Why am I only related to 120 genetic ancestors? | Genetic Genealogy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- You are only genetically related to 120 ancestors. While we may have 3 billion 30th great-grandparents, why are we only genetically related to 120 of them?
👨🏫 Genetic Genealogy 120 ancestors Follow Up 👉🏼 • Why are you related to...
Get ready to see how science and probability narrow down whose DNA you may have inherited.
----------------
CONTINUE LEARNING
📺 You Have Fewer Ancestors Than You Think • You Have Fewer Ancesto...
📺 DNA Ethnicity Results Aren't What You Think • DNA Ethnicity Results ...
↪️ Grab your FREE genealogy research guides and templates at www.familyhistoryfanatics.com...
⚡ Want to climb your family tree faster? Join our membership program.
/ @familyhistoryfanatics
📗 Like to read? Check out these books
www.familyhistoryfanatics.com...
----------------
CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
01:18 The Limits of Our DNA
01:28 Total Length of DNA
03:44 How many Ancestors for 10 million?
04:32 The Functional Limit of DNA
04:49 The Upper Limit of Genes
----------------
✅ Let's connect:
✔️ Subscribe for more genealogy tips: tinyurl.com/FHFanaticsRUclips.
✔️ Website: www.familyhistoryfanatics.com
✔️ Share Video Ideas: www.familyhistoryfanatics.com...
#FamilyHistoryFanatics #geneticgenealogy #DNAResults
![How Far Back is 3% Ethnicity? [Part 2] Multiple Ancestors In Result](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gThnugZcEUc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
This even explains why I don't share as much DNA as I would expect with people who I know through documents are related to me through my great-great-grandfather. Thanks for the explanation.
You're welcome. Glad I could help.
You should probably say we have around 120 ancestors that inherit us distinctive polymorphisms. Because you _are_ genetically related to all those ancestors you mentioned. Because that 99.5% similar genes _actually came from_ all of those ancestors. But that 120 or so gave us the distinctive ones.
Also, I'd appreciate if I could see a reference for the computational model you mentioned that gave that number.
Thanks a lot.
No, we inherit all of our DNA from that 120 ancestors (or there abouts). We certainly inherit the polymorphisms from them, but since DNA doesn't recombine in completely random fashion, for every polymorphism there is a large chunk of DNA on either side of that polymorphism that we inherited from the same ancestor.
Here are links to three computational model descriptions. The first two put the number in the low thousands (but their model also doesn't account for the possibility of there being a plateau), while the third puts it at 120. These models are based on the recombination hotspots that have been found (which take out a lot of the randomness of the recombination). All of them agree though that the number of genetic ancestors in any generation is far less than the 25,000 based on number of genes.
burtleburtle.net/bob/future/ancestors.html
gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/
web.archive.org/web/20120401070048/www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/11/how-many-ancestors-share-our-dna/
wow so you basically are repeating a totally low ball estimate for personal gain. The only reason you would push this theory is to make paper records more credible. Which is total nonsense because of how many mothers lie about who the fathers of their children are and how many people are adopted and never know it. They don't believe there would be a ridiculous plateua like you suggest and it defies logic. Human beings would not retain as many atavistic traits if your theory was correct. You preach these theories as truth but they are not accepted facts and your are being very disingenuous
Family History Fanatics The traits of any one of those 120 were inherited from their parents, and so you are genetically related to those parents, too. And if that parent's parent also shared that trait, then you are also genetically related to that person, too. Your 120 figure low-balls the number because it says you don't (typically) need to go back any further than 120 persons to locate all the required ingredients to make you. So much may be true. But your figure is excluding other generations through which your genes were derived in the first place. For example, you may have blue eyes and may only have to go back one generation to find all the persons necessary to produce this result in you. But there may have been a thousand-year long succession of people also carrying this trait. You are genetically related to all of these... Nobody would say that they are not genetically related to their great-grandfather simply because their mother also shared the same trait. But your figure does exactly this... If a person need look no further than his mother to find a given gene, then all previous generations also happening to share this same gene are supposedly excluded from being 'genetically related'. To put this another way- Notwithstanding mutations, every gene you carry has been carried within humankind's genetic pool from antiquity. You are genetically related to any of these people who also transmitted any of these genes to those forebears who transmitted them to you... even if it is not necessary to search that far back in order to find the full roster of your set of genes. You are certainly genetically related to far more than those 120 persons.
Family History Fanatics It is not the genes themselves that make us different, it is the other sequences in the genome that controlls when those genes are switched on and off. So while there may be 25000 genes or whatever, there are vastly more combinations than that when it comes to making an individual.
@@Giant_Meteor wow...an actual enlightened thread on a genealogy video. My question is, how often are atoms replaced in these genes?
I totally was able to follow completely everything that you said, thank you very much-you cleared up so many questions that I wouldn't have asked nor thought to asked!!!
You're welcome
Thank youMr Andy Lee,that was very well explained.i understand DNA and bit more now.
You are the best! Thank you! God bless and Merry Christmas to you and yours! 🎄🤩🙏🏼🤗🎉
Thanks Pamela
This vid deserves a standing O. Nice job. Even the comment section is good. I have searched for these things in genealogy and no one seems to be able to explain them at all. Like nothing. I think FHF should make a follow up video and talk about the concerns in the comments. You guys would be on the cutting edge.
I have done several videos on this topic and just recently did a livestream. I never realized it would be as popular and get people's passions up as much as it has.
120...This is exactly the question I was asking today with my limited understanding of DNA,... and you are the first out of a dozen sites to provide an answer. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.
I am so glad you found my answer than. Always happy to help.
Well done. Helped me understand what you meant and how you determined that number. Thanks
Your welcome. It is something that throws people for a loop and if you have read the comments, many believe that I must be smoking something.
I discovered the same thing very recently when I queried the people at my DNA testing company about my results. Fascinating stuff!
It is, I am excited that hopefully in my lifetime, we will have enough generations tested so that we can see people dropping off of our DNA relationships.
Awesome vídeo! Thanks a lot!
You bet!
Considering the fact that of those "billions" of ancestors, and the population was far less than billions at that time, many of those ancestors are repeated over and over again. In other words, the same ancestor is found in many multiple lines. Therefore, for example, if an ancestor from 1400 is repeated twenty or thirty times, do we then carry DNA from that person?
