this gives,
and the feedback that I gather here is also appreciated by others with whom
I correspond.

I'd say the main reason that questions about family trees are uncommon is
that - they are uncommon. Most DNA projects are comparitively small, which
means there are relatively few interesting paradoxes showing in family
trees.

...so is there really a problem?

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 7:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Analysis for Conventional Genealogy vs. Deep
Ancestry


AMEN!! Ken Graves has said it correctly. The name of the list is
Genealogy-DNA, not Anthropology-DNA.

I'm not in the least interested in who might have begun my lines thousands
of years ago. I'd be happy if I could find a connection in the more recent
centuries.

To me, it comes across that several members are more interested in
anthropology, and that is their perogrative.
However, the list also seems to be controlled by a dozen or so and the rest
of us dummies are left in the dust.

Nicky


This thread: