Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

morbid curiosity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ChrisS
    replied
    Brothers

    Lost Sheep,

    Yes, my father had an older brother and a younger brother both of whom had sons. I paid for test on both o fthe sons of the older brother. They were both R1b haplogroup (I am haplgroup N3a). The son of the younger brother won't even talk to me so there is no way to get him tested.
    One of the other cousins already has a match that inidicates he is of the male lineage of our grandfather and from Wales as family lore suggests.
    There is no comparison for me in the family, directly .. only the 15 marker siblingship test that showed me an one sister as 90% probable FULL siblings.
    I know who my mother is,based on prior siblingship tests that indicated a 99.98% probability of FULL siblinship with those 5 half-sibs .. my two brothers on my maternal side are R1a and that is consistent with their male line emigrating from Prussia.
    The labs just tell me that the full sib designation is just a better indicator of true half siblingship .. I guess I buy that in light of all the other evidence.
    ChrisS

    Leave a comment:


  • Lost-Sheep
    replied
    Did your father have any brothers or did your father's father have any brothers that have male descendants?

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisS
    replied
    I care ...

    Please trust me Lost Sheep. I'm not callous to this situation. I am adopted and have located my birth father's children (all of them are females .. my sisters!) so I don't come by my opinion on this lightly... but if I had never done the research to locate my paternal birth family, I can't imagine why my sisters would have wanted or needed to exhume my(our) father to do DNA testing on his remains. ... actually I *can* imagine but its a pretty esoteric pursuit of male lineage .. and here I thought I was the only one crazy enough to be interested in such things!
    Our siblingship tests were at the 90% probability level, so I[m relatively (no pun intended <grin>) certain of our relationship .. there was other paper trail info as well.
    Anyway , sorry if I struck a nerve .. it was unintended
    ChrisS

    Leave a comment:


  • Lost-Sheep
    replied
    Digging up remains is not necessary unless there are not any male descendants and then... who cares?
    Female children of the last deceased male or theri descendants would care...

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisS
    I never saw Arch's original question answered but it is a relatively obvious thing.
    Based on the assumption (whcih we are all making about Y-DNA) that the markers remain the same from father to son over generations ... then every male in a given lineage possesses the same Y-DNA markers. If one traces two or even more given lineages on paper and their DNA matches then that is also the DNA of the ancestor to which references is made.
    Even in lines where mutations occur, lots of the Group admins are learning to determine the "ancestral haplotype" of their family and can thrus say that g-g-g-grandfather's dNA is thur-and-so.
    Digging up remains is not necessary unless there are not any male descendants and then... who cares? (well, it is *possible* there is curiosity but usually I would think not ..)
    ChrisS
    You're correct, ChrisS. Saying that one has the DNA markers of someone who died hundreds of years ago should be understood to mean "by proxy" via his descendants.

    However, it is important that the condition of having several documented genetic lineages tested be met to really determine the "ancestral haplotype". I know of several cases where the paper trails disagree with the haplos trail.

    In such cases, the term morbid can mean more than just digging corpses from graves but also bringing out skeletons from the closets. ;-)

    Victor
    Last edited by Victor; 21 December 2005, 09:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisS
    replied
    DNA of deceased persons

    I never saw Arch's original question answered but it is a relatively obvious thing.
    Based on the assumption (whcih we are all making about Y-DNA) that the markers remain the same from father to son over generations ... then every male in a given lineage possesses the same Y-DNA markers. If one traces two or even more given lineages on paper and their DNA matches then that is also the DNA of the ancestor to which references is made.
    Even in lines where mutations occur, lots of the Group admins are learning to determine the "ancestral haplotype" of their family and can thrus say that g-g-g-grandfather's dNA is thur-and-so.
    Digging up remains is not necessary unless there are not any male descendants and then... who cares? (well, it is *possible* there is curiosity but usually I would think not ..)
    ChrisS

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by la_roccia
    rootsweb? what's that?

    the place that outlawed genetics and stayed in the 1900s and died

    Leave a comment:


  • la_roccia
    replied
    rootsweb? what's that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Denning
    replied
    in ma. local funeral homes are now providing a service to save dna

    see the world is turning our way well maybe not rootsweb

    Leave a comment:


  • Lost-Sheep
    replied
    Seems like you are familiar with the process


    Yes...my uncle had my grandfather's remains reinterred from the one of those large generic public cemeteries to the small family cemetery and there was a good deal of paperwork involved.

    This did not involve opening the vault, casket, etc., however one would be inclined to believe that there would encompass even more paperwork and expense including toxic health department issues, etc. if someone went as far as exposing the corpse and extracting DNA...

    Leave a comment:


  • EBurgess
    replied
    Besides...it takes too much money and paperwork to exhume the buried...
    Seems like you are familiar with the process

    Leave a comment:


  • Lost-Sheep
    replied
    Thank God (LITERALLY) for Y-DNA (father's father's father's..., etc.)!!! If one can find that living male descendant, then digging up dead relatives does not have to happen!

    Besides...it takes too much money and paperwork to exhume the buried...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Yeomans
    replied
    I tan well, but white as a ghost now...

    I have dark hair, brown eyes, and white as pasty white as they get. But when I'm getting sun, I rarely burn, but tan really well. Unlike my poor albino blonde wife who turns red even in fluorescent artificial light (just kidding.. kind of).

    All my relatives say were a mix of everything in Europe. Nobody really knows for sure what our ethno-origins are except English, Welsh, maybe some Irish.

    It just seems weird that DNA being a relatively new science and seeing web sites claiming to have the DNA of an ancestor over 200 years ago. Either some urine, feces, bone, dried blood, etc, was stored somewhere or they dug up the relative out of the grave. I'm all for it, if it means improving science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eternitat
    replied
    DNA of my ancestors who lived 200 years ago...

    On one side, I'll be taking a trip to Majorca! Possibly even to mainland Catalunya, since who knows how long ago did they move to this other island.

    On the other side, a trip to Puerto Rico! Although that can only go back a couple hundred years or so. Make that a trip to the Canary Islands, and another trip to...probably Andalusia, since my maternal grandfather does have the prototypical Mediterranean features and actually has the ability to tan.

    And wherever this Haplogroup A came from as well. Yucatan? Somewhere else? Maybe all the way back to the Caucasus mountains where Aiyana lived!

    I'm extremely curious. And rather morbid in some ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Yeomans
    started a topic morbid curiosity

    morbid curiosity

    I have perused several websites that claim to know the genetic markers of people who have died over 200 years ago. Unless we're talking about some quacks, how did they retrieve this DNA? Do I have to dig up some old dead relative or hope the burnt remains of a cremated relative yield some DNA???
    How would it be possible to even know the person buried in the ground is a relative? As it seems surnames definintely do not prove blood relations. I'm sure the city of Bristol, England and the churches would frown upon me digging up all the Yeamans and Yeomans folks buried there to collect DNA and it would be most frustrating to dig them all up to find no connection.
Working...
X