Re: DNA Testing for ancestry? (channel4)

Quite so. And what on earth is the point of it when we have no way of
knowing who they were, anyway?

I really do think some people are getting rather carried away about this
whole subject.

John Cartmell...

I've already told you - our most recent common ancestor is called Fred. If you

C Rihan...

I find this idea a bit scarey. May be there's something wrong with my
reasoning.?

The paternal line goes back from a son to his father, and then to
his faather's father, etc.
Fred is the most recent common ancestor in the paternal line.
That means if you were able to follow the paternal line of every male
back far enough, you would eventually find Fred.
So, if it wasn't for good old Fred, there would not be any males.now.

' Our most recent common ancestor along the maternal line lived many
thousands of years earlier'
So there were males earlier than Fred.
If there were any males who were not in Fred's line, they could have
had sons, but those lines have ended at daughters, or no children at some
point.
As Fred is the common ancestor, any males who were brothers to any of Fred's
male ancestors must also have had lines that ended at daughters, or no
children at some point.

Best wishes
C.Rihan

want a paper certificate to that effect I'll send you one. Why are you so
fixated on knowing his name? Really? He lived. We can give him a date (with a
small c in front) and a place of residence (he was a hunter/gatherer so that's
bound to be a bit flexible - like gypsies or those who lived on the cut). We
also know he had at least two sons and he was your ancester (for sure).

C Rihan...

I thought I was following this (sort of), but this bit about knowing Fred
had at least two sons has thrown me.
I'm not even sure I'm on the right Fred.
Is this Fred the one with your Cartmell Y-DNA?

Best wishes
C.Rihan

NB None of this is myth. It's all solid, guaranteed, true. Just because we
didn't get there by traditional paper trails doesn't make it less true - we
have followed every step of the way by documented evidence.

Lesley Robertson...

It happens every time there's a breakthrough - some years back a number of
people (who were professionals and should have known better) decided that
because they could measure the matching on a couple of specific bits of
bacterial RNA, they wouldn't have to jump through all the classical
identification hoops anymore, despite folk like me pointing out that it was
a crude method with no fine tuning. Now said "modernists" are sheepishly
having to relearn the classical methods and integrate them...
If the professionals do such things, we can't complain when the public
follows suit, especially since one poster in this thread has announced that
he knows better than the professionals!

John Cartmell...

By all means point out any errors. BTW which professional in genetic genealogy
has surfaced here?

Lesley Robertson...

Professionals in DNA analysis.

John Cartmell...

A professional in DNA analysis for non-genealogical purposes may very well not
know about which markers are tested, how many markers are tested, what the
state of research is in that area, how the information is used by
non-professional groups, &c. There is certainly no reason for them to know
practically any of what pushes the research in that area.

Anyone calling themself a genetic genealogist has probably made their
position clear.
Lesley Robertson

Lesley Robertson