@@ProfessionalGenealogistReactsNope. You still descend from them, you just didn't inherit any genetics from them. These two terms do NOT mean the same thing.
@@hbic3Who are you to define what someone else's neologism means 😅 it's clearly a novel nominal locution and it doesn't fall to you to define what it means
I thought the title of that video was misleading. We most certainly do descend from all our ancestors; it's just that we might not share DNA with them. Maybe I don't have any DNA segments that came from my 5th-great grandfather -- but if he had never been born and successfully fathered a child, I wouldn't exist. Words matter.
That's why in genealogy, we point out that each of us has two trees - the genealogical tree that you mention, and the genetic tree that the video discusses. You descend from all of your ancestors in a genealogical tree, but not in a genetic tree.
@@rettawhinnery I understand about the two trees. My quibble is with the use of "descend" in the title of the original video. Even if I don't share any genetic material with a long-ago ancestor, I still descend from that person. I would never have been born if that ancestor had never existed and had a child.
In all honesty, part of that decision is the original video title works quite well as click bait because it is purposely misleading, but I think it's a much bigger win to get more people to click, watch the video, and then understand what is truly meant. Especially since my focus is on genealogy and trying to help people understand DNA to help with genealogy. The original video discusses the topic quite well and I even say it in the video - even though you do actually descend from all of your ancestors, you just don't inherit DNA from all of them. I really don't see a negative.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't mind that the title of the original video is misleading, because it gets people to click on the video, and the actual content of the video is worthwhile and educational. That's a fair point, but the title of the original video still bugs me. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Your added explanations really helped clear this up for me. I've noticed with my sister & I, our shared matches vary quite a bit in cM. Back to the 3rd/4th ggp line I have a group that don't match her at all and vice-versa. I will have to compare with our 1st cousin who just tested.
No surprise. Some time ago I looked at dna from a significant number of sets of siblings and it is surprising how different they can be. In theory (sort of) you could have one sibling descended almost entirely from say paternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, whilst a second sibling could descend substantially from maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother.
because I am the youngest of the youngest of the youngest way back of large families. My 4 times great grandfather was born in 1758. My grandparents were all born in the 1800's. Mom side, 1890 and 1891, and on dads, 1894 and 1897
My family's generations run long, too, and my grandfathers were born in 1898 & 1896. My timeline is similar to yours. History is very close when generations are so long. My oldest 1st cousin was born in 1947, and I was in 1970. His kids were my age.
On my current case, the mother was only 13 when the child was born. In my family, my mother's dad was 57 when she was born, and she was 36 when I was born. So generations really vary.
Yep same in my family as some generations overlap due to adults having children in their 20s to 40s/50s. So my child who is 5, has cousins who are in their 20s and 30s due to the age gaps I have with my siblings.
It's true. In my own family I could relatively easy track down to my 3rd great grandparents (I think is the term in English). I have 64 of them. And I know the names of the 128 parents more or less from the next generation. But for date of births and other information there's administration from 1811 and onwards thanks to Napoleon. My 3 times great grandparents were born between 1770 and 1830 so quit a range. The people on my fathers side lived longer and less children died on that side simply because they had generational wealth with a farm so more of them survived. My moms side was poor. Multiple children and spouses died, there's a foundling on that side and they were seasonal workers. The records make clear that it was a hard life.
My Grandfather was 40 at marriage and 52 when My mom was born. Mom was 17 when I was born in 72. Now my Great Grandfather was born in 1882 90 years before me. Then again my first wife's father was born in 1917 like my Grandmother and grandfather on my dads side. His youngest Grand child was born in 2015 two months before he died. Still loved my father-in-law, even though he was Gestapo in WWII.
My Nan's paternal line great grandfather was born in 1786. My Nan is alive. there is an average of 50 years between the generations in her paternal line. She's the youngest child of the youngest child of the youngest child and hence there are huge generation gaps. Other Gr Grandchildren of my Nan's gr Grandfather died of old age before my Nan was even born. So agreed high potential for variation between generations
I watched this video before but I like it more with your reaction and comments, since I could understand some points better than when I watched the video without reaction. I hope you keep going with videos about genetic and DNA inheritance.
I think that would have been an interesting thing to include, especially to show how when an ancestor is your ancestor multiple ways, you will then be inheriting more DNA from them in total but in smaller segments than you would expect. As well, since the relation is through both Maternal and Paternal side, we would see segments of DNA on both pairs of the chromosomes. I imagine it was left out because that gets a bit more complicated and it's best to show the inheritance through a single line of descent.
@@Ponto-zv9vfGenetics does not work like that. This would only be true if we inherited 100% of our parents genes but we do not. No one inherits all their parents genes. We only inherit 50% and that 50% is random. Each child of a parent does not have the same genes as their siblings. This is why your sisters Heritage DNA can show Italian, for instance, but yours does not. You didn't inherit the "Italian." Genealogy DNA also determines your heritage DNA by comparing it to ALL of the other results from ALL of the other donors in their database. They often, also use uploaded family trees with verified information on location) birth or death place of certain ancestors. If an ancestor lived in Italy for 20 years, having children who had children, but they are so far back in the tree that genetic inheritance today is not possible, they'll say that person is Italian. But that original ancestor may have been born in Egypt, and their parents born in China, so unless there are enough people in the database with Chinese DNA to share some with the person whose grandparent was born in Italy, that person will never know they are Chinese, Not Italian.
I really enjoyed the extra commentary and ideas you added to the reaction. Lots of useful points and ways of looking at all this to do with DNA. I do have a caveat but maybe it gets too in the weeds, but I'll leave it here for consideration: Even though, at some point, we no longer receive contributions from direct ancestors, in a sense, through DNA shared at the population level across time, we would likely receive segments from them that they carried, in that indirect way, seeing as certain segments appear to become 'fixed' according to population groups. And this is in a way how ancient DNA is used to match up current day people to those samples. Anyway, a bit in the weeds. I really liked this episode, super interesting.
I think another way to look at what you are thinking (assuming I am understanding your consideration) is that as pedigree collapse happens in our tree, there will be certain ancestors who are represented as an ancestor more in our tree than others at that same generation. Those ancestors represented more have a higher chance of contributing to your DNA. So if your parents are 1st cousins, you technically still have 8 great-grandparents, it's just that one set of great-grandparents is represented twice in your tree and will contribute more DNA overall. So looking deeper, we have 1024 8th-great grandparents but let's say that 1 set of 8th-great grandparents are represented 10 times in your tree. That 1 set represented 10 times will have a much higher chance to contribute more DNA because there are 10 lines of descent, but what is inherited will be much smaller segments. As well, if any of our other 8th-great grandparents are related to this set that is represented 10 times, then they may have shared DNA with us but not because we inherit it from them but we instead inherited it from their cousins who are also our ancestors.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts That's a great example and way to write it out. Yes, that was one of my thoughts and you detailed it better I think. I also shared a 2nd case or idea, where current day people can share ancient DNA aside from haplogroups, just through their autosomal segments. At a population level, certain segments are ubiquitous today, across regions, coming from way back. An extreme example is FTDNA and their ancient DNA results, where they divide our percentages into Hunter-Gatherers; Early Farmers; and Yamnaya, as opposed to the familiar Autosomal categories. It's the same DNA, just using different naming conventions according to what time period they're viewing. Well, these certain ancient segments are shared between people coming from a geographic area, and they likewise are recombined, but testing and comparing old samples to modern people, the segments still exist in them today. So we'd also share these population wide segments with our very own direct ancestors in the past, but indirectly, because those segments, though recombined, are common across a population either way. I hope I wrote that in a way that does not botch up the concept.
Hi there! I would love to watch your reaction to a video NYTN did I think on AI estimating her geneology more correctly than the varied DNA test results she received. Hope you see this comment and find the video otherwise I will paste in the comments after watching you! Have a great day!
Brilliant video once again Jarrett. I truly appreciate and am thankful to you for helping me learn so much as well as giving me much to ponder on with each video you create. Kudos!
Genetics are so interesting!! I have been focusing more on document research and I'm stuck in the late 1700's. In some of my lineage, I'm almost certain that their parents were enslaved, hence why it has been so difficult finding their records. I loved your video. New sub ❤
According to 23 and Me, I'm carrying around some Neanderthal DNA. How is it possible to go back that far? I'm happy that I don't have heavy eyebrow ridges though.
Very interesting and makes sense! I don’t know if it’s covered in a different video but a video about the super old generic matches (such as Richard III or Cheddar man) made through mitochondrial DNA would be cool.
I find it interesting how the genes split up and the dna match differences between siblings. I have a lot of cousins my siblings aren't matched to. It seems that I got the dna from the hanky panky side of the family because I have matched to several people who were adopted and the result of affairs. This is on top of being French Canadian and my parents sharing several common ancestors makes trying to figure out my family tree a challenge.
Hi. If your parents have several common ancestors, it can be more of a family wreath than a family tree, similar to the royal families of Europe. 😊 The channels "Useful Charts" and Lindsay Holiday (sp?) have interesting vids on the royal families.
Yeah, noticed that during the napoleonic wars one of my foremothers managed to persuade her employer to take her and her daughter in, obviously claiming she was his. Somehow my grandmum has lots of french cousins, and when this was still a thing that Geneanet allowed to look into dna-matches family-trees, I noted that most of her dna-relatives featured the same family in their ancestry... well... the guy that passed by my foremother during the napoleonic wars was obviously not her employer...
As a genealogist for the past 40 years, it's weird to go back 10-15-20 generations and then see many of the same names. Out of my 10th great-grandparents, only 2 names are different. Pedigree implosion I have called it. At least on the lines I have found. Sure I am descended from Charlemagne and Julius Caesar and Cleopatra and most of the kings of Europe, but my dna says I am not British or French or Italian or Greek.....
I kind of like the UsefulCharts video by Matt Baker about how pretty much everybody with European ancestors descends from Charlemagne (Hi, cousins!). It is entertaining but not quite as scientific.
I think this is related, but the DNA test I got showed onés heritage from various places around the world and what percentage of my genetic make up came from those places. The majority was from places in Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and France, but it showed i had a very small amount from Finland. What was notable was that my brother who also got the test showed no heritage from Finland and at the time I couldn’t understand that because I thought we would have the exact same match, but as you point out, we don’t because some ancestor of mine had some Finn in him, and I got it, and my brother didn’t. He or she must’ve gone back a few generations.
Yeah, saw that, too, but I'd have definitively NOT chosen Charles's relationship to the Saxons as my poster-boys. He has a 'nice' pedigree collapse, his parents being cousins, his grandparents being cousins, his greatgrandparents being cousins... and that means, many of his ancestors have multiple chances to show up in his DNA. In his 5th to 6th generation CIII's ancestry folds inwards: Queen Victoria's participation is doubled, Victoria's grandparents also, so are the Danish- and the Hesse-Lines. For this demonstration he should have gone up the Bowes-Lyon-side, there it would be correct and disapper in 'some muddy european pond' with the perhaps 120 remaining SNP's we all share with the same Bulgarian or Czech Bronzeage-graves from 3000 - 1800 BCE. EDIT: I almost killed my Elanor-File, that has a 'rather' complete Tree of European Noble ancestry. After a 30 Minute hangup it had finished the math and drawn an ENORMOUS 2766x406cm Tree showing all the direct lines that led from Barbara Jagiello to Charles III: he's descended from Barbara Jagiello by 129 different lines
I have often wondered about testing DNA from the old rings that had strands of hair from dead relatives in them or the old art work that use to be made from hair of a relative.