In my Charlemagne video I talk about this. Millions is still a lot more than 120. So while your chances of carrying DNA from that specific person are greater, in a mathematical sense, 120/billions is only slightly less than 120/millions.
Nicely explained, I understand it now😀
That's 1 out of 30,000 so I'll count it as a victory!
Brilliant explanation!
Glad you liked it!
that is a really good explanation
Your a gifted teacher no doubt.thank you
You're welcome.
This is amazing, thank you. Also, my question is, I took some time ago the 23andme test and I got a very curious thing back: I'm 0.7% Sardinian ( or so the site claims ). Not my brother or my grandmother ( both took the test ) share this, so it's possible that some DNA traits can skip generations and lie dormant? Thanks in advance and thanks for the vid
First, watch this video about DNA inheritance to understand why DNA can disappear from your lines. ruclips.net/video/rMBooDoB2Wk/видео.html
Second, watch this video playlist about ethnicity ruclips.net/p/PLcVx-GSCjcdlvwsLScE4NPKwGA-XUNhhM
Once you have watched those, I think you'll have the answers you seek.
Thank you
What happens if back to the 120 direct decedent's you find common individuals? Would that strengthen a particular gene that is passed and adjust your percentages in your genetic makeup?
If I'm understanding your question correctly, you're question about common individuals is what we call either tree collapse or endogamy. Check out this video next to see if it answers your question. ruclips.net/video/Wlq_a-gdf9k/видео.html
Sir, I'm the thirteenth generation in the direct male line will some of my DNA still match gen. 1 ? Thank you.
Your Y DNA definitely will since you are through a direct male line. But it is unlikely (but not impossible) that your direct male line passed down any autosomal DNA to you.
Thank you very much for that quick reply and all your videos I just discovered yesterday, I look forward to watching them all.
I want to know how is this related to enrichment of different ethnicities from a mixed population. For example if 2 different ethnicities mix up. How many years will go before we get something similar to the 2 old ethnicities back.
Probably never. When you mix red and blue food coloring in water you get purple. It may take a few seconds, while you have a variety of shades of blue, red and purple - but eventually you get purple. At that point, no amount of mixing will ever get you back to blue and red.
I think I got it, very well explained! So interesting. As a visual person it's sometimes hard to follow things that do not have charts, but this was cool. Not too many numbers only shown. :D
I need to make a visual to show this.
Although you clearly state at the beginning of this video that it's 120 individuals _in any given generation_ I think a lot of people are mistaking this for 120 individuals _in total_. As I understand it (and please correct me if _I_ am wrong) it means you're genetically related to 120 of your 128 5th great grandparents; but also to 120 of your 256 6th great grandparents, 120 of your 512 7th great grandparents, and so on ad infinitum.
You are correct (although the 120 number is fuzzy, it may be only 94 of your 128 5th great grandparents, and 101 of your 256...).
This is why it’s hard to find helpful DNA relatives on services like Ancestry. It’s like the proverbial needle in a haystack. Good, informative video.
Correct
Wow! This was crystal clear for me. I knew that autosomal testing goes back roughly 8 generations AND that I'm not genetically related to every ancestor in those 8 generations. The 120 is new information for me. Fascinating!!! Thank you SO much!!!
Glad I could help.
Is it possible to inherit autosomal DNA from a 15th or 16th century ancestor?
It's possible. Check out this video which discusses how long my DNA has remained unchanged. It offers some insight. ruclips.net/video/8Xk_Z7jPHQ4/видео.html
Thanks cousin
Really, we're cousins?
Thanks for the vid - can I clarify ... does the 120 ancestors mean direct ancestors? Can I then have a DNA match to numerous thousands of cousins as well?
Yes. Direct ancestors. The cousins can be numerous thousands.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics
But you can gate 126 direct ansestors in only 7th generation
Hmmm as you say, 120 applies when you are talking about autosomal DNA but as the Y chromosome is effectively a fossil, I don't think you can treat it in the same way. My Y chromosome is not so very different from my male line ancestor in 1000AD.
You are correct. Which is why Y-DNA testing is great for looking at potential ancestors from long ago before records existed.
No worries. I have found Y-DNA tests most useful in tracing ancestry connected with my surname. They are specific and diagnostic in a way that autosomal tests are not.
I have found relatives named MacDuff, McDuff and Duff all of whom share a common male ancestor with me within 14 generations (approx since 1670) I have also established that our common male ancestor lived in the Strathbraan valley in Perthshire, Scotland. Up until I did the Y-DNA test I suspected but could not prove that my ancestors came from Perthshire. The DNA results are on the webpage www.macduff.net.au It also includes McDuffies and McFies who turn out not to be related.
Roderick macDuff- Hee hee. I couldn't help noticing the similarity in our You Tube handles :-). I created mine as a combination of my father's surname "MacPherson" and my husband's surname "Duff". However, my husband's family claim to be from Ireland.I suspect that they were originally Highland Scotts who dropped the "Mac" and migrated to Ireland before coming to America. Eventually I'll study his tree
Is Ancestry the only website that displays a location map of our ancestors?
MyHeritage also has a map. Since MyHeritage and Ancestry have tree building capabilities along with them, it makes sense that they could integrate this feature.
Would my daughter be related to the same ancestors I am genetically related to or might she be related to different ancestors in my line?
She'll be related to the same ancestors from your line for the DNA you share. She'll also be related to her father's ancestors. If you and her father have family lines that cross, then she could pick up DNA from your common line with your husband that he inherited but you didn't.
Amazing explanation..
my granddad passed away few years back, can you do a DNA test of his using his hat 🎩 ?
So we don’t miss a generations worth of DNA 😢
When he was alive I would often talk to him about it but perhaps we didn’t care much to get him tested a few years back.
And if I am indeed able to get his dna code then will it mean I have a better probability of finding my cousins and relatives using his dna?
Artifact testing (getting DNA from your grandpa's hat) is a new technology and has not been shown to be effective in DNA matching (mainly because much less DNA is recovered). It is also quite expensive. If you want to try and you have the money, it wouldn't hurt to try.
how do you come up with your numbers, if the ...parents of an individual double with every previous generation?
I'll be doing a livestream next month where I talk about this in detail.
Family History Fanatics Yes I thought every 10 generations =multiply by 1000. 20G=1 million, 30G=1 billion, 40g=1 trillion, etc etc...
Do you know how far back in generations we can actually inherit DNA from out of those 120? For example could one of those 120 be my 20th GGf?
It could, but it would be very difficult to prove since you'd need many generations of DNA between you and that 20th GGF to validate the genetic line.
You might like to watch this video about unchanged DNA segments to address your question.
How Far Back Can A DNA Segment Remain Unchanged in Genetic Genealogy? ruclips.net/video/s3TtH_1KAwU/видео.html
Uhhh - 30th generation contains 2^30, or 1, 073,741,824 possible distinct people. The sum total of all generations through the 30th is twice that minus 1, or 2,147,483,647, half of which are the genetic product of the other half.
I had some quibbles about the assignment of whole genes to individual ancestors. You quelled that (for the moment) with your mention of hotspots where recombination occurs; this is the first I've heard of such (you have to excuse me; I'm just an engineer). Questions popup: do the hotspots preferrentially avoid genes? How specific are they (I assume their locations are statistical, with mean and variance)? Etc. A reference would certainy be appreciated.
I don't know if any hotspots were located inside actual genes. Since only 3% of the genome is genes and there are some 40,000 hotspots it seems somewhat likely. I haven't read how specific they are but I doubt it is down to a single letter, probably more like certain sequences of non-coding DNA (which would mostly preclude them being in genes).
Hi
120 people works out to be roughly the level of one's great great great great great grandparents. But all things being equal what is the typical distribution of that dna? In other words, on average, how many of my 128 great great great great great grandparents do I inherit dna from and how many do I not? I realise that this will vary but I assume that dna will tend to clump along particular lines.
Thanks Peter
Check out the video on the computer model I made to simulate it. ruclips.net/video/nlmK0X3I1Lo/видео.html
How do you calculate when your ancestors repeat several times? As in ancestors constantly marrying relatives...
The problem with counting DNA is that even though you may be related to someone multiple times, you probably did not receive DNA from them in each line. So in that case you have to match up your DNA segments with matches who (hopefully) are only related to that ancestor in one way.
Does the 120 people apply to a males paternal line though? I guess to explain, the Y info passed down happens regardless? Or am I confusing terms?
120 doesn't have anything to do with Y chromosome.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thanks! I recently ran my raw dna through Morley and ended up with R1b1a2a1a2b1.
Very informative video thank you now so I get this right each generation I'm related to 120 people in other words you have 64 fourth greats 128 fifth greats so I would be related to a hundred of the hundred twenty eight and then the next Generation back I would be related to 120 of the 256 am I getting this right?
Yes, genetically speaking. Genealogically, you could still be related to 256 if they're all different individuals. My wife has 'tree collapse' that far out, so she has fewer than 256 ancestors.
in that generation.
If I am related to 120 ancestors does that mean I am related to 60 ancestors from my mother's recent ancestors and 60 ancestors from my father's recent ancestors ? Does that also mean that I inherited from 30 ancestors from each of my 4 grandparents ? I calculated back with 20 as an average age to have a child and got 120 ancestors around 1850 AD. In previous generations they married in their teens so it could be even earlier than 1850.
That is roughly correct. Basically, think of the 120 ancestors as being in any generation. So 7th generation you are related to 128 people but only have DNA from about 120 of them. 8th generation you have 256 ancestors but still are only related to roughly 120 ancestors (maybe a couple more than the previous generation.
As to the question about equal distribution between grandparents, on a large population level yes. But when we get down to you individually, probably not evenly. It could be. But it is probably close (i.e. 25, 27, 33, 35 or maybe even 20, 20, 40, 40). It all depends on how much DNA you actually received from each grandparent. 25% is the average, but it could be anywhere as low as 18% or as high as 32%.
But any Neanderthals in my ancestors would be about 2000 generations away, so how can their DNA be detected in ours? Yet it is.
I think you are genetically related only 120 recent ancestors. But you are genealogically related to ancient Neanderthals. see >7:28
You mean later than 1850. If they married in their teens.
I find more cousins matching DNA to some ancestors than others. Example: I have 20+ cousins matching through lines of 3 great grandparents X and Y, and 0 cousins matching through lines of 3 great grandparents A and B. Why?
There are a couple of possibilities.
1. The DNA matches from grandparents A&B are not in the same company as you are (or have made their DNA private).
2. The DNA matches from grandparents A&B have not been tested.
3. You're struggling with the case of small families. I talk about that here. ruclips.net/video/pJDjHg13QgI/видео.html
The arithmatic is persuasive.
However, at mytrueancestry I have actual DNA matches to recovered DNA from archaeological finds, in fact closer identical matches than the popular ancestry websites.
This is because we inherit chunks of DNA, not a shuffle of discreet numbers of smallest units of DNA possible spelled out in four letters.
Not sure I agree with the accuracy of My True Ancestry results
Fascinating. So as it all depends on which half of each parent's DNA we get, it's not a quarter from each grandparent or an eighth from each gret grandparent, so it gets skewed towards DNA from particular lines and others we get less and less from. This made sense after watching the one about how different relatives can share a percentage of DNA that is in a range not an exact amount, and the range of % values can go down to zero after very few generations. I think that makes us "not really related to that line of the family", which might lead us to believe someone somewhere was illegitimate or adopted, whereas the relatonship may be real but the DNA diminished faster over the generations on that side!
Even so I still think the average amount of DNA we get from all the ancestors on a certain generation should still work out as a power of 1/2, and still half of it on maternal and half on paternal side.
For distant relations, you can not share DNA and still be genealogically related. However, if close relatives (parent/child/siblings, first cousins), if you do not share DNA with a person, you're not related in these relationships.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Yes obviously if the minumum you could share with some relation is not zero then if it's actually zero someone's not someone's biological parent somewhere... and there could be an ineresting family mystery to solve.
How about the X chromosome? How far back do your matches match you from? Eve? Billions, Millions or is it also only from the generations back to 120 ancestors? When you match both autosomal and X same person, can that be the same 120?
Check out my video about X DNA tests. That should help answer part of your question. ruclips.net/video/Cl2pJrLwbVU/видео.html
How does it work if the family married among cousins for many centuries ? It was common in the past .
Say more about the 120 dna related individuals pls. Thanks.
I did in these follow-up videos:
ruclips.net/video/0ewaGF90hQE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/nlmK0X3I1Lo/видео.html
Which Test company would you recommend for connection of unknown family members and or family history?
All of them (as in test with all of them or get in their databases through transfer). Each company has a different database and you don't know which one has your relatives.
So the 120 is an approximate best guess of an average figure to be used as a general guide, rather than a hard fact that every single person matches perfectly in every generation? The upper limits being reduced from 3,000,000,000 to 10,000,000 to 25,000 all make perfect sense to me and all appear to essentially be hard facts (with the caveat that the exact numbers will very from one person's genome to another but be in broadly the same ball park), but that last jump to 120 sounds to me like it might be a rather more conjectural figure, and subject to much greater variation from individual to individual.
Absolutely it changes from person to person and I have seen computer simulations that put it as high as 250. The overall point remains the same, the further back in time you go, there are less and less of your ancestors that you are genetically related to. Since we haven't had DNA analysis until the last couple of decades, we don't have hard data to show the 120 number correct or not, which I point out in the last part of the video. Another 100 years of testing (4 more generations, will provide hard evidence whether that computer modeling based on recombination hot spots is correct.
I was thinking the same thing. He was going well until the final jump to 120, which he didn't explain at all.
Hi am i related with my all greatgreat-grandparents did i inherited my DNA all of them?
You mostly inherited DNA from all of them but not all of their DNA was passed down.
My DNA is Iberian Peninsula. My paper trail and family show my lineage. I am 75% Iberian. It's nice to know this. Most of my family married their first or second cousins.
Validation is always a very good thing.
My question is this: Do we in fact inherit autosomal DNA from many millions of ancestors, but the testing and sequencing technology currently available can only meaningfully identify aprroximately 120 of them? Will advanced whole genome sequencing be able to detect autosomal DNA from ancestors 30 generations back?
Autosomal DNA won't reach that far back into antiquity. It reaches back to your 5th great-grandparents but not all of them.
Thought provoking video, but where did the 120 ancestors get their dna from?????
Genetically, their ancestors, but the point is you're likely not going to be able to confidently identify who they are through DNA sources alone.
There are two reasons why one is only genetically linked to 254 other individuals.
The first is because the biological reproductive process is an evolutionary process that is a constant moving window forward with each new generation making a uniquely distinct individual with each generation.
In making a new human (dna code) the reproductive process goes through two steps. A person has 46 chromosomes. Half of the chromosomes one gets are from each parent when the sperm fertilizes the egg.
The second step is recombination cross over or segmentation, where a new dna code = 2 ^23 making 8 million possible combinations of a new individual. This is why siblings only share 50% of their dna code with each other.
The second is because it take two to make one where a child is from two parents, therefore only gets 1/2 of their dna from each parent. One is only 50% genetically related to each parent from the start and with each generation back, one loses access to 50% of each generation back. It only takes seven generations to have no access to any of the genes of one's ancestors starting with 50% of parents, 25% grandparents, 12.5 great grandparents, 3.125 gggparents, 1.5% ggggparents.
It is due to the geometric progression of the power of 2.
Two to the seventh power = 128 lines 254 individuals.
.
Stephen Wadsworth ok now I actually get it. Thanks for the breakdown.
256
Actually, that makes no sense. No matter how often you divide by 2, you will never end up with zero. So there are little bits of our most ancient ancestors in us. Also, even if we only carried the DNA of 128 or 256 people, we'd still be genetically related to their ancestors, because those 256 people got those traits from somewhere (or rather: someone) before they could pass them on to us. Each and every trait of ours dates back to our most ancient ancestors, and we wouldn't have it, if it weren't for them. What this guy should have said, is that we only need to go back 7 generations to find all of our traits.
@@TheJenniferKK *That was what I was thinking! -- sort of a daisy-chaining effect!*
That's more math than many would appreciate.
Awww, now I need to know if I am related to anybody cool for the past 120 ancestors
Inevitably in some generation, you will be related to someone cool. With all of the cool people in history, you are bound to share DNA with at least one of them.
I was puzzled when you said in response to a comment, "It's not 120 of your most recent ancestors, it's 120 ancestors in any given generation." Do I not carry the DNA of the 120 ancestors who precede me back to the 7th generation?
Think of it in terms of grandparents. In the 7th generation, you have 128 6th great grandparents, but you only have DNA from about 120 of them. 8 of them could have been anyone else and you still would have the same genetic makeup. Go back one more generation to the 8th, and you have 256 7th great grandparents, but still only have DNA from about 120 of them. Statically and with computer modeling, you can see grandparents start to drop off (i.e. no inherited DNA) in the 5th generation some of the time, but usually in the 6th and 7th generation.
So, the way you are saying it, yeah, you probably have some DNA from everyone in the 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st generation (which is 126 people), but you don't have DNA from all 128 of the 7th generation. This is a tricky thing to understand, so probably need to find a better way to explain it for people.
Thanks. It’s clear to me now what you were trying to say in your original comment. I really enjoy your videos and they have been a great help to me in understanding the import of DNA testing.
Hmm, some things to keep in perspective. As you've said, 99.5 - 99.8 of our DNA genome is identical. I share the same patterns with a young girl in Lesotho and an old man in Siberia with whom, apparently, our families wouldn't have overlapped ancestry, in tens of thousands of years.
Yet none of that 99.8% of my genome are unique markers that you would be able to pinpoint to a particular ancestor and say "they gave you this particular nucleotide segment", or, "No, there can only be 120 ancestors in a generation you're linked to - it is provable nothing, not one allele, in your genome was inherited through time to GGGGGGGGGgrandfather Antoninus". We can't presume those non-distinctive nucleotide segments all tag along with an identifiable genetic marker that is identifiable in another ancestor.
Also, assuming a perfect distribution of our genetic markers, we only share 6.25 percent of our nucleotide with a great-great grandparent, and once you go back eight generations, it would fall to about 0.3 percent - trace amount in the 6th, 7th and 8th generations or more that in theory would line up evenly with their genes if entirely, perfectly mapped.
DNA is still fairly new, and there are a lot of assumptions we've drawn until we understand more. While it's reasonable to conclude through the computer models we only display the genetic markers of about 120 ancestors in a given generation, it's another leap to say we only contain the genes of 120 or so ancestors. How much of our nucleotide is residual building-block material from other ancestors? How much during uneven recombining were trace alleles from one passed on to another as a mutation or replaced a portion of the sequence, but just doesn't show up distinct enough to trigger a DNA match in our recent testing methods? And in commercial testing, how thorough or accurate is the process? It's only come to market this decade and there's been some pretty big re-interpretations of the data. It's new, a young science. And commercially, they're looking for distinct markers - but at a commercial level of operability. I doubt DNA testing companies are comparing in detail particular results outside of the target markers they're looking for: it's too expensive, perhaps impossible to complete, and anyway their marketed results *meet* the demand.
