Relatively few of your genealogical ancestors are your genetic ancestors

[Johane Derite]

LINK: https://gcbias.org/2017/12/19/1628/

"Your ancestors lived all over the world, but relatively few of them were your genetic ancestors"

 

[Jovialis]

Great link, it's an important thing to consider.

I learned from 23andme, I'm actually slightly more related to my mother, than my father. I had linked their profiles to mine.

Edit:

However, I did a quick google search, and this link says we're supposed to be more related to our fathers genetically. I'm a little confused now.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/03/03/genetically-more-like-dad/#.Wjms9t-nHb1

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng....&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com

 

[Angela]

LINK: https://gcbias.org/2017/12/19/1628/

"Your ancestors lived all over the world, but relatively few of them were your genetic ancestors"

Graham Coop does some extraordinary work.

I actually thought the drop off started earlier. I remember reading that even by the fifth generation there was no guarantee that you carried any of the dna of the people in your genealogical tree, although that might be something different.

My instinct was always not to be too "proud", or "ashamed" of people in your tree, because I just knew by common sense that there was probably very little of these people in me if it was relatively far in the past.

It seems like the break away really starts around the ninth generation. If we use a generational figure of 30 years per generation that's 270 years ago, or around 1750. So, if you're excited because you're a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, great...however, if it's Charlemagne, just relax already.

 

[Salento]

I guess I can not longer scream to those tourists at Monticello to ‘Get Off MY Property!’ Too Bad. [emoji23][emoji2]

T. Jefferson was Y Hapl. T

 

[Johane Derite]

I guess I can not longer scream to those tourists at Monticello to ‘Get Off MY Property!’ Too Bad. [emoji23][emoji2]

Or, if I may play the devils advocate, you could argue just that. Since the genetic ancestors are generally distributed in a concentrated geographic domain.

For example in the 14th generation you have 16,384 genealogical ancestors but only ~950 (5.7%) of them actually passed on genes to you. These genetic
ancestors are those, as can be seen in the graph above, that are closest to your geographic region.

Therefore, your property is most likely to be intrinsically linked with your genetic ancestors : p

 

[Salento]

Or, if I may play the devils advocate, you could argue just that. Since the genetic ancestors are generally distributed in a concentrated geographic domain.

For example in the 14th generation you have 16,384 genealogical ancestors but only ~950 (5.7%) of them actually passed on genes to you. These genetic
ancestors are those, as can be seen in the graph above, that are closest to your geographic region.

Therefore, your property is most likely to be intrinsically linked with your genetic ancestors : p

You’re Probably Right, after all I do get some Brits @ LivingDNA. [emoji4]