SNP counting

[1798]

At some point this has to be turned back on you as well though sir. I honestly dont believe that the real issue to you is that someone else considers your Hg 'germanic' or anglo-saxon/english/norman, I think the real issue is that you fear it may be. I mean that kindly, and suggest not worrying about what others think or opine.

In the end, the only data that is relevant is ancient DNA and sadly it is likely due to the fear of this sort of competitive theorizing that no one seems too eager to go down into Parisian or Roman catacombs and start tapping molar pulp. Even those doing assays of ancient cultural remains in cemeteries in modern Hungary or Romania largely ignore any attempt at DNA collection and measure skulls to absolutely no value whatsoever, like 19th century 'quacks'.


This should not be devolving into a "Competition", on any of our parts. Those who want to 'win' for their Hg and accompanying theories do no one a service because I think its scares away scientists who dont want to have their work caught in fury of amateur DNA analysis or tribal population genetics, and it also scares away a lot of new people from even getting involved or asking questions as self-anointed 'gurus' proclaim the evolution of indo-euro tribal history based off of wikipedia edits.

None of us is going to be the final word, and none of us actually knows what is fact or fiction. I extend a hand of friendship to you and to all other members here, and ask that we all please endeavour to be courteous and welcoming to all fellow members, as the 1st priority. I am far from perfect myself, but if we all try to treat one another with kindness and as friends, we will all be the better off for it.

This forum is anemic and lifeless, and trying to "go nuclear" to press your cases on every topic and assault the defenses of anything menacing someones sacred cow issue is probably a significant part of the reasons why.

The lack of activity on the forum is a sign of what the likely interest in the testing offerings is, in my opinion. Lets first and foremost treat others the way that we want to be treated and lets state our cases, but lets not wage a endless scorched earth war of attrition to impose or reject any opinion or narrative.. please.

Some of the scientists and dna companies have to take some of the blame too because they were quick to put ethnic labels on haplogroups and subgroups. You don't know me and it is little that I fear. The people who do know me ,know this.

[1798]

Those who want to 'win' for their Hg and accompanying theories do no one a service because I think its scares away scientists who dont want to have their work caught in fury of amateur DNA analysis or tribal population genetics, and it also scares away a lot of new people from even getting involved or asking questions as self-anointed 'gurus' proclaim the evolution of indo-euro tribal history based off of wikipedia edits.

With respect, I think that the scientists will not be in a hurry to test ancient remains because some of them will look like fools considering the papers that they have published.

[Stevo]

I don't think scientists doing ancient dna work are concerned about what we think or our theories one way or the other. The big questions for them are, "Do we have the money to do the research?", and "Can we actually extract some useable, contamination-free dna from these old remains?".

[Aperipatetic1]

Some of the scientists and dna companies have to take some of the blame too because they were quick to put ethnic labels on haplogroups and subgroups. You don't know me and it is little that I fear. The people who do know me ,know this.

To my observation, it was not the "scientists" seeking to place ethnic labels on haplogroups. I had my original Y test done a long time ago by a company now departed from our midst, and at that time it was the HOBBYISTS who were by hook or by crook placing their Hg or someone elses Hg into a ethnic label or regional title.

This primarily started with the Rootsweb DNA people and moderators that would ban anyone that conflicted or suggested cultural labels were presumptuous or based on shaky assessments.

In that period, a lot of the popular misinformation came to dominance and it had absolutely nothing to do with scientists, it came from the hobbyists, many of whom were really only looking for information to shore up some claim that they paternally descend from a Viking (or Saxon invader as a runner-up prize). For all of us, contentiousness does not equate to advancement.

While these sort of folks are in fact passionate about genetics and dna research, they are unfortunately also usually as emotionally invested in a certain outcome, and wedded to theories and anything that seems to undergird their preferences. A LOT of time has now passed, and little in the way of meaningful ancient DNA recovery has been attempted, in particular as relates to european descended populations.

Arguing over hypothesis or who is or is not a 'viking' etc.. has simply gotten tiresome a long time ago, and frankly you cannot correct or reason with those committed emotionally to their own outcomes in advance of evidence. In the past 10 generations you have up to 1,024 ancestors and among them you have every Hg within the Euro array of paternal and maternal Hg, like it or not.

Your paternal line or maternal line Hg is no more instructive or significant than the other 1,000+ ancestors who contribute to your ancestry. If people have new and interesting RELEVANT information to post or share that attracts new users and energizes the community that creates interest and adds value. If people engage in tired debates that no one actually has the anwswers to, circa Rootsweb DNA - 1999, that serves only to maintain a insular, small and cloistered group of cooperating folks who are eager to engage in cicular debates and seek to overwhelm anyone of a opposing or non-conforming viewpoint. That is not healthy, beneficial or useful to growing the community of participants, from a testing standpoint, which should be the central goal.

If you doubt my assessment, look to the meager traffic this has resulted in and small pool of participants within this forum. Its Rootsweb DNA redux.

[1798]

To my observation, it was not the "scientists" seeking to place ethnic labels on haplogroups. I had my original Y test done a long time ago by a company now departed from our midst, and at that time it was the HOBBYISTS who were by hook or by crook placing their Hg or someone elses Hg into a ethnic label or regional title.

This primarily started with the Rootsweb DNA people and moderators that would ban anyone that conflicted or suggested cultural labels were presumptuous or based on shaky assessments.

In that period, a lot of the popular misinformation came to dominance and it had absolutely nothing to do with scientists, it came from the hobbyists, many of whom were really only looking for information to shore up some claim that they paternally descend from a Viking (or Saxon invader as a runner-up prize). For all of us, contentiousness does not equate to advancement.

While these sort of folks are in fact passionate about genetics and dna research, they are unfortunately also usually as emotionally invested in a certain outcome, and wedded to theories and anything that seems to undergird their preferences. A LOT of time has now passed, and little in the way of meaningful ancient DNA recovery has been attempted, in particular as relates to european descended populations.

Arguing over hypothesis or who is or is not a 'viking' etc.. has simply gotten tiresome a long time ago, and frankly you cannot correct or reason with those committed emotionally to their own outcomes in advance of evidence. In the past 10 generations you have up to 1,024 ancestors and among them you have every Hg within the Euro array of paternal and maternal Hg, like it or not.

Your paternal line or maternal line Hg is no more instructive or significant than the other 1,000+ ancestors who contribute to your ancestry. If people have new and interesting RELEVANT information to post or share that attracts new users and energizes the community that creates interest and adds value. If people engage in tired debates that no one actually has the anwswers to, circa Rootsweb DNA - 1999, that serves only to maintain a insular, small and cloistered group of cooperating folks who are eager to engage in cicular debates and seek to overwhelm anyone of a opposing or non-conforming viewpoint. That is not healthy, beneficial or useful to growing the community of participants, from a testing standpoint, which should be the central goal.

If you doubt my assessment, look to the meager traffic this has resulted in and small pool of participants within this forum. Its Rootsweb DNA redux.

BISDNA goes out of their way to link haplogroups to ethnic groups. I know because I have tested with them.
Sin a bhfuil le ra agam.

[Aperipatetic1]

BISDNA goes out of their way to link haplogroups to ethnic groups. I know because I have tested with them.
Sin a bhfuil le ra agam.

I have zero familiarity or interest in any entity that exists to sell a ethno-cultural analysis of my ancestry, and I would not part with one hard earned cent of income to have someone 'interpret' my ancestry.

I do not intend to research or assess the entity you cite, or its offerings, but I would strongly suspect this is a for-profit COMMERCIAL entity and NOT a purely academic entity.

