I concur that a huge majority of the 2nd to 4th cousin matches are more distant than shown, maybe a lot more distant. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 22, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Lindsey Britton via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I have 266 2nd-4th cousin matches at FTDNA. Four are actually 2nd cousins and I tested two of them. The other two (mother and daughter 2nd1r) were easy to identify. I should be able to identify any second cousin and most third or fourth cousins quite easily if my match has genealogical or geographical information. I am willing to try to figure out the connection if matches have ancestry in certain Virginia counties, but when they don't know that they have Virginia ancestors, trying to connect them would be a huge waste of time. This is the reason why I am not optimistic about autosomal testing although I continue to try. Furthermore, I am convinced that many of these 2nd to 4th cousins are actually more distant--hence the difficulty in determining how they are related. Families who lived in the same burned record Virginia county from c 1650 to 1850 and beyond moved in a small circle and often married their cousins, close or distant. Lindsey > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

You are correct, the "2nd-4th cousins" at FTDNA tend to be wildly optimistic.  In particular, matches on the low end of the range of total shared cM could easily be at least several generations farther back than indicated.  The farther back the connection, the more difficult it is to prove the connection, even if you think you know what it is.  Trying to identify those remote cousins has proved unproductive.  I get somewhat better results by moving my kits to GEDmatch and using the tools there to develop a thorough inventory of triangulation groups, many of which I have been able to identify as paternal or maternal in origin, and occasionally, to connect them with a particular ancestor. John McCoy(RealMac@aol.com) In a message dated 11/22/2018 7:17:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com writes: I have 266 2nd-4th cousin matches at FTDNA.  Four are actually 2nd cousins and I tested two of them.  The other two (mother and daughter 2nd1r) were easy to identify.   I should be able to identify any second cousin and most third or fourth cousins quite easily if my match has genealogical or geographical information.   I am willing to try to figure out the connection if matches have ancestry in certain Virginia counties, but when they don't know that they have Virginia ancestors, trying to connect them would be a huge waste of time.  This is the reason why I am not optimistic about autosomal testing although I continue to try. Furthermore, I am convinced that many of these 2nd to 4th cousins are actually more distant--hence the difficulty in determining how they are related.  Families who lived in the same burned record Virginia county  from c 1650 to 1850 and beyond moved in a small circle and often married their cousins, close or distant.  Lindsey  _______________________________________________Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebprefUnsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.comPrivacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blogRootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I have 266 2nd-4th cousin matches at FTDNA.  Four are actually 2nd cousins and I tested two of them.  The other two (mother and daughter 2nd1r) were easy to identify.   I should be able to identify any second cousin and most third or fourth cousins quite easily if my match has genealogical or geographical information.   I am willing to try to figure out the connection if matches have ancestry in certain Virginia counties, but when they don't know that they have Virginia ancestors, trying to connect them would be a huge waste of time.  This is the reason why I am not optimistic about autosomal testing although I continue to try. Furthermore, I am convinced that many of these 2nd to 4th cousins are actually more distant--hence the difficulty in determining how they are related.  Families who lived in the same burned record Virginia county  from c 1650 to 1850 and beyond moved in a small circle and often married their cousins, close or distant.  Lindsey  

I would agree with Wjhonson, except I would tend to want to put it in even stronger terms. I would say every ancestor passes persistent segments along to each of us. I also agree with John McCoy, except I tend to think his statement about 'statistical oddity' is there because nobody has studied it in depth. Or, nobody has figured out that it should be studied. The repercussion of our ignorance of the topic leads to problems such as my vendor only being able to capture half of my fourth and fifth cousins. Some say that not everybody passes along DNA due to the random nature of inheritance. I would tend to say that my 4th and 5th cousins are not being detected by the vendors not only because of the 7 cM limit, but also because the vendors are looking at the wrong thing. Vendors base relatedness on the size in cMs (some call this 'Genetic Distance), when they should be using cMs in order to determine TMRCA, and then base relatedness upon TMRCA. What seems to be persistent in my I1-M253 group are the triads that I find. However, determining the age of these small segments has been a problem. We are all taught that the Y-DNA SNPs are fairly stable, and that the Y-DNA haplotype groups can persist for thousands of years. Each Y-DNA haplotype group representing a very ancient family. Yet, nobody regularly teaches us that autosomal DNA SNPs may also persist for thousands of years. As I have mentioned before, the mother to child segments passed appear to follow an SNP to cMs ratio (SNPS/cMs) of 200. However, half of my data from GEDMatch has a ratio of less than 200. When I look at Ancient DNA reconstructions at GEDMatch, I find that nearly all of the Ancient DNA samples carry shared segments of less than 200. Which is to say, the ancient segments apparently, do not want to change. Since half of my 4th and 5th cousins are not being detected at FTDNA (due to the segment size theory), my thought process has evolved along the line of dating segments, rather than dating segment sizes. This has resulted in an improved phylogenetic tree than my previous thoughts on how to interpret Genetic Distance of autosomal segments. That leaves me with the statistical analysis that John McCoy mentioned. Namely, how robust is this thought, and how do I eliminate errors across haplotype groups?  - Dave Hamm RE: On 11/21/2018 18:37 PM, Betsy Shafer wrote: as someone who studied chemistry quite a bit . . . sometimes more than other times . . . i would say what you are looking at is 'stable' segments, perhaps we could say 'stable configurations' . . . of course we can't attribute any motivations or emotional aspects to these chains of atoms, but we can say that nature seems to make organisms 'want' to preserve and pass on traits . . . those traits that contribute to the 'fitness' (stability? ability to fend for itself? healthiness?) of an organism or a strain of organisms are more likely to endure as the organism (or maybe line of ancestors) procreates and endures through time . . . - b On 11/21/2018 7:13 PM, John McCoy wrote: > This might be the same sort of observation often termed "meiotic drive" in the genetics literature.  (And I prefer not to use terminology that attributes motives to genes!)  Yes, this sort of thing has been observed many times and at least sometimes seems to be something more than a statistical oddity.  Whether it can be invoked as the "cause" of any apparently persistent segment that we see in genetic genealogy is problematic, since we will rarely have a large enough sample to established statistical significance. > John McCoy(RealMac@aol.com) In a message dated 11/22/2018 Wjhonson writes: I would make your claim stronger, and say that persistent segments are in fact very common. It's just that you have no expectation of a persistent segment from any specific ancestor, but you certainly have some from some ancestors. I would say every person has some. > In a message dated 11/21/2018 3:23:23 PM PST Wesley Johnston writes: > > I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is actually 3 different species of mosquito).A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time.We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, but it is there in some cases.I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors.

Belinda, your FTDNA count is heavily skewed because you are including small segments in the total. It would be very different if you excluded those. This can be done with a spreadsheet formula. From the Chromosome Browser, download all segments. Column B will be the match name and column F the cM. Paste this formula into cell H2, then copy it down all the rows. (A shortcut for that is to hover over the lower right hand corner of the cell until you see a + sign, then double click.) In English, the formula says to sum the numbers in column F if the name in column B matches cell B2 AND the cM value in column F is >= 7. =SUMIFS(F:F,B:B,B2,F:F,">=7") Copy this data to a new worksheet with Paste Special and use Remove Duplicates (under the Data ribbon in Excel) on columns B and F to consolidate the results. When I did that this morning, I had 1522 matches over 40 cM if I used the total, but only 28 matches if I excluded the small segments. Ann Turner On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:07 PM Belinda Dettmann < belindadettmann@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Using 40cM as a cutoff point I get: > 34 Ancestry DNA > 14 23andMe > 24 My Heritage > 597 FTDNA >

