GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268499112
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrongthings for genealogy?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:51:52 +0100
Your thoughts are very interesting on this subject. Thanks for that blog
reference. I want to emphasize that like you I do not begrudge the
investments being made in new things, and I look forward to coming years to
see if something practical comes out of it, but make no mistake: resources,
for example in the famous "IT" black hole, ARE being diverted AWAY from
genealogically more important areas. It is not a win-win.
Concerning the "two stage" approach I have been doing something similar. I
have occasionally even advised people to start with a 12 marker test, with
possible stage 2 being ONLY the fast moving markers, because for some people
the only thing we want to see at first is whether they are in the same
lineage for example.
I'd put all such ideas under the category of "we can do more with Y DNA". I
have thrown around the idea in the past that there should be a basic
re-arrangement of the STR packages, or at least when you go above 37
markers, with a fast mutating option for people wanting to EXAGERRATE
differences, and a slow mutating option for those families with too many
common types of e.g. R1b and not even sure yet who is in the same group. (I
have now seen two families which could not be identified without 67 markers,
but I've also seen other of times where I wished we had not paid for that
I understand a lot of the concerns about this are to do with the mess it
will make of things like computerized TMRCA calculations, which tend to be
misleading anyway. There's another idea: the emphasis upon TMRCA
calculations should be reduced, and the emphasis should be upon
triangulations and other project based work. This is another area where the
technically interested have moved discussion away from what would be best
The current emphasis upon TMRCA's in the mail our genealogist participants
receive for example, often leads to major disappointment and confusion. If
this was the point of the test, it seems to have failed, is often the
impression. Actually using Y DNA requires a team of people working together
and building up enough samples to come to conclusions. One person's test
never shows anything on its own.
There is so much more we can do with Y DNA.
From: "Terry Barton" <>
That said, my thoughts go to what I think of as a "Two Stage" approach -
where the first stage is to find recent shared ancestry -
|[DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrongthings for genealogy? by "Lancaster-Boon" <>|