Genetic Genealogy

[DBCoup]

Any thought to such a forum so we can educate ourselves in the intricacies of this subject?

[Guy Etchells]

In its earliest form genetic genealogy has been the basis of genealogy for hundreds of years.
What I mean by that is the earliest form of genetic genealogy is surname research.

However what I assume you are referring to is combining DNA research with the more traditional forms of genealogical research.
As with any data the researcher has to understand what they are working with and what it actually provides.
DNA research is still in its infancy and many of the claims and conclusions that are made are simply false. That does not mean it should be completely discarded as even using traditional methods many claims and conclusions are false.
By the same token we must not assume that DNA is the magic bullet that will reveal a person’s ancestry back to the year dot, it doesn’t work like that.

We don’t inherit half our genes form our mother and half from our father and so on back through history.
Some ancestors donate more genes some less the mix is fluid.

However if used with care DNA research can provide an expensive additional tool for researchers.

Cheers
Guy

[Deeny]

As someone who has used traditional DNA testing to identify my biological father and has also taken the plunge into the more recently available autosomal DNA testing, I think a forum on this subject could be most useful. Any tips on the best ways to interpret results would be welcome by newbies to this technology.

Genetic genealogy isn't going to replace good old fashioned paper research, but it can be a great tool in the search for ancestral truths. It can also be a lot of fun to make contact with blood "cousins" who have an interest in genealogy and are happy to explore a paper trail back to a mutual shared ancestor.

Deeny.

[DBCoup]

In its earliest form genetic genealogy has been the basis of genealogy for hundreds of years.
What I mean by that is the earliest form of genetic genealogy is surname research.

However what I assume you are referring to is combining DNA research with the more traditional forms of genealogical research.
As with any data the researcher has to understand what they are working with and what it actually provides.
DNA research is still in its infancy and many of the claims and conclusions that are made are simply false. That does not mean it should be completely discarded as even using traditional methods many claims and conclusions are false.
By the same token we must not assume that DNA is the magic bullet that will reveal a person’s ancestry back to the year dot, it doesn’t work like that.

We don’t inherit half our genes form our mother and half from our father and so on back through history.
Some ancestors donate more genes some less the mix is fluid.

However if used with care DNA research can provide an expensive additional tool for researchers.

Cheers
Guy

Yes using DNA as a tool to complement traditional genealogical research. Any clues extracted using DNA must, if recent enough, be verified using traditional methods. However DNA can help with some aspects and the relatively high cost must be compared to, in my case, 40 years of unsuccessful research.

Do you have an opinion about the value of creating a forum for this topic?

[christanel]

Hello
I have made Admin aware of your suggestion re a new forum re genetic genealogy.

I must admit that when I start to read anything to do with DNA tests it doesn't take long for my eyes to glaze over so I am probably one of the people who would benefit from a forum to discuss DNA research as an additional tool for researchers.

We will let you know what has been decided re a specialist forum after our discussions over many cups of tea.

Christina

[DBCoup]

Thanks Christina
It may be the blind leading the blind but perhaps we could all learn together.

[christanel]

Thanks Christina
It may be the blind leading the blind but perhaps we could all learn together.

Christina

[Wilkes_ml]

I worry that I may get back results that show 25 years of paper research on my paternal side was a complete waste of time 'cos my father wasn't my real biological father Or my maternal grandfather wasn't really my biological grandfather.....it could throw a few spanners in the works couldn't it?

what do you do if you do find out that a close paternal ancestor wasn't really related after all?

[Lesley Robertson]

Find out who the milkman was ?



It can take a while for such suggestions to be decided about. In the mean time, such queries can be (and have been) asked in one of the other forums... I must admit that thus far, we haven't had very many of them.

[Guy Etchells]

That is one possible result that would need to be very carefully researched as has been shown in the past it is perfectly possible for one person to have two sets of DNA in their body.
It is thought this chimerism stems from two eggs/embryos exchanging chromosomes with each other (note both eggs/embryos may not develop in the womb and the mother may have twins or she may only give birth to one child).

There is also another cause of two sets of DNA in one person which has been given the label mosaicism.
This is when a person is born with one set of DNA but during life some cells mutate and change. This causes the DNA in the mutated cell to be different from the DNA in the original cells.
This scenario is actually very common; in fact, most of us are actually mosaics, the trigger for the change could be exposure to sunlight or even the chemicals we eat in our food; minor things we encounter in daily life.

The difference between chimerism and mosaicism is in chimerism the difference between the two sets of DNA may be considerable whereas the difference of DNA in mosaicism is normally minor.

Possibly the most well-known case of chimerism is that of Lydia Fairchild, who nearly lost custody of her children when DNA testing erroneously showed she wasn't related to them. Doctors eventually determined that she had a second set of DNA that matched as with any research DNA research is only as good as the researcher.
Never take any claims (DNA or otherwise) as definitive always look for supporting evidence remember it is not even possible to prove paternity by DNA means only the possibility of paternity.

Finally the claims of ethnic origin made by some companies are nothing short of rubbish.
There is no such thing as a Viking gene or an English gene for instance as these communities are made up of individuals from many countries not just one.
Throughout the history of the world people have travelled far and wide and as a result their genes have been mixed with those from other parts of the world.
The “Romans” in Britain for instance were not all from Italy or Rome but included people from the other states or countries the Romans had conquered and by default their DNA.

Cheers
Guy