The generation length aspect you mention also shows why King Charles is like many monarchs not a typical example, because of primogeniture. In the "royal" line, he/she will be the firstborn so to a firstborn son etc. Deeper in the past, it may shift from firstborn to the oldest surviving, but still, a monarch should have atypically short generation times.
I've toyed around with DNA Painter Coverage Estimator where it uses a descendancy tree and lets the user put in all the various identified/known DNA testers relative to a specific ancestor. Anway, toying with this I managed to so far achieve an estimated (actual not known of course) coverage of 91.2% of my 4th great grandfather's genotyped genome (meaning the portions examined in atDNA tests). I've also determined all the Y-DNA mutations he had (by Big Y testing branching descendants of different sons of his) and those he didn't have (by testing descendants of his uncles).
I heard a quote the other day that after ten generations, you don't share any DNA with your ancestors. Depending upon what constitutes a generation, 20, 25 or 30 years, we count back 200 to 300 years. This made sense on the surface but then I started thinking..... There is a village in England, Eyam, that "sacrificed" itself during bubonic plague in the 1600's. While the premise that they sacrificed themselves is problematic, DNA from that time is fascinating. Enough people have continued living in that area, that DNA of the people who survived the plague has been passed down to the present time. These people are immune to HIV and scientists are studying this phenomenon. And then we have the scientific claims that modern populations have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, sometimes as high as 3%. What the heck with these findings? Genealogy drives me crazy because there are too many moving parts to create the whole. My interest in this field is purely medical. If evolution favours success, if harmful traits are bred out, it seems successful genes will perpetuate through many generations. Surely the same successful genes are not so changed in less than a millennia, that they are not from a "shared" ancestor? Historians theorize that when times were really tough, people began consuming animal milk. Perhaps horse, goat and sheep in the beginning, moving up to bovine. People with the lactose intolerance gene did not fare as well as those who could digest milk and these people were at least partially less successful in life and reproduction. Therefore in a milk drinking society, lactose tolerant genetics became the majority. I do not think we can squelch that discussion by suggesting some ethnic groups, for instance indigenous populations of the Americas, never had access to animal milk. There are people with primarily European descent who are lactose intolerant. At one time it was loosely said that those of African descent were more likely to be lactose intolerant, yet there are the Masai who drink milk from cattle, mixed with blood from the same cows. Maybe the blood portion obliterates lactose intolerance or maybe evolution has favoured this group consuming bovine milk? I simply cannot sort out all of these factors in reference to no shared DNA from 10 or 30 generations ago. I see evolution as a race for successful survival, therefore I assume the most successful genes will perpetuate over many hundreds or thousands of years. And we could throw in epigenetics.....?
When my dad died, we took locks of his hair. I wonder if I could DNA it. My mom is 92 and aunt is 103 and both did their DNA. But my dad was the last of his siblings to die in 2004.....it would be nice to get his.
Hair does have dna. I don't think 23andMe have the technology to extract it. I don't think it matters. My parents are not dna tested but I have 1st cousin from my father's brother, and a 2nd cousin on my mother's side.
Talk about 'pedigree collapse' as he said it's called. No wonder Charles' sister looks so much like some earlier female relatives (collateral not lineal).
Pre watch query... are there not still clear delineations of direct anscestors when theyre being discussed? I used to understand three terms on this topic, direct ancestors(maternal and paternal heritage lines), familial ancestors(other relations) and ancestors(a general cultural or locational connection with which the familial ancestors are tied).
Apologies in advance if this is a silly question but if this is the case and we can only go back so far because previous ancestors didn't contribute really anything to our DNA then how are they able to tell that we may be related to ancient people. For example my DNA apparently links me to Cheddar man who lived a very long time ago, or even to certain people from the Viking age that have been discovered, when they compare their DNA to mine it is a match but these people lived back in roughly 800-900AD.
