GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1269714971


From: Elizabeth Bennett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Family Finder Test
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:36:11 -0200
References: <971b.3ff82e9.38df5280@aol.com>,<SNT132-w336D1596AD25C9B4A58E28C0220@phx.gbl>,<REME20100327124253@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20100327124253@alum.mit.edu>


I'm sorry if I was unclear. I do not assume that if autosomal results show a relationship that it is in the paternal line. IF there is an autosomal relationship and IF they are assumed to be cousins in the paternal line, CAN these results be used to group Y DNA results in smaller groups within a large one. If you look at the R1a network charts on the Clan Donald DNA page there are not many clusters.
Clan Donald has at least one chief who was Donald Gorm; Donald the blue eyed so I have exchanged information on eye colour and height with some of my father's matches.
Elizabeth

> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:42:58 -0400
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Family Finder Test
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > If autosomal results could indicates cousins of some degree and they
> > are assumed to be cousins through their paternal lines, can these
> > results be used to group Y DNA test results in smaller group within
> > a large one to help develop a phylogenetic tree? It is not a case
> > of one of the other autosomal or Y-DNA but can they be used in
> > combination.
>
> Here's an example of autosomal results indicating cousins of some
> degree: eye color. It's quite true that, all else being equal, the
> blue-eyed testees are more closely related to each other than they
> are to the brown-eyed testees, and vice versa. We could certainly
> gather data on the eye color (or blood group) of our project members
> and use those data to form clusters by simply assuming the relationship
> to be on the paternal side. However, there is no justification for
> that assumption. The same is true of Family Finder.
>
> Sometimes, I think that genetic genealogy (as practiced heretofore) has
> been a serious setback to genealogy as a whole. GG has fostered a very
> unhealthy "shorthand" notation that refers to people being "not at all
> related" when the truth is that they merely have very different Y
> chromosomes. For example, if my own maternal grandfather were alive
> today and joined the Chandler DNA project because he heard me talking
> enthusiastically about it, the results would show that "we are not at
> all related" in the terminology of genetic genealogy. And yet a
> Family Finder or 23andMe test would reveal that we share something like
> 1/4 of our DNA -- perhaps even more. The key here is that autosomal
> testing carries the same criteria for relationships as in traditional
> genealogy, but the range of detection is strictly limited by the rapid
> fall-off of consanguinity (factor of 2 for each generation up the tree
> to a common ancestor and for each generation back down the other branch).
>
> When you step over from haploid genealogy to diploid, it is necessary to
> shed the shorthand and get back to thinking more like a traditional
> genealogist.
>
> John Chandler
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

_________________________________________________________________
Live connected with Messenger on your phone
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712958


This thread: