Talk:Genealogical DNA test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Advertising
The section on Cohanim ancestry seems to be written in the style of an advert for Oxford Ancestors. --apers0n 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It was just added by an anon user, and I haven't had time to clean it up. It's on my to do list. — Reinyday, 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the reference to Professor Sykes is an advertisement for Oxford Ancestors, even though he was the founder of that company. He is also a respected scientist and popular writer. But I can remove it and say "one company does this or that." Or I could also discuss the fact that Family Tree DNA suggests a similar timeframe (though only with matching surnames), and another company puts this interpretation of mutation rates up front in its reports. All over the genetics journals and press it's the same story: the roots of the human tree are shallower than anyone guessed before. Bottlenecks in human populations, combined with political developments favoring certain types, are a big contributing factor: most lineages simply do not survive. It's primarily the DNA surname projects who don't agree to the emerging consensus of geneticists and forensic scientists. I don't understand the remark about formality, however. What language is informal in the section? Donpanther 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Donpanther, the tone was not so much informal as not in style with the Wikipedia. You have stated one view about the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" as though it was fact, marginalizing the other view point. Wikipedia articles try to be inclusive of differing views. I've just edited the page a bit, particularly removing some of your many references to DNA Consultants. — Reinyday, 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Looks good. Thanks! Donpanther 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
The links to notes don't work . . . Donpanther 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed it. — Reinyday, 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please put in edit summaries
Some users are tinkering with the text and links to notes without indicating why they are editing things. There used to be a note to "one company" under Hindu testing and I think there were also some things in Melungeon testing that were silently changed. If people don't put in an edit summary with a rationale for their changes the edits could be mistaken for vandalism.
Attempting to contrast the validity of these first two overhyped Melungeon DNA projects. --Emuchick 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is the definition of the different mtDNA haplogroups ?
I am trying to find the definition to the mtDNA haplogroup as written for the Y Haplogroups in the section Haplogroup prediction. Does any one know where to find it? Thanks maruvkay
- Hi. I'm not sure I understand your question. mtDNA haplogroups are the same as Y-DNA haplogroups in that they are groups of haplotypes (your specific test results). If you want to know about a specific haplogroup, click on its letter below:
mt-most recent common ancestor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
L0 | L1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
L2 | L3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M | N | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M1 | CZ | D | E | G | Q | A | I | W | X | R | N1 | N2 | Y | ||||||||||||||
C | Z | B | F | pre-JT | P | U | |||||||||||||||||||||
JT | K | pre-HV | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
J | T | HV | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
H | V |
I hope that helps! — Reinyday, 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] African American Ancestry
There are a few caveats. The Zulu and their related people moved all the way to Tanzania, and set up similar kingdoms in Zimbabwe (Ndebele), Zambia (Kololo, Ngoni), Malawi/Mozambique/Tanzania (Ngoni, Shangani), after the 1820s; this process was called the Mfecane or 'scattering'. Secondly, the Portuguese were busy slavers as well, and many of the slaves they bought came through ports in Angola and Mozambique, often from far within the interior; any slaves from Malawi or Zambia, would have likely been brought to Mozambique, and from there on, to Central and South America and the Caribbean. And lastly, there is the accuracy of DNA testing at this point in time; anyone with Zulu or related ancestry ending up in Brazil or Cuba for instance, wouldn't be that far fetched. Our understanding of both DNA and the human genome is only starting.
Also, I dislike the usually patronizing intonation when white people catch African Americans reclaiming their ancestry and history - as if they have something to hide. Why wouldn't Oprah Winfrey's ancestry include Zulus?
Lastly, perhaps unknown to the writer, but the Zulus are Bantus too. Bantu is simply a general name for people who speak a Bantu related language. Which is virtually everyone in Southern, Central and much of West Africa. The Zulus are Bantus, although because of their defeat of the English and Lord Chelmsford's batallion, they are sometimes thought of as 'Hamites'. Anything to deny the obvious.
"Why wouldn't Oprah Winfrey's ancestry include Zulus?"
- Because it ain't there. From the wikipedia article on Oprah: "For the 2006 PBS program, African American Lives, Winfrey had her DNA tested. The genetic test determined that her maternal line originated among the Kpelle ethnic group, in the area that today is Liberia. Her genetic make up was determined to be 89% Sub-Saharan Africa. She is part Native American (about 8% according to the test) and East Asian (about 3% according to the test)." No Zulus. - GUEST
- Me.
[edit] "Drawbacks" section
"There is no usefulness in Maternal DNA because mother displaces the father maternal DNA ( from his mother). Maternal DNA continue only from Mother to daughter. Also a daughter can not transend her father Y DNA to her sons and a son cannot transend his mother maternal DNA to his childrens!"
Besides the horrible English of this whole paragraph, the section needs to be rewritten in a NPOV tone (i.e. "There is no usefulness ... because ...") Nagelfar 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cohanim ancestry
I'm moving this whole paragraph on to the talk page. I have to agree with the counter-editor that much of what he criticises is very questionable. But the appropriate response is to cut out such material and take it to the talk page; not to conduct a discussion in the text of the article itself.
Here is the cut paragraph, with the recent counter-editor's comments in italics:
- The whole field of Y chromosome DNA testing began with a Canadian doctor's discovery that an overwhelming majority of Jewish males with the surname Cohen (Hebrew for "priest") had the same, or approximately the same set of markers, suggesting they truly descended from an original male founder, but unlikely from Aaron who was in Haplogroup (ancestry) J1
-
- how can anyone make this statement? Do we have Aaron's DNA??
- while CMH was recently found it was in J2 not J1 in the Cohens sample
-
- This is false. The 6-marker CMH is found in both J1 and J2 and the expanded 12 marker-defined CMH is found in J1 and in a subgroup of J2 called J2f* or J2a1b. This appearance of the CMH in two different SNP groups is due to convergence, not to a recent common ancestor, as the parent groups J1 and J2 are both much older than the last common ancestor of individuals having the CMH STR haplotype in each group. However, only the 12 marker CMH individuals in J1 have the family tradition of being Cohanim, at least among Ashkenazi Jews; the data on other Jewish groups is not publicly available at this time.
- J2 is found recently to be multiple haplogroups representing the ancestries of multiple different nations ( Turks, Georgians, ancient Greeks, Romans, some Somalians, Kurds, India)
-
- J2 is very widespread through the Mediterranean, especially the northern shore; the Middle East, especially the northern part, and on into India; but does not correlate with a particular nation or ethnicity beyond that.
I'm also going to slightly re-balance what is left in the article. Jheald 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)