GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-11 > 1322161828


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Problems with some surname project admins
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:10:28 -0500
References: <8CE69FEF2FB7792-714-16C223@webmail-d134.sysops.aol.com><CAMoZBXdUkvoYkfHXFreyiap8krcLGHdRi2SLYfyp4mbY8AGAXQ@mail.gmail.com><4ECE6DB5.4040706@jarman.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ECE6DB5.4040706@jarman.net> (message from John German on Thu,24 Nov 2011 11:15:49 -0500)


John wrote:
> Y-DNA surname projects that use STRs are still
> extremely useful and I believe should continue to be of major interest
> to genealogists.

I have two points to add here. First, we are still finding project
members who don't match anyone else in the project, even in large
projects with hundreds of members. There is still a long way to go
before we'll exhaust this field of study. Second, and more on the
theoretical side, we should all be acutely aware of the incidental
non-paternity statistics coming out of various studies of newborns.
Such statistics are at odds with the fact that so many surname
projects have successfully lined up conventional-genealogical
descendants of known progenitors and found their DNA to match. I have
long felt that there must be a correlation between interest in
genealogy and ancestral lineage intactness. In other words, the
early testees were more likely than average to carry the DNA of their
overt ancestors, regardless of whether their ancestry had been
correctly researched already. This phenomenon may also have
something to do with the continuing trickle of new and unmatching
results in the surname projects, as the projects build momentum and
start sweeping up less-and-less-avid testees.

> My fear is that interest in SNPs (which I regard as
> interesting, but "generally of little use for genealogical purposes)
> will replace STRs in academic research.

That's the situation now, but look to the future. When (and if)
whole-chromosome sequencing becomes cheap and truly accurate, SNPs
will come into their own and become genuinely useful for genealogy.
There's good reason to encourage research leading to that goal.

John Chandler

This thread: