On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines.

Andrew and All: Family Tree DNA is having a sale this month on all of it's Y DNA, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA (Family Finder) tests: https://www.familytreedna.com/?c=1 23andMe used to give a decent indication of one's main mtDNA haplogroup, and for males, the Y DNA haplogroup. They have switched to a new SNP chip which has reduced their resolution for those tests: http://www.23andme.com/ Hopefully FTDNA comes through the current hurricane without damage to their facilities or personnel. Full disclosure: I am a volunteer admin for 12 Y DNA projects at FTDNA: Brashear, Creekmore, Kidd, Manning, Mowthrope/Maulthrop, Parkins-Perkins, Phipps, Strunk, Swain, Tunnell-Tonellier, Whitecotton, Wyatt. Steven On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to > Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests > are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for > estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are > available for comparison. > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this > is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial > reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a > mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the > tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss > matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a > style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in > newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from > autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely > the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success > stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few > centuries back.) > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are > driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to > certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use > neutral methodologies. > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on > software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear > methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such > algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler > in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic > genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature. Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother. This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree. Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 18:24:02 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. > > > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) > > > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. > > > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature. > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. > > I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother. > > This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree. > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:24:02 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :) Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more. > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.) > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing.

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 19:00:18 UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster escreveu: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:24:02 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. > > No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :) > > Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more. > > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.) > > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. > > I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing. Wrong Y DNA is still much tested today.