Thanks Tim and yes, I have two phased sets for each of my parents at GEDmatch. Let us all be thankful for them providing the tools that all those multi-million (or even billion) companies are not giving us. Also good to hear that you agree with my points. Do I understand your "disagree" with the ADSA tool documentation (the statement I posted) as that you agree with me that it's misleading and can't be done with FTDNA data? Andreas > On 13 Dec 2015, at 15:12, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Dear Andreas, > > I agree with you that simply having your matches match each other using the > ICW tool doesn't necessarily mean that they triangulate. I agree with you > that most of the small 1 and 2 cMs HIRs are IBS and therefore even if people > match on them then this doesn't mean that this represents a DNA segment that > was passed down from a shared ancestor. I disagree with the DNAGEDCOM > statement about use of the ICW data. The data will likely triangulate most > of the time, but certainly not 100% of the time, particularly for people who > come from endogamous populations. I have suggested to Family Tree DNA that > they should allow their customers to be able to compare their matches to > each other like we can in 23andMe with the Family Inheritance: Advanced > tool, but so far FTDNA has chosen not to allow that feature. I wish that > they would at least create it as an opt in feature. I have advocated with > both 23andMe and Family Tree DNA for at least 4 years to generate matches > based on family phased data, but so far neither company has invested the > time and effort to do that. Ancestry.com generates phased data, but the > data is not 100% accurate because they don't use family data to generate > phased data. As you mentioned, the lack of a chromosome browser at Ancestry. > com dramatically reduces the utility of the AncestryDNA test. GEDmatch will > generate phased data for you and will allow you to upload your own phased > data if you would like to do that. One of the main reasons that GEDmatch is > so popular is because it provides the serious autosomal genetic genealogist > with the tools they need to run the kinds of comparisons they need to run. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Janzen > > > > From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 11:27 PM > To: Tim Janzen; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] Are FTDNA's 1cM matches shown in ICW as well? > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > thanks for taking the time to answer. What I meant is that just using the > ICW tool with your two matches B and C (without asking B and C where they > match each other) is not triangulation to me. > > > > It might be semantics but to me it's more. > > > > Given that the ICW that FTDNA is showing between B and C can only be 1cM or > 2cM large, even IF it's on the same loci (which is unknown without asking > one of them AND getting that information) does it mean it's 100% a > triangulated group → meaning it comes from a common ancestor? > > > > For me it's not. But that's what is stated in that WikiTree answer and also > partially in the documentation of the ADSA tool. I quote from here: > https://www.dnagedcom.com/adsa/adsamanual.html.php > > > > "The Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer (ADSA) is a tool that takes your data > from Family Tree DNA or GEDMATCH and constructs tables that include match > and segment information as well as a visual graph of overlapping segments, > juxtaposed with a customized, color-coded In-Common-With (ICW) matrix that > will permit you to triangulate matching segments without having to look in > multiple spreadsheets or on different web pages." > > > > "will permit you to triangulate matching segments"!!!! > > > > It uses both ICE and triangulate in the same sentence, giving the impression > that it's possible to do with FTDNA's data (please note I'm not saying the > ADSA tool can't do it, it's not possible with the data it receives as > input). It's IMO (unless you get that B and C match data as mentioned, which > can't be downloaded and imported in the ADSA tool BTW) not possible. > > > > So I think this is highly misleading and supports the confusion when people > assume that: > > > > ICW = triangulation > > > > which is unfortunately not true. There is a likelihood (eg A, B and C all > match at the same loci with 20+cM matches between each other - surely coming > from a common ancestor) but like I mention given that FTDNA shows 1cM > matches as ICW (which was my original question) I think we all agree that > the jury is still out if this is indeed an ancestral segment verified by > triangulation (see the following example): > > > > A matches B at loci for 5cM > > A matches C at loci for 5cM > > B matches C at unknown loci for 1cM > > > > We could even replace the 5cM with a longer 7cM segment. Is that more likely > to be? Yes. Is it 100% proven? No. > > > > What we're missing here is phased genotyped data, as mentioned in this blog > post: > http://ourpuzzlingpast.com/geneblog/2015/01/31/chromosome-pile-ups-in-geneti > c-genealogy-examples-from-23andme-and-ftdna/ > > > > > > Lastly, what I don't want to express or start again is a discussion about > the need for a better tool or how grateful we are to have at least this one > (compared to no tool at Ancestry). That's discussed to death already. > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Andreas, I have an excellent example that proves this. ADSA shows a group of matches as ICW me. The group includes a known cousin on my paternal side and several known cousins on my maternal side. The only conclusion is that they do not triangulate and, indeed, when I run these known cousins through the Gedmatch One-to-One tool, they do not match each other. Doris On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Andreas West via < genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thanks