Hi Lorna Thank you for sharing what you have found. Karen On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:56 AM LornaMoa <lornamoa@gmail.com> wrote: > Karen, > I rarely look at 23andme at all, and even less rarely have used their > chromosome browser /ethnicity/match tool I simply don't get enough > matches there (or responses) to add it to my priority list > If MyHeritage have an equivalent I've not noticed, but what they do have > are some of the more informative tools, which they are regularly working > on improving. > I LOVE that they display triangulated groups right there in front of you > on the shared matches instead of > - not even a chromosome browser at Ancestry > - shared matches only on FTDNA that you have to check further in the > chromosome browser (FTDNA have recently improved that somewhat for > selecting those being checked but you still are only assuming that a > shared match on the same chromosome DOES actually match the others in > the group > - 23andme's YES in the list of shared matches which do triangulate (at > least all I've checked) but you still can't as quickly see the > chromosome details from there (I use the chrome extension 529and you to > do so more readily) > > Lorna Henderson > http://lornahen.com > > On 21/11/2018 9:10 a.m., Karen Hodges wrote: > > Hi Lorna > > > > How do you find the chromosome tools compare between my heritage and 23 > and > > me? 23 and me who I don't have a test with had a cool tool that > displayed > > ethnicity on each chromosome that could be compared to matches. Wondering > > if my heritage had introduced this tool with their updates ? > > > > Karen > > > > > > > > Y heritage might have introduceded this > > > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, LornaMoa <lornamoa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Lindsey, > >> I'm mining ALL of the match lists on all of the companies for hints for > my > >> current brickwall focus of my 2 greats grandmother and her > father-in-law my > >> 3greats. > >> By now I have an extended family that we DO fit into somewhere for the > >> 3greats, so I'm also mining all the trees I can find to see where I > might > >> find other tested descendants who have data to contribute to narrow this > >> down. > >> > >> It doesn't change where I'd test from last time we discussed > >> recommendations as long as data is on all of them to go fishing. > >> For the price of two tests, FTDNA or MyHeritage, transferred to the > other > >> and to GEDMatch plus a test at Ancestry you have covered most bases. > >> As to why retest FTDNA rather than transfer from Ancestry if you started > >> with the latter? > >> I believe that the matches that FTDNA doesn't report from the transfer > in > >> to FTDNA from Ancestry actually matter, particularly when exploring such > >> things as your subject. The shared matches there are more complete from > >> tests than from Ancestry transfers. > >> I also rarely bother with 23andme although I have tested there along > with > >> a representative from each "side" of my family just to have toe in the > >> water. > >> I get too annoyed by the complicated sharing system, and complete lack > of > >> trees as so few people realise you can link to one in your profile > >> > >> Lorna Henderson > >> http://LornaHen.com > >> > >> On 20/11/18 14:47, Lindsey Britton via GENEALOGY-DNA wrote: > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> > >>> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > >>> Sent: Sun, Nov 18, 2018 7:25 pm > >>> Subject: Where to get best autosomal results > >>> > >>> If you have used autosomal DNA to identify a 3rd great grandparent or a > >>> more distant ancestor, which testing company do you recommend? > Lindsey > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > >>> Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@roo > >>> tsweb.com > >>> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > >>> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > >>> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > >>> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > >>> community > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > >> Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@roo > >> tsweb.com > >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > >> community > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Hi Richard Thank you for the overview of the different companies. Karen On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:22 AM Richard Weiss <1navy.gator@gmail.com> wrote: > Karen > > Here is my summary > > My Heritage: trees + all the tools at FTDNA and 23andMe 3rd largest pool > of testers growing fast, more international testers > 23and Me: no trees - most of the tools at MH 2nd largest pool of testers > FTDNA: some trees (hard to use) - several tools but not quite as robust as > MH or 23andme (only company to offer Projects) > Ancestry: trees + very limited DNA tools largest pool of testers by far > Living DNA: no trees - basic matching soon tools are TBD > GEDMatch: limited trees (hard to use) + best tools in the business > > Cheers > Richard > DNAAdoption > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Karen Hodges <rowantreek@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Lorna > > > > How do you find the chromosome tools compare between my heritage and 23 > and > > me? 23 and me who I don't have a test with had a cool tool that > displayed > > ethnicity on each chromosome that could be compared to matches. Wondering > > if my heritage had introduced this tool with their updates ? > > > > Karen > > > > > > > > Y heritage might have introduceded this > > > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, LornaMoa <lornamoa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Lindsey, > > > I'm mining ALL of the match lists on all of the companies for hints for > > my > > > current brickwall focus of my 2 greats grandmother and her > father-in-law > > my > > > 3greats. > > > By now I have an extended family that we DO fit into somewhere for the > > > 3greats, so I'm also mining all the trees I can find to see where I > might > > > find other tested descendants who have data to contribute to narrow > this > > > down. > > > > > > It doesn't change where I'd test from last time we discussed > > > recommendations as long as data is on all of them to go fishing. > > > For the price of two tests, FTDNA or MyHeritage, transferred to the > other > > > and to GEDMatch plus a test at Ancestry you have covered most bases. > > > As to why retest FTDNA rather than transfer from Ancestry if you > started > > > with the latter? > > > I believe that the matches that FTDNA doesn't report from the transfer > in > > > to FTDNA from Ancestry actually matter, particularly when exploring > such > > > things as your subject. The shared matches there are more complete from > > > tests than from Ancestry transfers. > > > I also rarely bother with 23andme although I have tested there along > with > > > a representative from each "side" of my family just to have toe in the > > > water. > > > I get too annoyed by the complicated sharing system, and complete lack > of > > > trees as so few people realise you can link to one in your profile > > > > > > Lorna Henderson > > > http://LornaHen.com > > > > > > On 20/11/18 14:47, Lindsey Britton via GENEALOGY-DNA wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Lindsey Britton <lplantagenet@aol.com> > > >> To: genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > >> Sent: Sun, Nov 18, 2018 7:25 pm > > >> Subject: Where to get best autosomal results > > >> > > >> If you have used autosomal DNA to identify a 3rd great grandparent or > a > > >> more distant ancestor, which testing company do you recommend? > > Lindsey > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > >> Unsubscribe > > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@roo > > >> tsweb.com > > >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > > >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb > > >> community > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@roo > > > tsweb.com > > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > > > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > > > community > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > Unsubscribe > > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > > community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Your matches in the US (like everywhere else) have a common ancestor with you. It’s a misconception to write off matches in one country because “I have no ancestors who ever lived in America”. These are immigrants, like the famous Trump family (or the Heinz Ketchup founders). Andreas Andreas West Meine Vorfahren / my ancestors (8 generations): http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Basso-23/5 Author of https://www.yourDNA.family Follow us on Facebook for latest updates on our progress - https://www.facebook.com/yourDNAfamily/ > On 22 Nov 2018, at 04:07, Belinda Dettmann <belindadettmann@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Using 40cM as a cutoff point I get: > 34 Ancestry DNA > 14 23andMe > 24 My Heritage > 597 FTDNA > The results are obviously not comparable with Eric's list but for a variety > of reasons. The FTDNA defaults (minimum single segment 7.7cM, minimum total > 20cM, including 1cM segments) are counter-intuitive in my case. It cuts out > all those between 7.0 and 7.6 segments but no other bits (of which I have > several who are known relatives) and gives me a huge list of American > testers that I cannot possibly analyse, as I have no ancestors who ever > lived in America. It also suggests to me that Americans are far more inbred > (Endogamous) than they are aware, compared to the rest of the world. > > For Ancestry results I find a cutoff point of 20cM to be more meaningful > than 40cM. I have a total of 57 between 20 and 40, and although that total > includes a number of uninformative matches, 31 of the 57 are relatives. I > haven't finished analyzing 23andMe and MyHeritage in a similar manner but > MyHeritage is more useful to me as it includes far more non-American testers > that 23andMe does. > Incidentally I have just 13 >40cM on Gedmatch, but another 44 between 20 and > 40cM there. > Belinda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric S Johnson [mailto:crates@oneotaslopes.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2018 10:58 PM > To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DNA] Re: Fwd: Where to get best autosomal results > >>> 123 AncestryDNA >>> 55 23andMe >>> 36 MyHeritage >>> 18 FTDNA > >> Are you including the small segments at FTDNA when you're checking the >> count of matches? > > Nope. I'm (here) only counting >7cM HIRs. > > The 23andMe count is probably more like 70 because they rank "DNA relatives" > using an algorithm which figures a 3x8cM-HIR match is "closer" than a > 1x49cM-HIR match, so it's not fair (to 23andMe) to merely "go down the list > as far as 40 cM." > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

as someone who studied chemistry quite a bit . . . sometimes more than other times . . . i would say what you are looking at is 'stable' segments, perhaps we could say 'stable configurations' . . . of course we can't attribute any motivations or emotional aspects to these chains of atoms, but we can say that nature seems to make organisms 'want' to preserve and pass on traits . . . those traits that contribute to the 'fitness' (stability? ability to fend for itself? healthiness?) of an organism or a strain of organisms are more likely to endure as the organism (or maybe line of ancestors) procreates and endures through time . . . - b On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:13 PM <genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Send GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list submissions to > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > To subscribe via email send a message with subject subscribe and body > subscribe to genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com > > To unsubscribe via email send a message with subject unsubscribe and > body unsubscribe to genealogy-dna-request@rootsweb.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > genealogy-dna-owner@rootsweb.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of GENEALOGY-DNA digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact atDNA regions > (realmac@aol.com) > 2. Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact atDNA regions > (Lisa Wilcox) > 3. Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact atDNA regions > (Wjhonson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 23:33:26 +0000 (UTC) > From: <realmac@aol.com> > Subject: [DNA] Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact > atDNA regions > To: wwjohnston01@yahoo.com, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <195717872.4941359.1542843206801@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > This might be the same sort of observation often termed "meiotic drive" in > the genetics literature. (And I prefer not to use terminology that > attributes motives to genes!) Yes, this sort of thing has been observed > many times and at least sometimes seems to be something more than a > statistical oddity. Whether it can be invoked as the "cause" of any > apparently persistent segment that we see in genetic genealogy is > problematic, since we will rarely have a large enough sample to established > statistical significance. > John McCoy(RealMac@aol.com) > In a message dated 11/21/2018 3:23:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com writes: > > I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed > ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take > what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- > and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is > actually 3 different species of mosquito).A selfish gene is one that > somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These > have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time.We > have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted > over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average > recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the > reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be > expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, > but it is there in some cases.I do not know enough about genetics to say > whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are > seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. > _______________________________________________Email preferences: > http://bit.ly/rootswebprefUnsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.comPrivacy > Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blogRootsWeb is > funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:01:21 -0800 > From: Lisa Wilcox <occassia@gmail.com> > Subject: [DNA] Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact > atDNA regions > To: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com>, > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <99182CFF-B5C1-4873-AC87-0762D251581B@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > This sounds a bit scrambled. > > 'The Selfish Gene’ < > https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542844263&sr=1-1&keywords=the+selfish+gene+by+richard+dawkins> > is a book by Richard Dawkins, considered by many to be the most influential > science book of all time. > > Dawkins postulates that ALL genes are “motivated” to maximize their own > success; that the inherent nature of all genes is selfish. But I don’t > believe this is meant to apply to small bits of code or segments, but to > genomes as a whole. > > > Lisa W > > > > On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Wesley Johnston via GENEALOGY-DNA < > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed > ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take > what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- > and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is > actually 3 different species of mosquito). > > A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to > the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in > nature for some time. > > We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has > persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of > 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have > found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back > than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at > all common, but it is there in some cases. > > I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" > observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the > atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:13:19 +0000 (UTC) > From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> > Subject: [DNA] Re: Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact > atDNA regions > To: wwjohnston01@yahoo.com, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <1774517100.1084328.1542845599746@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I would make your claim stronger, and say that persistent segments are in > fact very common.It's just that you have no expectation of a persistent > segment from any specific ancestor, but you certainly have some from some > ancestors. > I would say every person has some. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wesley Johnston via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > Cc: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com> > Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 3:23 pm > Subject: [DNA] Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact atDNA > regions > > I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed > ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take > what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- > and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is > actually 3 different species of mosquito). > A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to > the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in > nature for some time. > We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has > persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of > 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have > found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back > than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at > all common, but it is there in some cases. > I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" > observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the > atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the %(real_name)s list administrator, send an email to > %(real_name)s-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the GENEALOGY-DNA mailing list -- > genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com, send an email to %(real_name)s@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > %(real_name)s-request@%(host_name)s > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > ------------------------------ > > End of GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 13, Issue 479 > ********************************************** >

