GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-08 > 1059853717


From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: [DNA] Penny's excitement - uses of Y DNA
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:49:04 -0400


Hi list,

Penny wrote:

>I'm really excited about this and wanted to share it. I have a half brother
>who is visiting Kentucky right now, and if he would have his Y dna line
>tested it would be my fathers line. He's a retired Colonel from the Army,
>and 87 years old. He is touring the country in his RV with his new bride.
>no kiddin. I thought and thought about how to ask him to have this testing
>done, and figured I had one shot at it. All I really said was "I want you
>to have your Y dna tested." He said "why?" I told him it was mine too
>but I could not be tested for it. And he said, "ok". GASP.
>
And Grant responded:

>I hope you are aware a single Y results will not show much. A Y test is most
>effective when it is used to show that two or more men with the same surname
>are not related. . .
>
>. . . Getting the first sample is the start, not the end
>of your quest.
>

Penny was excited. I think that's wonderful, and she has every reason
to be. This is HER FATHER's Y-DNA she is going to get a glimpse of for
the first time. Why is is necessary to respond in a way that seems to
try to dampen her enthusiasm?

For Grant and a certain contingent on this list, comparing haplotypes
between relatives within the same family seems to be the only
legitimate, useful, "effective" way to use DNA test results. I strongly
disagree with this opinion. If it were the only thing Y-DNA were good
for, numerous scientists would not have been undertaking expensive
research projects for the last ten years or so, to discover more about
the origins of various population groups. If you could care less
about your haplogroup and that of your ancestors, that's fine for you.
But numerous list members do not feel that way, and there is plenty of
science to show that haplogroups are not some form of intuitive
divination.

Certainly a person's paternal line represents only a tiny fraction of
their total DNA, but some other points need to be considered:
1) A surname represents only that same tiny, paternal line, yet a great
many people involved in genealogy -- probably a large majority -- are
deeply interested in the history of their surname-identified family;
2) Though the genes of that one line are a tiny fraction of the total
if taken alone, the line they represent is usually only one of many in a
person's pedigree which stem from a given ethnic/geographical origin.
For those of us who have many ancestors descended from groups that was
quite isolated or practiced endogamy (marriage within the group) for
many generations, there is an even higher likelihood that one DNA result
will be an indicator of a type that has probably become widespread in
that group, and which may provide a meaningful clue as to the origins of
at least one component of that group.

Let's not be so quick, in any case, to jump on people and tell them that
their hopes are too high.

Bonnie Schrack
http://www.ancientrootsresearch.com








This thread: