On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:36:20 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > 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. My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:21 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:21 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them > > I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own. Here is how you parse it Andrew. Your father is not your father. Or is he? The Y tells you nothing on this point at all. Sure you might match some people they might even have your surname But it tells you nothing about which line you are in, since lines can pass on, completely unmutated for four generations. Maybe you're really the second cousin of who you think you are Autosomal DNA however does not lie on points like this

There are two major hurdles with autosomal DNA. First there's the fact that, due to the recombination (shuffling) that occurs in every generation, you can't guarantee that you have any identifiable DNA from any particular ancestor after 5 - 7 generations ago, although you will obviously have DNA from particular ancestors much earlier than that. Then there's the fact that autosomal DNA is inherited from all lines of descent, which means that all the unknown maiden names in your pedigree become more important to learn. That being said, my personal experience is that autosomal DNA has been a much better witness to my recent ancestry than has yDNA. This is due to my ability to compare the overall patterns of my autosomal matches with the genetic predictions implied by my documented ancestry -- and the two data sets line up reasonably well for the past 350 - 400 years or so, and really well for people to whom I am alleged to be related within the past 250 years. (I will point out that I have enough endogamy in my ancestry that a number of genetic lines have been reinforced and are more detectable than they otherwise would be.) David Teague On Saturday, August 26, 2017, wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:36:20 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > 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. > > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that > you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and > then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out > they are not even related to them > > ------------------------------- > 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