Last week I blogged about a problem with GEDmatch results. Too many important matches were not showing up on the one-to-many searches. They have addressed the problem and I describe the solution. http://allmyforeparents.blogspot.com/2018/11/these-gedmatch-inconsistencies-solved.html Israel Pickholtz Jerusalem

I would make your claim stronger, and say that persistent segments are in fact very common.It's just that you have no expectation of a persistent segment from any specific ancestor, but you certainly have some from some ancestors. I would say every person has some. -----Original Message----- From: Wesley Johnston via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: DNA Genealogy Mailing List <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Cc: Wesley Johnston <wwjohnston01@yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 3:23 pm Subject: [DNA] Selfish genes and long-descending relatively intact atDNA regions I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is actually 3 different species of mosquito). A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time. We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, but it is there in some cases. I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

This sounds a bit scrambled. 'The Selfish Gene’ <https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542844263&sr=1-1&keywords=the+selfish+gene+by+richard+dawkins> is a book by Richard Dawkins, considered by many to be the most influential science book of all time. Dawkins postulates that ALL genes are “motivated” to maximize their own success; that the inherent nature of all genes is selfish. But I don’t believe this is meant to apply to small bits of code or segments, but to genomes as a whole. Lisa W > On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Wesley Johnston via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is actually 3 different species of mosquito). > A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time. > We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, but it is there in some cases. > I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

This might be the same sort of observation often termed "meiotic drive" in the genetics literature.  (And I prefer not to use terminology that attributes motives to genes!)  Yes, this sort of thing has been observed many times and at least sometimes seems to be something more than a statistical oddity.  Whether it can be invoked as the "cause" of any apparently persistent segment that we see in genetic genealogy is problematic, since we will rarely have a large enough sample to established statistical significance. John McCoy(RealMac@aol.com) In a message dated 11/21/2018 3:23:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com writes: I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is actually 3 different species of mosquito).A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time.We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, but it is there in some cases.I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors. _______________________________________________Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebprefUnsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.comPrivacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blogRootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I just listened to the Economist Babbage podcast in which they discussed ways of dealing with malaria through mosquito genetics. One idea is to take what has been already found in nature -- what is called a "selfish gene" -- and have it spread across the malaria-bearing mosquito population (which is actually 3 different species of mosquito). A selfish gene is one that somehow aids and abets its own propagation to the next generation. These have apparently been recognized as a reality in nature for some time. We have had discussions on this list about autosomal DNA that has persisted over multiple generations in excess of what the assumption of 50-50 average recombination would lead us to expect -- but which we have found in the reality of the descendants of some ancestor much further back than would be expected by so many descendants sharing the DNA. It is not at all common, but it is there in some cases. I do not know enough about genetics to say whether the "selfish gene" observed in nature is connected to what we are seeing in some cases in the atDNA of descendants of some ancestors.

It's currently in beta, but a blog post today said " If you’ve opted into Family Networks, you’re likely to see your match list before the end of the month." https://www.livingdna.com/news/living-dna-november-update-you-shared-and-we-listened Ann Turner On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:34 PM Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I see that LivingDNA now has the ability to opt in to their new Family > Networks, which is supposed to begin providing matches. > I just opted in.Has anyone done this and gotten any results yet?Or is it > still being built out? > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

I've been opted in for months now but still nothing. Doris On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:34 PM Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I see that LivingDNA now has the ability to opt in to their new Family > Networks, which is supposed to begin providing matches. > I just opted in.Has anyone done this and gotten any results yet?Or is it > still being built out? > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > -- https://www.doriswheeler.org https://genealogyanddna.blogspot.com/

Mine still show "coming soon!" -----Original Message----- From: Marleen Van Horne [mailto:msvnhrn@jps.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:04 PM To: Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA Subject: [DNA] Re: Opting in to Family Networks at LivingDNA I opted in last week, but have not seen anything yet. Marleen _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

I opted in last week, but have not seen anything yet. Marleen

I see that LivingDNA now has the ability to opt in to their new Family Networks, which is supposed to begin providing matches. I just opted in.Has anyone done this and gotten any results yet?Or is it still being built out?

Using 40cM as a cutoff point I get: 34 Ancestry DNA 14 23andMe 24 My Heritage 597 FTDNA The results are obviously not comparable with Eric's list but for a variety of reasons. The FTDNA defaults (minimum single segment 7.7cM, minimum total 20cM, including 1cM segments) are counter-intuitive in my case. It cuts out all those between 7.0 and 7.6 segments but no other bits (of which I have several who are known relatives) and gives me a huge list of American testers that I cannot possibly analyse, as I have no ancestors who ever lived in America. It also suggests to me that Americans are far more inbred (Endogamous) than they are aware, compared to the rest of the world. For Ancestry results I find a cutoff point of 20cM to be more meaningful than 40cM. I have a total of 57 between 20 and 40, and although that total includes a number of uninformative matches, 31 of the 57 are relatives. I haven't finished analyzing 23andMe and MyHeritage in a similar manner but MyHeritage is more useful to me as it includes far more non-American testers that 23andMe does. Incidentally I have just 13 >40cM on Gedmatch, but another 44 between 20 and 40cM there. Belinda -----Original Message----- From: Eric S Johnson [mailto:crates@oneotaslopes.org] Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2018 10:58 PM To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: [DNA] Re: Fwd: Where to get best autosomal results >> 123 AncestryDNA >> 55 23andMe >> 36 MyHeritage >> 18 FTDNA > Are you including the small segments at FTDNA when you're checking the > count of matches? Nope. I'm (here) only counting >7cM HIRs. The 23andMe count is probably more like 70 because they rank "DNA relatives" using an algorithm which figures a 3x8cM-HIR match is "closer" than a 1x49cM-HIR match, so it's not fair (to 23andMe) to merely "go down the list as far as 40 cM."