Given that "normal" genetic testing only uses a modest amount of one's genome do the observations cited in this video also apply to the normally untested balance? Specifically, if we were to test our complete genome would it reveal more contributing ancestors going back in time? I realise that ultimately the same effects apply even if there is an affirmative answer to those questions.
What would be a good service to use to do Y-chromosome testing to try an determine male lineage for someone from Wisconsin with Norwegian/Swedish heritage? Would think that the service with the largest database of a US/Scandinavian population would be the best.
A female line is more accurate than the male line and therefore is the true line. You can’t guarantee who fathered the child, but you can guarantee who the mother was in genetic genealogy.
I think because we, in the modern world, live in homogenized communities, even in big cities like NYC, pedigree collapse is possible to happen regardless whether it is intentional or not and we don't even think about it. GEDmatch has the "are your parents related" tool for this very reason.
I have been wanting to ask about mtDNA. I noticed that on WikiTree there is someone on my profile that is showing is a DNA match and when I look at how we are related, it is strictly material lines. It shows that his haplogroup is j1b2. I didn’t do mtDNA, but if we connect strictly with maternal lineage, would that be my haplogroup?
If the paper-trail is correct and you both share the same purely matrilineal line, then you would be the same haplogroup. If you test and it is not the same haplogroup, that is indicative of an NPE in your tree.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts I need to go back and see, but I am almost certain that it is. I have a cousin who specializes in DNA and is in charge of a few different Acadian surname projects on FTDNA and she has told me that she is confident about my mtDNA haplogroup and it was the same as the one that is on my profile as a match. The endogamy is rampant, we are related in like over 70 different paths. So as much as I would love to utilize chromosome painting, it seems impossible
You didn't link it in the video & Im having trouble determining which of your other videos you were referring to. That you mentioned having discussed something similar before.
If you see this I got a mystery that's several layers deep.... My Dad was conceived in Japan before my grandparents came stateside. GM is Japanese GP is American. Gp is AB Gm I can't remember at this point but for this it doesn't matter. Dad is O. Simple right? Except Dad has DNA matches with GP's maternal line and GP is the only boy in his family. This is also the only line Dad has any matches on cause know cousin's on GP paternal line haven't matched. How and where do I go to try to unravel this....😅
Very interesting! However, I didn't understand everything. For instance, if you are not descended from ancestors, say, about 400 years ago (there are so many that chances are you only got a tiny amount from each of them), then who are you descended from? That is, if ancestor K didn't contribute any genetic material, then ancestor M must have contributed twice as much.
The main point is that you will reach a point in your ancestry where only a small percentage of those ancestors are contributing to your DNA. At the18th-great grandparent level, there are over a million ancestors, so if you are only inheriting DNA from 1% of those ancestors, that is still 10,000 18th-great grandparents who are contributing to your DNA. You are correct with your last statement that part of this is due to some ancestors contributing more to your DNA than others. We even see this at the grandparent level, where people often inherit varying amounts of DNA from each grandparent (although an average of 25%).
This is interesting, because I have more DNA in common with my maternal grandmother and and my mother's second eldest sister (almost as much as with my grandmother), than what my sister does. However, if you look at the ethnicity elements, the arrangement of the DNA is interesting as my sister has higher percentages of certain markers on similar levels as these other two women. And examining further, my sister and I have higer percentages of other ethnicities than the other two, Others, my aunt and I have in common but my sister and grandmother either have or don't have. indicating that the rest come from my maternal grandfather, and our respective fathers. And I can kind of deduce what comes from my father and maternal grandfather. Of course, it helps that other members from these 3 generations on both sides have done tests. SegcM doesn't tell me much I don't already know. I put in info from a match in England just to check it. It actually puts the probability starting at 2nd cousin once removed. (which is not possible just because I know, and he is white European but at 0.2% probability), all the way up to 7th Cousin. Ancestry of course places it at 4th - 6th cousin. But therein lies the dilemma. I have a lot of family who have tested, so I know which branch it is from my side, but couldn't trace that line back into Europe (because I got lazy), He filled in the blanks the best he could. But I assume endogamy is the culprit and he is futher out than what the DNA would suggest.
The generations, like you said are not always 25 years, This relating to my father family shows this distinctly. My father's mother was 36, when my father was born in 1938, my older sister was born in 1962, my parents were married in the year before when my father was 22 and my mother was 19 My parents oldest grandchild was born in 1985, my sister was 22, my mother was 43 and my dad was 46, then my niece had a son at 17, in 2002. So today, my dad will be 86 on Wednesday and my mom 83 in September. They have to great-grandsons by the same mother (my niece) 22 and 15 respectively. Then my father's paternal grandmother's maternal line (York) and my mother's paternal line (Dodsworth) do have a link. In 1794, William York married Isabella Dodsworth my 4 x gr-grandparents), as of yet I have do found a direct link between my father's and my mother's families, but I did a gedmatch 1-1 comparison between my parents, I lowered the cM threshold to 3 from the default of 7 cM. The largest segment was 6.6 cM; Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 119.3cM (3.325 Pct); 31 shared segments found; 69.665 Percent of SNPs are full identical.
Wow that's really fascinating to learn about... how you are more likely to inherit a more or less balanced quarter of your DNA from each of your two paternal grandparents; unlike your two maternal grandparents. I have 3 half brothers who share the same mother as me, and 1 half sister who instead shares the same father. It MAY explain why I resemble this half sister moreso than any one of my three half brothers.
When I had my DNA results, it showed no trace of my paternal grandmother. I know that she was half German and half French but I have zero German and zero French DNA 🤷♀️
at 3:00 in your video, he is using his math backwards. Saying the population was only 450 million but you have 3.1 billion base pairs actually contradicts his argument (not in a meaningful way, but it doesn't strengthen it like he implies). Because he is suddenly saying you would have an average of more than one base pair per ancestor.
I don't understand why people get so hung up on ancestry. It's kinda interesting yeah, but I really don't care. I'm supposedly Scots -Irish, whatever that means but I don't have the time or money to waste finding out. Another thing that bugs me is the whole cannibal thing. I just about bet you someone, somewhere back in my ancestry,ATE another human for some reason. I don't care.
It isn't a lot of money. People waste lots of money eating and drinking things their bodies can do without. They go on vacations, turn their hair purple, buy things they don't need. So spending money to find out about your ancestry, your genetic vulnerabilities are about you. If that doesn't interest you, okay. Nearly 100% of humanity couldn't care less about you from birth to death, you might as well take some interest in yourself instead of drinking all that vodka out of a bottle you didn't need to buy.
We absolutely DO descend from ALL of our ancestors. We do not inherit genetics from all our ancestors. Descendancy and Inheritance do NOT mean the same thing. A professional genealogist should know this and not make such an erroneous statement. You don't inherit all your parents genes, either. But you certainly do descend from your parents. You also have to consider that "generations" are HIGHLY dependent on the average age of parents at the time and offspring is born. Today, it would be odd, so to speak, that someone has a child at age 14. However, Before the 1800's, it was very common, and even more common the further back in time one goes. Average life span decreases as well, so "generations" cannot be divided into specific time frames. For one person, 400 years could equate to 20 generations. For another it could 390, for another it could 410. If we're going to use royalty as an example, Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, was 12-13 when she had Henry. Henry was nearly half a century old when his youngest child was born. My grandfather was born 100 years before his youngest grandchild was born. If you're calling generations "30 years" you'd be a half century off with my family.
Dna isn't in my opinion a good indicator of ones ancestors. Heraldry or your nations equivalent is much better and more accurate. I will believe in dna when its more accurate and fair.