Two key points I try to get people to understand with this topic. 1) You don't share DNA with all of your ancestors. 2) Your genetic tree is not the same as your genealogy tree (this is an outgrowth of 1)
Yes excellent point: DNA science is new. There are facets we don’t completely understand yet.
The numbers are fascinating, but one factor was not included : genetic crossover. Over the centuries, especially in geographically isolated population, there would have to have been some genetic crossover. That would decrease the numbers quite a bit. But the number in for or five generations should be unchanged. How would know if your partner is your 7th or 8th cousin, or more distant?
Are you referring to endogamy or something else when you say genetic crossover? Crossover is also used as a synonym for recombination in the meiosis process, but I don't think that is what you are referring to.
I don't know the actual terminology, but I am talking about two people creating offspring who are separated by multiple generations.
I would think that would be more common the further back in time you look for many populations. Especially if there are little or no records of ancestry.
So like 2nd or 3rd cousins having children. That is related to endogamy. If it is a closely related within 3 or 4 generations, you might see full match segments pop up from double relationships. The other thing you would see is more DNA sharing than expected (i.e. 6th cousins sharing the same amount of DNA as 4th or 5th cousins), however, since the range of possible sharing is pretty wide at this relationship, you would need several instances and some paper documentation showing at least one of the suspected relationships.
I only have one question - are the ethnicity results on my DNA test only from my past 120 ancestors because that is all they can trace?
Of course. Which is why the ethnicity results of siblings will be very similar but slightly different. You share most of those 120 ancestors in common, but not all of them.
Family History Fanatics Thank you very much for getting back to me I really appreciate it
Just to clarify, you DO have DNA from generations further back than great x 5 grandparents, you just are related to an ever dwindling proportion of them in each generation as you go back in the generations.
Even if we only carry the DNA of 128 or 256 people, we're still genetically related to their ancestors, because those 256 people got those traits from somewhere (or rather: someone) before they could pass them on to us. Each and every trait of ours dates back to our most ancient ancestors, and we wouldn't have it, if it weren't for them. What this guy should have said instead, is that we only need to go back 7 generations to find all of our traits.
That is one way of looking at it.
"We are related to only 120 ancestors in 'any given generation.' The 'in any given generation' has me puzzled. We hit 128 ancestors at the 5th great grandparents level. Are you saying we are related to only 120 of THOSE 128 ancestors? Thank you!
At the 5th great-grandparents level, you have about a 5% chance of inheriting zero DNA from a specific individual. So in practice that ends up being that on average, the typical person is only related to 121 of those (assuming there was no endogamy). I'm assuming that FHF has either simplified or used slightly different assumptions to reach 120 but it's the same explanation.
At the 6th great-grandparents level - since we know we inherited DNA from 120 5th great-grandparents, and that DNA must have come from somewhere, we must have inherited DNA from at least 120 6th great-grandparents. The average for that generation is probably closer to 210 (18% chance of inheriting zero DNA from a specific individual).
My information on this comes from a 1983 statistical study by Kevin Donnelly - since things have progressed quite a bit since then, I wouldn't be surprised if FHF had more recent and more accurate data he was consulting. I think 120 is a bit of a lower limit when it comes to generations beyond 5th great-grandparents, since we have a very high chance of being related to about 120 people in that generation and if we're related to 120 people in a given generation then we must necessarily be related to 120 people in every preceding generation (since if we have a gene from our 5th great-grandfather, he must have inherited that from one of his parents, who inherited it from one of their parents, and so on) - it is possible to be related to more than 120 people in the 6th great-grandparent generation and beyond, for example.
Yes, that's correct, to an extent.
After the 9th generation, you will likely have the genetics of only 120 of the 256 ancestors.
The 'math' of 120 becomes more complicated if any of those ancestors are the same person because their offspring appears in a previous generation. If you've heard of pedigree collapse or endogamy, that's what I mean. ruclips.net/video/Wlq_a-gdf9k/видео.html
So what happens if one has many ancestors that are repeated? Like relatives marrying each other. Do I still have 120?
Excellent question. Short answer, it depends on how recently all the marrying was and how extensive it was. If it is recent (say, the last 8 generations), then you probably are related to less than the average people in any given generation because you are related to some of them twice (or more).
If this happened a long time ago, say 15 generations or more, you have so many potential ancestors that it is probable that you aren't genetically related to any of your relative marrying ancestors. Between 10 and 15 generations, you might have inherited DNA from them (in multiple ways) but because of the randomness of how DNA is passed down, you wouldn't be able to tell.
The above precludes endogamous populations. When a relative small group of people intermarried within that small group over several generations, the DNA looks different. You appear much more related, say 3rd cousins instead of 6th or 7th cousins, because so much of your DNA is in common with everyone else in that population.
I am from an endogamous population. I am from Paraguay; colonial Paraguay.
Finally, this ignores the 150 or so random mutations which occur at every generational step. You might think of that as inheritance from fate, rather than from parents). 150 is tiny compared to the billions of possibilities, yet it's what keeps any species ahead in its struggle.
i read a study that says there is 74 de novo mutations per generation.
Recombination is more complicated than many can understand, which is why I try to speak to my audience's level of understanding.
What is your opinion about African Ancestry DNA company. Can an African ethnic group be traced to someone of the African Diaspora. Slavery was less than 500 years ago to date.
Sub-saharan African DNA will definitely show up. 23andMe recently completed an initiative to gain samples from several African countries to increase the accuracy of their reference population. I have not seen numbers yet, but some of the subregions of Africa as reported by 23andMe may be somewhat reliable.
Haplogroups thorugh paternal and maternal lines are also another way to trace limited African ancestry.
My daughter was born with arpkd and I am curious if I can ever find where this recessive gene came from. My parents both are 100% German from Germany. Now deceased.
If you find a 2nd or 3rd cousin who also has it (on both your maternal and paternal side), then that may lead you to the grandparent that was the carrier. Another way is by DNA painting, you may be able to figure out which grandparents contributed to that specific section of Chromosome 6.
Great video Andy.
However im kinda wondering, since i only have DNA from 120 of my most recent ancestors. I still have this DNA test that says im 35% great britain. Which in my mind means that the DNA has to be very recent since it is that high. But my family tree does not suggest that any of my ancestors are from great britain. Is it a fault in the test? im thinking maybe the tests arent good enough yet to tell your etnicity more accurately.
It's not 120 of your most recent ancestors. It's 120 ancestors in any given generation. So around the 7th generation you have 128 ancestors, 8 of them did not contribute to your DNA. In the 8th generation there are 256 ancestors but you are still only related to 120 of them (less than half).
The ethnicity tests aren't necessarily accurate. Check out my videos that explain that.
Yes. That is exactly what I calcuated too. Thanks.
Set of siblings marries another set of siblings to make double first cousins. If both of the double cousins marry two unrelated people, do the offspring become double second cousins?
Or are double second cousins only created when a set of first cousins marry another set of cousins?
It gets complicated. I would say yes they are double second cousins, but that is not the only way double second cousins could come about.
These "hot spots".. might that be why there is one particular cousin I've found who shares 0.25% DNA with my mom, myself and my child? This guy's family is from the same tiny village in Italy, we have a couple surnames in common.. I was hoping to narrow it down when I got my mom's results but we're all equally related across three generations. I wondered if perhaps there weren't genes that just "favor sticking together".
Yes, that is exactly why. That segment of your Mom's DNA is small enough and in relation to hotspots that it is unlikely to be further subdivided in your grandchildren. They will either get the segment, the same size as your mom, or they won't get it at all.
So basically if I traced my ancestory to king Henry or William the conquer I'm not related to them at all?
That is correct
A mother has two children from different fathers...this nakes them half as they share a mother....the half brother is related but not considered as his full brother therefore they fall in the catagory of ancestry dna which is the same as cousins.half niece etc is this correct...this ancestry range can these people get married technically
Dommage qu on ne puisse pas avoir des sous titres en français
Si je pouvais faire passer ma chaîne à 100 000 abonnés, cela pourrait être une possibilité.
But if two persons lets say someone from european descend would reproduce with someone from vietnamese descend, the total of ancestors would be much greater than 120 ancestors. Because those genes have been seperated for thousands of years, right?
Total ancestors for everyone would be greater. The problem is that DNA being passed down isn't perfectly divisible.
I have written and studied one family with over 3 000 cards of names from 1600's and understand what bottleneck of genealogy really means. I was amazing to realize how relatively small numbers (likely less than 5%) of people finally caused most of breeding and population increase. I really started to realize why in many communities soon half of population had same surname when we came to 1900's. Without vicars forcing people to change their names soon almost all would have had same surname.
On large population levels, about 80% of the people are ancestors of the people living 500 years later (in other words 20% of the people will have all of their descendants die out before 500 years is up). Bottlenecking can happen in smaller populations, particularly ones that have a religious or cultural tie that forbids them from marrying outside of the clan. 5% is extreme but could happen.
In some areas just that has happened ....most of the people with the same surnames.
For instance, in rural Wales we have so many people named Jones that they start being called Jones-the-Butcher, Jones-the-Blacksmith, Jones-the-Barber, etc.
Family History Fanatics What did the Black Death do to genetic diversity in Britain? What did the diseases from Europe do to the genetic diversity in the Americas?
@@653j521 well in Scotland it didn't affect it at all, as England was in quarantine so we pulled up.our chairs at the border and ate popcorn watching the show.
I am a phenotypical European. I have pale skin, brown hair and blue eyes. There is no hint of Asia in my appearance. So why is my DNA D-FGC6373 (a subgroup of D-M174) which is Japanese (query Jomon people). My more recent ancestry is British, Irish?
Probably for the same reason that Prince William and Prince Harry are also phenotypically European yet have a India haplogroup. Along their maternal line, 10 generations ago, there was an Indian. And that mtDNA has passed down through the generations.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Which also means that Prince Harry's son and daughter have a European appearance but will most likely have a West African mtDNA haplogroup by way of their mother Meghan Markle.
I can accept this as correct.
However I have to deal with uneducated people who find it hard to understand why brothers can have 52% of their DNA in common.
Genetics as a subject is difficult for those who have never tried to understand this subject.
Other - each person has to start "somewhere". One can only get better at this with some self effort.
Genetics isn't taught in public schools (where most people obtain their education) to a degree that DNA test results can be understood. So, i'm not surprised at their lack of understanding. That's why I make videos and hope to offer some nuggets of wisdom.
so 7 generations back you have 128 ancestors assuming no endogmy. We would assume this is where the drop outs would first show up moving backward in time. However given how recombination takes back why could it not start earlier. I have an ancestor only 5 generations back for whom I suspect I got zero DNA. 5 generations back is only 32. I know I have DNA from all the other 31 and so the next generation back I could have a max of 62. My question essentially is could the drop off to 120 be more gradual and not just six generations of doubling and then wham, you hit the wall of 120.
It absolutely can start sooner. I believe I touched on this a little in this video ruclips.net/video/rMBooDoB2Wk/видео.html
So a guy who lived 800 years ago could share some of my DNA and we could have looked almost exactly the same
Unlikely, but certainly in the realm of possibility. My parents recently returned from my great grandfather's ancestral home in England and had met someone who looked exactly like an uncle. However in comparing our family trees, he is at least 300 years removed from a common ancestor (so doubling that to go up and down the tree you have 600 years).
I couldn't avoid to laugh when Andy Lee claimed that 10.000.000 SNIPs = 10.000.000 ancestors. That's noncense.
Actually 10.000.000 would rather give 2 ** (10.000.000) different potential kombinations, and that is an extremely high amount.
Hes whole argumentation falls apart because of this misunderstanding.
So will those genetically related (up to about 120) show as the "dna match" people within my dna groups? I will say I was surprised that so few within the groups have that designation. Just recently tested my dna. Do most people on ancestry.com end up finding quite a few of these "dna match" relatives?
The DNA matches in your groups are the descendants of those 120 (which you also are descended from). People finding how DNA matches are related to them varies as peoples skill level with other genealogical tools differs. DNA by itself will rarely tell you how exactly you are related to others (except in close relationships - 1st cousins or closer).
You can pick any two people at random off the street, and, statistically, they're bound to be distantly related.
So can those two people who are barely related have the same DNA?
That doesn't say much for using DNA in criminal cases, does it?
While it's true that we statistically are descended from common ancestors the further back we climb the world's family tree. (In fact, we might be related to one of these 10 historical figures ruclips.net/video/svTnQKSaOGA/видео.html). We might share some small amount of DNA, but not a lot.