Tim and yes, I have two phased sets for each of my parents at > GEDmatch. > > Let us all be thankful for them providing the tools that all those > multi-million (or even billion) companies are not giving us. > > Also good to hear that you agree with my points. > > Do I understand your "disagree" with the ADSA tool documentation (the > statement I posted) as that you agree with me that it's misleading and > can't be done with FTDNA data? > > Andreas > > > On 13 Dec 2015, at 15:12, Tim Janzen via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear Andreas, > > > > I agree with you that simply having your matches match each other using > the > > ICW tool doesn't necessarily mean that they triangulate. I agree with > you > > that most of the small 1 and 2 cMs HIRs are IBS and therefore even if > people > > match on them then this doesn't mean that this represents a DNA segment > that > > was passed down from a shared ancestor. I disagree with the DNAGEDCOM > > statement about use of the ICW data. The data will likely triangulate > most > > of the time, but certainly not 100% of the time, particularly for people > who > > come from endogamous populations. I have suggested to Family Tree DNA > that > > they should allow their customers to be able to compare their matches to > > each other like we can in 23andMe with the Family Inheritance: Advanced > > tool, but so far FTDNA has chosen not to allow that feature. I wish that > > they would at least create it as an opt in feature. I have advocated > with > > both 23andMe and Family Tree DNA for at least 4 years to generate matches > > based on family phased data, but so far neither company has invested the > > time and effort to do that. Ancestry.com generates phased data, but the > > data is not 100% accurate because they don't use family data to generate > > phased data. As you mentioned, the lack of a chromosome browser at > Ancestry. > > com dramatically reduces the utility of the AncestryDNA test. GEDmatch > will > > generate phased data for you and will allow you to upload your own phased > > data if you would like to do that. One of the main reasons that > GEDmatch is > > so popular is because it provides the serious autosomal genetic > genealogist > > with the tools they need to run the kinds of comparisons they need to > run. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Tim Janzen > > > > > > > > From: Andreas West [mailto:ahnen@awest.de] > > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 11:27 PM > > To: Tim Janzen; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Cc: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [DNA] Are FTDNA's 1cM matches shown in ICW as well? > > > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for taking the time to answer. What I meant is that just using the > > ICW tool with your two matches B and C (without asking B and C where they > > match each other) is not triangulation to me. > > > > > > > > It might be semantics but to me it's more. > > > > > > > > Given that the ICW that FTDNA is showing between B and C can only be 1cM > or > > 2cM large, even IF it's on the same loci (which is unknown without asking > > one of them AND getting that information) does it mean it's 100% a > > triangulated group → meaning it comes from a common ancestor? > > > > > > > > For me it's not. But that's what is stated in that WikiTree answer and > also > > partially in the documentation of the ADSA tool. I quote from here: > > https://www.dnagedcom.com/adsa/adsamanual.html.php > > > > > > > > "The Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer (ADSA) is a tool that takes your data > > from Family Tree DNA or GEDMATCH and constructs tables that include match > > and segment information as well as a visual graph of overlapping > segments, > > juxtaposed with a customized, color-coded In-Common-With (ICW) matrix > that > > will permit you to triangulate matching segments without having to look > in > > multiple spreadsheets or on different web pages." > > > > > > > > "will permit you to triangulate matching segments"!!!! > > > > > > > > It uses both ICE and triangulate in the same sentence, giving the > impression > > that it's possible to do with FTDNA's data (please note I'm not saying > the > > ADSA tool can't do it, it's not possible with the data it receives as > > input). It's IMO (unless you get that B and C match data as mentioned, > which > > can't be downloaded and imported in the ADSA tool BTW) not possible. > > > > > > > > So I think this is highly misleading and supports the confusion when > people > > assume that: > > > > > > > > ICW = triangulation > > > > > > > > which is unfortunately not true. There is a likelihood (eg A, B and C all > > match at the same loci with 20+cM matches between each other - surely > coming > > from a common ancestor) but like I mention given that FTDNA shows 1cM > > matches as ICW (which was my original question) I think we all agree that > > the jury is still out if this is indeed an ancestral segment verified by > > triangulation (see the following example): > > > > > > > > A matches B at loci for 5cM > > > > A matches C at loci for 5cM > > > > B matches C at unknown loci for 1cM > > > > > > > > We could even replace the 5cM with a longer 7cM segment. Is that more > likely > > to be? Yes. Is it 100% proven? No. > > > > > > > > What we're missing here is phased genotyped data, as mentioned in this > blog > > post: > > > http://ourpuzzlingpast.com/geneblog/2015/01/31/chromosome-pile-ups-in-geneti > > c-genealogy-examples-from-23andme-and-ftdna/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, what I don't want to express or start again is a discussion about > > the need for a better tool or how grateful we are to have at least this > one > > (compared to no tool at Ancestry). That's discussed to death already. > > > > > > > > Andreas (WEST) born BASSO > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >