Talk:Genetic genealogy

message: Since the Y chromosome deteriorates with each generation, and since that happens in a consistent way, can't we do a little math to determine how long humans have existed?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8r13n (talk • contribs) .
The trouble is the markers (Y-STR) used in studies of males can fluctuate up and down, so there's no way to track changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donpanther (talk • contribs) .
"Since the Y chromosome deteriorates with each generation"
I think the word "deteriorates" implies that *all* mutations are, uniformly, 'bad'. I prefer to believe that some are bad (the descendents could go extinct), some are neutral (but genetic variety in a population increases odds of species survival in the face of a near-extinction event) and some are good (a forward 'evolutionary step'). 
Mutation events are sporadic but, looked at on a sufficiently large timescale, it is possible to express it as a "mutation rate", which is regarded as being more or less constant. A certain percentage of these will be 'fatal mutations' (the fertilized egg is unviable or foetal development fails) and thus are not propagated down the generations, distorting any rate-based extrapolation you might attempt. The point of the genetic markers is that they are in either in non-critical stretches of DNA (don't code for a protein at all) or the gene-product is unharmed, due to triplet-code redundancy, or else an amino acid substitution is in a non-critical location. 
"can't we do a little math to determine how long humans have existed?"
I don't understand why you would want to do that at all - an answer to the nearest 0.1m years is good enough for most of us. Can't we leave that to the archaeologists and paleontologists? EatYerGreens 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutation rate

message: The discussion of privacy concerns in the article is dismissive, what about the kid that used FTDNA in combination with other databases to track down his father (anonymous sperm donor) there may be more to this, any ideas?
Also what about the ethical implications? Not that we want to scare people but it is good to come up with reasoned responses to concerns, some of which may appear to be theoretical now but turn into actual concerns in the future.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.234.210 (talk • contribs) 
*If you find the article lacking, please feel free to fix it.  Please flesh out the privacy and ethical concerns.  As for the boy who tracked down his father, using a Y-DNA test will only help you determine your father's last name (surname).  The boy had a additional information about his father that he learned from his mother; without additional information he would not have been able to proceed. -- Reinyday, 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy and Ethical Concerns 

message: Hi, I agree:  privacy and ethical concerns are not the biggest drawbacks, and neither is cost, which ranges all over the place, from low end to high end, so everybody seems to find what they want. The Ethnogenic project is low end, but few seem to complain -- WYSIWYG. 
I know of several cases where adoptees have actually located their biological fathers through Y chrom testing. Also, through a combination of Y chrom testing and autosomal ethnotyping there is a case of a seven-year-old boy who is the product of artificial insemination whose mother verified the sperm donor was one-quarter Cherokee, and they may have found the surname. They are now in correspondence with tribal registration in Cherokee, NC. 
The biggest drawback according to actual surveys (actually there is only one conducted by a market research firm) is not understanding which test to take and not understanding the results when they come. One DNA test company (that shall remain unnamed) receives complaints of this nature and multiple calls and emails on roughly one-fourth of their tests. I'm almost afraid to mention that another company (that shall also remain nameless) supplies customized reports for this very reason and has probably the highest customer satisfaction in the business.
I would change this section if others agree it should be. I won't name names.
Donpanther 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: drawbacks

message: Hi,  A big thank you to everyone who has been chipping in to improve things.  I do not want to make wholesale changes to the article's structure but I am not sure that section 3, 4, and 5 should be split out the way they are.  --RebekahThorn 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: Does anyone know how the sorenson DNA project funds itself?  Maybe I'm paranoid but the freeness of it makes me nervous.  Sandwich Eater 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation

message: A recent IP / new user has been removing what he deems "commercial links", accompanied by comments demonstrating he does not understand Wikipedia policy on linking. He's also mistaken in several instances about whether these links are commercial or not. Since these links are informative databases that are almost essential to anyone interested in genetic genealogy, I've restored them, with an admonition to discuss before deleting such material again. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for failing to divine your sex and your doctorate: the fact remains that you can still learn many lesser things, like the actual Wikipedia standards for linking, which differ radically from your edit summary comments. You should indeed have proceded as you indicated you did, by adding, not deleting: if people are inappropriately deleting content that you deem proper, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, or you can ask for my assistance at User talk:Nunh-huh: if someone has been so foolish as to have broken the 3 revert rule you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Inappropriate deletions will be reverted. Diplomatic skills, are, sadly, just as necessary for our purposes here as is knowledge. Discussion before going on a campaign to remove links is always appropriate. The fact that someone is a commercial interest is not a reason to remove their link. Projects and unique resources that would be of value to the reader are clearly pertinent to the article, regardless of who is sponsoring them. (You can sign your talk-page comments by closing with four tildes ~~~~ which will be converted to a link to your user-page when the page is saved. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe DNA Heritage is the only laboratory to be ISO 17025 accredited for genealogical testing. — Reinyday, 04:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link removals 

message: It makes sense to me, but I have followed the "genetic genealogists" long enough on such lists as DNA-Genealogy (as a lurker, mind you) that it strikes me they probably feel they "own" this article and aren't going to brook any changes like this. My vote is yes, merge them. Could you have an article on genealogy without mentioning Ancestry.com and other commercial companies? Moreover, genetic genealogy is not taught in any university (to my knowledge), so the only sources of knowledge about it come from commercial companies, books and articles in print, hobbyists (like DNA-Genealogy) and/or the Internet. Just my opinion. And for what it's worth, I'm an RN and know that THE source for pharmacological knowledge comes to doctors from their pharmaceutical sales reps. Oh, the crassness! Oh, the commercialism! O tempora! O mores! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.119.195 (talk • contribs) .
*I also would like to see them merged.  I already moved the history section.  No one "owns" any article in the Wikipedia. — Reinyday, 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging genetic genealogy with dna test companies 

message: If this meant to be an encyclopedic article about the field of genetic genealogy, then a chronology of commerical firms should offer some insight into the field or be pared.  Perhaps some nod to the largest firms is appopriate in some context, but I don't see it.  The text I edited in the History section read more like a yellow pages than an encyclopedia. I think my edits are consistent with the policies at WP:NOT. Vineviz 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Why do we have Darwin's picture posted here? Although he is very briefly mentioned a large image of him leading the article does not seem justified.--RebekahThorn (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin Image

message: I have put up a suggestion at :Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.
To quote from what I've written there:
:; Description: A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar.  Many such articles can be found in :Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.
:; Rationale
:* My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.  
::There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them.  IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input. 
:::Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and :Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader.  With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus.  On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to create a WikiProject: Genetic History 

message: I think a more "astonishing" example should be found - I've barely studied any ancient history at all, and if you'd asked me to guess where the Maltese people came from, the fact that it was central to Phoenician trade would certainly have been part of my first WAG. 2013-03-12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.86.251 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Biogeographical and ethnic origins section

message: This had been used as a source for the article, but none of the claims in the article would actually be verified by this source. So I removed them and am placing the source here in case someone can come up with something encyclopedic to add to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: Please join the talk page, talk:ISOGG. --RebekahThorn (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge ISOGG into Genetic Genealogy 

message: After a first look through this article I just thought it worthwhile to point to an issue that editors on this article will have to grapple with and deal with in some sort of consistent way: genetic genealogists have always tended to have an interest in population genetics, but the two are apparently more distinct in my mind than in the minds of many genetic genealogists. (Keep in mind that I am a genetic genealogist and known for my position on this matter.) 
The term "deep ancestry" to mean issues related to population genetics was common some years ago amongst genetic genealogists. The basic idea was that it all has to do with filling gaps in family trees, except that traditional genealogy is limited to the period of a few centuries where you can actually draw a paper trail and know the names of the "nodes". But things have gone much further now with things like:
*The National Genographic project. In my mind it is not genealogy, but this article currently emphasizes how it brought more people to genealogy, which is another more relevant matter (but unfortunately I think hard to source?)
*Autosomal DNA testing being offered by genetic genealogy testing companies like Family Tree DNA, whose original more proven genetic genealogy product revolved around Y DNA and surname projects. (In my mind a bit of a waste of money for normal genealogists, and a diversion from what is known to work.)
*People like Anatole Klyosov arguing widely around the internet, and gaining support, for saying that there is no meaningful distinction between "genealogy" and studies of haplogroups going back thousands of years.
Please note that I obviously have nothing against people having both of these interests, because I also have them. This is partly just a question of word use and categorization. I suspect there is no perfect reconciliation between these two ways of categorizing things, but equally I do tend to think that there is at the very least a "primary" meaning of genetic genealogy, and a broader secondary meaning. The way the article weighs these two meanings now seems ok to me FWIW.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the boundary of genetic genealogy 

message: This BBC radio documentary has Adam Rutherford talking to "to Professor Mark Jobling from the University of Leicester, Professor Mark Thomas from University College London and to Debbie Kennett, author, blogger and member of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, about the scientific lines they believe some genetic ancestry companies cross, when they provide people with stories about their ancient ancestors and their ancient genetic homelands." Anyone have time to listen to it and use it?
I hadn't run across the term "genetic astrology" before, but see this search. University College London has a website on genetic astrology. which I'll add as an EL until it can be used as a source. One response to the website from a company is at . The whole thing seems to have involved legal threats. 
Sense about Science has written about genetic testing and has written a guide. which I've added as a link.
See also a mention about it being big business in the UK Telegraph newspaper. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genetic astrology", critiques by geneticists (and legal responses) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genetic genealogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206195050/http://www.nationalgeographic.com:80/GENOGRAPHIC/ to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203150950/http://www.genebase.com:80/in/dnaClansPopulation.php to http://www.genebase.com/in/dnaClansPopulation.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genetic genealogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526104607/http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2012/05/ancestry.com-dna-launches/ to http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2012/05/ancestry.com-dna-launches/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310041352/http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/119/sense-about-genetic-ancestry-testing to http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/119/sense-about-genetic-ancestry-testing
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm proposing that the page Genealogical DNA test is merged into the page Genetic Genealogy. These two articles have a very strong overlap, which is not surprising given that a genealogical dna test is the basis of genetic genealogy. It is my opinion that the page Genetic Genealogy as it stands does not give adequate information on the subject, while the Genealogical DNA Test page gives many details about the tests but not so much about the applications of the test. If the pages were merged details about genealogical DNA tests could appear alongside information about their application and background information about the field of Genetic Genealogy. AV85647 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I support!Tomastvivlaren (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I oppose the proposal. Genetic genealogy is a quickly developing modern discipline which deserves to have an article on its own. Should a merger happen, then in the other direction, but I am far from suggesting that. DNA tests are to genetic genealogy what written sources are to traditional genealogy. There are various kinds of tests like there are various kinds of written sources, so they deserve being discussed in a special article with all the details. But genetic genealogy is more then just the tests – the tests are only tools, sources of information. If traditional genealogy is the research, combination and interpretation of written sources and oral testimonies with the goal of getting to know a family better, genetic genealogy is the use, combination and interpretation of DNA tests and their results – almost always combined with traditional genealogy – with essentially the same goal, although the spectrum of achievable results and the menu of tools to achieve them are different. It is this whole set of unique possibilities, new approaches, best practices and relevant issues (such as matching, privacy, health markers, law enforcement interaction, adoptees and illegitimal children) that make genetic genealogy stand out as a discipline of its own (although deeply linked to traditional genealogy) and much more than just a "set of DNA tests". --Blahma (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: Please add some info about this study to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science and included in Family tree#Global like so:
Forms of family trees are also used in genetic genealogy. In 2022, scientists reported the largest detailed human genetic genealogy, that unifies human genomes from many sources for insights about human history, ancestry and evolution and demonstrates a novel computational method for estimating how human DNA is related via a series of 13 million linked trees along the genome, a , which has been described as the largest "human family tree".
Where and how do you think it would fit best into the article? For example, uses seem to include both "Ancestral origins" and "Human migration" (and maybe there could be a new section with those two sections becoming subsections in it).
 Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "A unified genealogy of modern and ancient genomes"