HOWEVER, in criminal cases, researchers are looking for exact matches to the suspect. It's a matter of matching all of your DNA.
Building a family tree for the suspect with genetic matches requires researchers to match the suspect's DNA to persons who have connected their DNA to a proven family tree.
When the suspect shares DNA with close relationships (1st cousins, 2nd cousins, half-nephews), then researchers can triangulate the DNA of the suspect's DNA with these matches.
Using tools like (What Are the Odds) ruclips.net/video/d6LxMH0zS54/видео.html, the researchers can then use the known matches and how they are related, based on their family tree, to the suspect's DNA and generate hypothesis of how the suspect fits into the family tree. Then they can do non-DNA research to develop a list of suspects based on these hypotheses.
I'm full Somali and can trace my through my father's lineage about 2,000 years easily. does this mean I am not related to any of them and they looked completely different from me???
Completely different is not the correct word but you might not have the DNA from a specific ancestor that many years back.
It's difficult to absorb but I think I kinda get it...lol!
Yeah!
So, genetic relation drops off after around your 4x great grandparents?
Absolutely. The further back you go, the smaller percentage of your ancestors share DNA with you.
I have a doubt. The DNA is always passed 50/50 from father/mother to the children. So logically I will always share DNA with every ancestor in one specific line, the DNA I have has to come from somewhere, if it comes from my father, I need to find out if it comes from their father/mother, and so on and so on.
I will always share something with the first ancestor in long long millennia ago that generated the DNA that I have right now correct?
This is kinda hard to explain in text!
Nope. Check out this video and then ask any follow-up questions you have. ruclips.net/video/cbASKiJu0ug/видео.html
We need charts.
Working on it.
So before 8 generations does that mean I'm related to every great great grandparent etc? And does that mean their ethnicity would definitely show up before the 8th generation?
No. The ethnicity out to that many great-grandparents will likely not show up for all 8th great-grandparents.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Oh, sorry I'm confused. So what about like a 3rd or 4th great grandparent? Is there a possibility we wouldn't share DNA?
So how far back is 120 ancestors ?
About 5th great-grandparents.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Thanks :)
If only 120 how can you have very small traces of DNA that you share with ancient ancestors? Such as the ancestors you are given through using My True Ancestry (MTA) or when uploading data to GEDMATCH.
Many DNA segments can remain unchanged across many generations. For an example, I did a little experiment with the DNA tests I have and explained it in this video. ruclips.net/video/8Xk_Z7jPHQ4/видео.html
This is just brief example of how small traces can remain unchanged. Which we can then extrapolate to meaning some segments (although small to be sure) can remain unchanged for many generations.
1) Is it possible that I didn't inherit ANY DNA from my great-great-grandparents? Two of them were Italians (they were married and they had my great-grandmother, then the line comes to my grandfather, then my father, then finally me). However my autosomal results do not show ANY percentange of my DNA cominng from the Italian peninsula. That was quite frustrating to me. I own their documents and their parents, grandparents and great-great-grandparentes were all Italians.
2) The same happened to another great-great-great-grandmother of mine, I expected to match with a distant cousin through her DNA but it did not happen. Now we're going to test my grandfather in order to make it possible (maybe??). We suppose my grandfather will have some of her genetic information (being her great-grandson), I do hope it.
3) As per your explanation, I was sure I'd have at least 5% of DNA from my ALL of great-great-grandparents, did I get it wrong?
4) I don't want to distrust all the women in my tree with all those weird results, if you know what I mean... :D Maybe it is just that have not completely understood how it all works.
Yes, you could have not inherited DNA from your 2x great-grandparents.
These two videos explain how
Understand How Genetic Inheritance Impacts Your DNA Test Results
ruclips.net/video/-f7VUPmgy2U/видео.html
Why You DON'T Have 25% of Grandma's Genes
ruclips.net/video/cbASKiJu0ug/видео.html
Watch those two videos and then let me know what questions you still have.
One step in reducing the number of ancestors from which we inherit DNA was in treating each of our genes as an indivisible unit. This does not reduce the number of genetic ancestors by a factor of 25,000, since our genes occupy less than 2% of our DNA. The other 98%, the so-called noncoding DNA, does vary between humans and is not subject to this reduction. Is there something I'm missing here?
DNA for all humans is more than 99% the same (even in the non coding regions). Beyond this there is the need to identify differences in relation to the fact that processing the DNA may introduce errors. Most companies use a threshhold of 500 SNPs and 7cM before they will identify a distinct segment. Since you have about 7000 cM, the most segments that any company could identify would be 1000, if it was all divided equally. BUT DNA doesn't divide equally, so segments smaller than 7cM will be lumped in with the adjacent segments so the maximum distinguishable ancestors is below 1000 (statistically below 500). I like to use 120 from a model that someone created because it is very low and makes people begin to think.
My great grandparents..both, came from Denmark, grandma had to learn English from grade school, and on my heritage,it doesn't show it .lol
I'm not quite sure that any genealogy company can provide that level of detail. I hope you'll include that information on online trees so others may know.
The question is is that 120 people on your mother's side and your father's side or is that a combine 120 people from both parents? Does than then break down to 60 people from each parent? That is the question which is never answered directly and specifically. If each parent contributes 120 people, then aren't we genetically related to 240 people?
Nope. Because some of those people that your mother and your father are related to genetically, they didn't pass that DNA on to you.
Isn't there genetic variability in ALL 3 billion? The DNA may serve the same purpose, but it is not without variability? If we did whole genome sequencing for individuals (which no one does yet) then there would be 3000 times as many sites for differences? Isn't the 120 figure based on testing and comparing far less than 1% of our DNA?
No, the vast majority of DNA is the exact same (99.9%).
ruclips.net/video/hcDhbK-OQgg/видео.html
It is the 0.1% that can vary. By definition a SNP is a a location that can be different. There are about 130 million identified SNPs (most of these are so rare to have a difference that they aren't ever looked at).
Also, there are several companies that do full genome sequencing (however since 99.9% of your sequence is the same as everyone else's, I haven't seen the value in doing it).
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics - Beg to differ. There are no companies that actually do whole genome sequencing. In fact, the very first non-individual whole genome was just completed quite recently, to much surprise, since it had been announced as a done deal 20 years ago. But it is more of a map than an actual genome - it does not represent a real person. Number of whole genome sequences of people = 0. The idea that 99.9% is identical refers not to actual genomes, but to function.
