tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960503.post7848711153133380905..comments2023-06-02T05:20:15.397-05:00Comments on On-line Journal of Genetics and Genealogy: Endogamy or Pedigree Collapse, and Genetic GenealogySteven C Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03578164804219522899noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960503.post-67979542229674394252019-05-31T13:41:33.978-05:002019-05-31T13:41:33.978-05:00I think the reason for AncestryDNA's fudging o...I think the reason for AncestryDNA's fudging of the numbers has more to do with subjects we would rather not discuss directly. We use words like endogamy and communities to avoid coming right out and calling it inbreeding . Well, as one who takes family research very seriously (other's families, mine are never to be taken seriously ;) I don't appreciate the lies. Yes, DNA does lie. Today I was given access to a woman's account because she wanted to know who her real grandfather was and was struck in the face with the obvious- her grandparents were very closely related. However, if you look at the numbers, her matches on that Kentucky branch, they were much smaller than they should be for natural relation, let alone inbred. How was she to know or discover this truth about her family? She paid AncestryDNA for the research tool that lied to her. I only recognized it because of my experience analyzing match lists. Cousin marriages were common, we all have at least one or two of those in our ancestry, it's to be expected, this however, covering up an incestuous relationship is not what this woman paid AncestryDNA for. Linda Trimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826720040340069851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960503.post-52853062471448106012018-01-07T09:54:24.614-06:002018-01-07T09:54:24.614-06:00I think that in a sense we are at a crossroads. Th...I think that in a sense we are at a crossroads. The DNA doesn't lie, but the relationship isn't exactly fully honest. You are first cousins in the traditional sense of relatedness but you are also more than that. The question is do we make our DNA calculations adjust to compensate for relationships or do we revamp how we look at relationships to adjust for our scientific knowledge gains? Family trees lie so we cannot very well adjust our DNA results to better fit the tree. DNA doesn't lie however so I would think at this crossroads we would instead revise our categorical system for denoting relatedness in a way that better reflects our new scientific knowledge. Perhaps our placeholder name for relatedness (uncle, cousin, ggrand et al) should be replaced with 18% related/2 generations/20 years apart (birth years) that could be shortened to 18/2/20 or 18~2~20 so as not to confuse with systems of dates?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com