I have absolutely no idea what this entity told you or if they charged you for it, nor do I know what information they used to make their assessment,

but I have seen multiple companies especially based out of the USA that claim to offer some sort of DNA test ethnographic 'readings' of peoples results, and all I can say is that you must do your own due diligence in ascertaining if this is a service that offers, or even could offer, value to you.

[Stevo]

I'm not trying to start an argument. I just want to comment on something that almost never ceases to amaze me, and that is the apparent notion that there is something inherently bad in profit-seeking, commercial entities and, conversely, something inherently good and noble in "purely academic" entities.

With profit-seeking, commercial enterprises, if one does not like their products, one can refuse to buy them or can turn to their competitors. If one finds fault with what a commercial dna testing company is doing, he can write or call them and complain. A company that is not responsive to its clients does not stay in business long.

Academics are no more "pure" than businessmen. Academics are as subject to human temptations and failings as anyone else. They live to a large extent on grant money and have various audiences they must please. The necessity of pleasing donors and peers certainly provides an incentive to fudge things a bit or perhaps to sit on information that might offend. Witness recent scandals like "Climategate" involving the University of East Anglia.

If it weren't for the profit motive, it isn't likely genetic genealogy would exist or that any of us would be benefiting from it.

[Peter MacDonald]

In my opinion your DNA doesn't make you Scottish, Irish, Celtic, etc, this is due to the simple fact that these terms refers to cultures and not a specific paternal Y DNA sequence.

I think its pretty premature to make statements saying Y DNA xyz originated there and moved to here and there, or was always here and didn't come from there. Have Y DNA migration patterns been proven at this time or are they still theories?

[Aperipatetic1]

I'm not trying to start an argument. I just want to comment on something that almost never ceases to amaze me, and that is the apparent notion that there is something inherently bad in profit-seeking, commercial entities and, conversely, something inherently good and noble in "purely academic" entities.

Academics are no more "pure" than businessmen. Academics are as subject to human temptations and failings as anyone else.

If it weren't for the profit motive, it isn't likely genetic genealogy would exist or that any of us would be benefiting from it.

I largely agree with the majority of your statement, however it does not really relate to the point that I was (probably Clumsily) attempting to make. I know absolutely nothing about the particular acronym/entity that 1798 referenced and thus cannot make any sort of a statement that concerns that entity or its affairs, however in a general context, a truism regarding a commercial for-profit company is that it needs to have a product or service to sell, while a purely academic institution does not.

A purely academic institution can simply afford to sit and wait, and publish nothing at all on a given topic, or declare that the facts are not in yet, or they do not have enough ancient data to make any conclusions definitively. While you can easily find examples of a tenured, published academic who is payed to offer a endorsement or stamp of approval, his published conclusions or formal work are generally subject to a peer review process which can be critiqued and assessed in depth.

A private for profit commercial entity may or may not release its research or documentation, however outside of say FDA approval or licensing, its probably not obligated to do so and may consider its data a trade secret in whole or in part. I did not use the term 'pure' as a indication of being of higher caliber, more trustworthy, or more admirable, only within the context that a purely academic conclusion would generally undergo a peer review scrutiny in which more is required than simply pleasing a end user or purchaser. Its ability to reach its given conclusion would be tested and critiqued as well as its data and processes, collection schema and best practices.

The key point that everyone needs to keep in mind when it comes to particularly Y or MTdna testing is that the overwhelming bulk of our data comes from comparing modern results to modern results, and this is what the testing is suited for and can reproduce 'double-blind', across different entities or labs using the same samples.

Its entirely possible that some private companies have obtained ancient DNA results from across Europe, recovered from remains within a given tribal or regional context, and use them in making assessments of a particular Hg.. all I can say from a factual standpoint is that to my knowledge I am not aware of any. I suspect that most likely these comparisons are based on comparing modern populations to modern frequency of occurrence. This may prove to quite often be accurate, when/if ancient data is collected, but to me its still hypothetical when based only on modern/modern comparison.