Good morning sir, I m from India , May I marry a girl who is Not related to me from More than 8th generations And lives in other City. There is chance of any genetic diseases in my child. Please suggest us.
Depending on the laws in your land and your relationship with the girl and her family, you can marry anyone you want. The only question becomes whether your off-spring will be negatively affected by the marriage. If you're further removed than 1st cousins, you could be fine.
Great video, but I am still a little confused by this. Since you are only genetically receiving unique traits from 120 individuals, how can things like hair color or skin color be passed down for thousands of years across hundreds of generations? The trait for red hair for example (a unique trait outside of the DNA shared between all humans) evolved thousands of years ago. If I have the trait for red hair, how was it transmitted to me if I only receive DNA from a few generations back, the remainder of the DNA beyond those few generations being only the DNA common to all humans? How can natural selection work within the human species over large time scales (for example the evolution of lactose tolerance with the advent of farming, another unique trait) if only 7 or so generations back the only DNA any individual shares with others is the same DNA all humans share?
I'm a little confused myself, but I think the issue in this situation is coming from how we define relation to another person. In modern parlance, a relative is someone who has a recent common ancestor shared with you. However, all Europeans are believed to share a common ancestor about 600 - 1000 years ago, this is even more recent for individual countries or ethnicities. We wouldn’t consider all European people to be “related” in a familial sense. So if you go back just 7-9 generations, ancestors in that group are getting close enough to a common ancestor shared with so many people that it is impossible to say they are “related.” The DNA that they share with you will be the characteristics of their larger population rather than unique features of the individual.....I'm not entirely sure though. Family History Fanatics, I think it is incorrect to say that you "do not have DNA from all ancestors beyond the 7th generation," because you are still sharing the traits of the larger ethnic subgroup with them (i.e. if you are Irish and an ancestor in the 13th generation back has red hair and you have red hair, you are still "sharing" this trait with that person, and it was inherited to you from the larger population), am I on the right track here?
Ok, that makes sense. Also, from what I have been able to take away from Family History Fanatics’ videos, you have a 120 people at EACH generation, so you still have unique familial traits shared with 120 people even at your most distant generations. Please correct me if I am wrong Family History Fanatics. This means that while you also share your larger ethnic DNA (i.e traits for hair or skin color common to the whole population) with almost every ancestor, you also share unique traits with 120 people in each generation. I suppose those 120 people that you share unique traits with also share their larger ethnic traits with the whole population and this is how they were inherited to you. This just means that you received DNA that was actually in the bodies of 120 people at each generation, this doesn’t mean that that DNA isn’t shared with other members of the population. Is this correct, Family History Fanatics?
Tristan, you are right, almost exactly. Brooke, you are right too (I think) mostly, kind of.
DNA is inherited from individuals. Populations may have many individuals that share common traits (like red hair) but rarely have all individuals sharing traits (particularly for those individuals living on the fringes). So, you inherited your red hair through some line (actually two lines) all the way back to the first person who had the red hair mutation (probably 10 or 20 thousand years ago). Your brother (or sister) may not have inherited even one red hair gene (unless both your parents had red hair) because they inherited blond hair through lines all the way back to the original blond haired person. Both of you share the same heritage, but because the 120 people in each generation you are related to are different (with about 50% overlap), you end up with different traits. So back to the red hair. 600 years ago a significant amount of Irish had red hair, but not all Irish had red hair, and not all redheads were Irish (interestingly enough, red hair is found in almost all populations of the world just not near as predominant as in Northern Europeans).
This is a real difficult topic to wrap one's head around because it flies in the face of typical genealogy where we are related to everyone on our tree.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful response! You definitely helped me clarify this concept. Your videos are incredible!
Let me try to grasp what you are saying. When you say 120 ancestors that is approximate number in any given generation not that every human only contains dna from only 120 other humans period? Therefore in say generation 10 you have dna from 120 ancestors and in generation 11 you have dna from another 120 ancestors etc. So everyone could have dna from hundreds if not thousands of ancestors of course remembering some of those are multiple ancestors?
Yes, that's correct, to an extent. The 'math' of 120 becomes more complicated if any of those ancestors are the same person because their offspring appears in a previous generation. If you've heard of pedigree collapse or endogamy, that's what I mean. ruclips.net/video/Wlq_a-gdf9k/видео.html
Then how can scientists say we have neanderthal in us? That was a long time ago before the 120 relatives
Though we received genes from less than 120 ancestors, those genes that we have received have been passed down for many generations back (they came from the past). Here he is making a distinction between genealogical ancestors who have actually contributed to our genome, and those who havent.
That's a very different analysis than close DNA matches.
We have 46 chromosomes. If I only have 120 genetic ancestors then you say the average chromosome split up in 2.6 spots each. What I've read other places suggests there are way more hot spots in a DNA-string than that.
There are about 40,000 hotspots, but in males the maximum number of recombinations is 4 in the longest chromosomes and in women it is 8.
wish you had a chart or a blackboard. Can't follow all your data.
Fair point. Granted, this is one of my earliest videos. I have since started using whiteboards and such to explain the concepts.
All right look I'ma make this question as simple as possible. Are you saying that instead of being a equal mix of our whole pool of ancestors we actually carry the genes of only a hundred and twenty of them?
Almost. 120 (give or take a few) in any generation. So of your 256 6th great grandparents, you only have genes from about 120 of them. For your 512 7th great grandparents, you only have genes from about 120 of them.
How do you explain this 120 ancestors in the light of the theory of evolution?
Not sure what you mean.
If you don't believe evolution, you are related to about 120 ancestors in any given generation back until there weren't 120 ancestors available (i.e. Noah or Adam and the several generations after them).
If you accept the theory of evolution, then you are still related to 120 ancestors in any given generation.
Evolution doesn't play a role other than that the mechanisms which drive evolution (genetic diversity) are also controlled by the recombination/crossover rates through the generations.
If there is a specific question you have related to evolution and genetics, please elaborate.
Are we still not related to the rest in the line, from the beginning too, like a who's who is, these people had him, his son's ect, where you go back, and see where, this line you began with, was related all the way back to the beginning.
Genealogically, you're related to anyone you can prove a relationship with (blood or marriage).
Genetically, no.
It's called market saturation, everyone who wants one has one so they discontinue the model .. natural selection
Not necessarily