Tweet
Please allow me to begin by saying that this is a rant, which is why it is under "Grumbles & Gripes". Additionally, I understand that my gripe is not likely to be solved anytime soon - but I wanted to voice it anyway.
Per FTDNA, there are 21 individuals in haplogroup R-S3997, but of those, only 4 can be identified by name, or have any data showing at FTDNA because the others apparently tested “long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away”. Likewise, there is a tester from Great Britain listed in the Discover data, however I know from being matched to him at YFull, that he tested with the 1000 Genomes Project, so his data, identity, and more precise location are also not available at FTDNA.
Granted, there are at FTDNA an additional 2 testers who are indicated as being in haplogroup R-CTS10571, which is coexistent with S3997, however their data is not used in the deeper understanding of S3997 because they have only taken the Y111 test.
So, the dating for the formation of our haplogroup by FTDNA, which is around 1650 BCE with a date for our most recent common ancestor estimated to be around 900 CE, is apparently based on only 4 Big Y tests. Due to this lack of Y700 testers, I sent emails to 8 individuals who appeared in my matches, and whose STRs (quickly acquired from various projects) indicated they may also be in haplogroup S3997, asking that they strongly consider upgrading. That was on February 13, and to date I have received only one reply; though it was a good one because I was informed that particular individual had just updated to the Y700 test. Though even with that addition, our haplogroup is still likely to appear to have a 2000-year gap with no branching, which I do not think is the case.
Which brings me to my real complaint. We keep hearing how geneticists and anthropologists are trying to gain a good understanding of the evolution of mankind, as well as “map” the genetic migration of the same, and how all the testing/analysis companies want the same things. Yet, using my haplogroup as an example, there are multiple companies who are doing testing and analysis but seemingly not working together to share the data. If there are truly 25 or so males who have tested and found to be part of haplogroup S3997, why isn’t that information being shared and used to establish better data that can then be made available to the customers who are paying for it?
It is extremely difficult to get people to upgrade their tests, as I recently discovered, especially in light of the economic climate of the times. Most of them soon realize that YDNA testing, while useful, is not designed to help with recent genealogy, but to help better understand our distant, and even ancient, ancestors. However, it seems to me that if we are to use the reasoning that more testers will all help out “the science” as a recruiting tool, then we need the individual companies to work more together, combine the data they have, and make the shared information more accessible to the consumers.
To use another SCI-FI quote, “the truth is out there”. Too bad we can't get access to all of it.
Okay, I'm done. You will now be returned to your normally scheduled program.
Per FTDNA, there are 21 individuals in haplogroup R-S3997, but of those, only 4 can be identified by name, or have any data showing at FTDNA because the others apparently tested “long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away”. Likewise, there is a tester from Great Britain listed in the Discover data, however I know from being matched to him at YFull, that he tested with the 1000 Genomes Project, so his data, identity, and more precise location are also not available at FTDNA.
Granted, there are at FTDNA an additional 2 testers who are indicated as being in haplogroup R-CTS10571, which is coexistent with S3997, however their data is not used in the deeper understanding of S3997 because they have only taken the Y111 test.
So, the dating for the formation of our haplogroup by FTDNA, which is around 1650 BCE with a date for our most recent common ancestor estimated to be around 900 CE, is apparently based on only 4 Big Y tests. Due to this lack of Y700 testers, I sent emails to 8 individuals who appeared in my matches, and whose STRs (quickly acquired from various projects) indicated they may also be in haplogroup S3997, asking that they strongly consider upgrading. That was on February 13, and to date I have received only one reply; though it was a good one because I was informed that particular individual had just updated to the Y700 test. Though even with that addition, our haplogroup is still likely to appear to have a 2000-year gap with no branching, which I do not think is the case.
Which brings me to my real complaint. We keep hearing how geneticists and anthropologists are trying to gain a good understanding of the evolution of mankind, as well as “map” the genetic migration of the same, and how all the testing/analysis companies want the same things. Yet, using my haplogroup as an example, there are multiple companies who are doing testing and analysis but seemingly not working together to share the data. If there are truly 25 or so males who have tested and found to be part of haplogroup S3997, why isn’t that information being shared and used to establish better data that can then be made available to the customers who are paying for it?
It is extremely difficult to get people to upgrade their tests, as I recently discovered, especially in light of the economic climate of the times. Most of them soon realize that YDNA testing, while useful, is not designed to help with recent genealogy, but to help better understand our distant, and even ancient, ancestors. However, it seems to me that if we are to use the reasoning that more testers will all help out “the science” as a recruiting tool, then we need the individual companies to work more together, combine the data they have, and make the shared information more accessible to the consumers.
To use another SCI-FI quote, “the truth is out there”. Too bad we can't get access to all of it.
Okay, I'm done. You will now be returned to your normally scheduled program.
Comment