That video is unnecessarily complicated. All you need to do is assumed you have 128 5th grand parents, who were unrelated and look at the fraction 1 over 128, it's quite visible that 1 over 128 is less than 1%. It is unlikely that you have inherited dna from all those people. Working out segments and King Charles' pedigree is over doing it, as in the end it is still an estimate based on assumptions. I use my dna results to prove that my ancestors are my ancestors, no NPE, but it's limited how far back you can go. Past that point of proof it really doesn't matter to me who those people are., That is why I only go to my 5th great grandparents even though I can go further back to my 10th great grandparents on paper. With every generation back the likelihood of an NPE increases to the point it makes the family tree fictitious.
The word is geneAlogy, not geneOlogy! You should know better. Surely ALL ones DNA is from ones ancestors, each fragment from one or more of them? Surely they have recombined many times, as there were fewer people in the past to pass them on? This just means family tree 'collapse' means just jumping back generations to find the match, & doing this many times allows for the required number of generations with fewer individuals. We must still descend from some who's DNA is not directly seen, because they had to be there for the next generation to exist to carry on any DNA down to the present.
Dumb, dumb title. Yeah, you got me to click but certainly not to subscribe. By DEFINITION, you ancestors are the people you descend from. If people are created "phantom" ancestors by assuming that there is no overlap of any branches in their family tree, then that's their mistake. It doesn't mean that some of those phantoms really were ancestors but that you don't descend from them. It means they were wrong about how many ancestors they had.
I descend from them, just not all of them genetically.
Yep, just like it says in the original video and just like I say in my reaction to the video.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReactsNope. You still descend from them, you just didn't inherit any genetics from them. These two terms do NOT mean the same thing.
@@hbic3The easiest way to phrase it is “You don’t genetically inherit equally from all of your ancestors, you descend from all of your ancestors.”
@@hbic3Who are you to define what someone else's neologism means 😅 it's clearly a novel nominal locution and it doesn't fall to you to define what it means
Found the linguist 🤓
I thought the title of that video was misleading. We most certainly do descend from all our ancestors; it's just that we might not share DNA with them. Maybe I don't have any DNA segments that came from my 5th-great grandfather -- but if he had never been born and successfully fathered a child, I wouldn't exist. Words matter.
That's why in genealogy, we point out that each of us has two trees - the genealogical tree that you mention, and the genetic tree that the video discusses.
You descend from all of your ancestors in a genealogical tree, but not in a genetic tree.
@@rettawhinnery I understand about the two trees. My quibble is with the use of "descend" in the title of the original video. Even if I don't share any genetic material with a long-ago ancestor, I still descend from that person. I would never have been born if that ancestor had never existed and had a child.
In all honesty, part of that decision is the original video title works quite well as click bait because it is purposely misleading, but I think it's a much bigger win to get more people to click, watch the video, and then understand what is truly meant. Especially since my focus is on genealogy and trying to help people understand DNA to help with genealogy. The original video discusses the topic quite well and I even say it in the video - even though you do actually descend from all of your ancestors, you just don't inherit DNA from all of them. I really don't see a negative.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts thanks for being honest! Marketing is some thing that RUclips producers and creators have to do
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't mind that the title of the original video is misleading, because it gets people to click on the video, and the actual content of the video is worthwhile and educational. That's a fair point, but the title of the original video still bugs me. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
This is a top ten video! A lot of things I've sort of glossed over (I'll look into that LATER) are clearly explained. Very cool.
Your added explanations really helped clear this up for me. I've noticed with my sister & I, our shared matches vary quite a bit in cM. Back to the 3rd/4th ggp line I have a group that don't match her at all and vice-versa. I will have to compare with our 1st cousin who just tested.
No surprise. Some time ago I looked at dna from a significant number of sets of siblings and it is surprising how different they can be. In theory (sort of) you could have one sibling descended almost entirely from say paternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, whilst a second sibling could descend substantially from maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother.
because I am the youngest of the youngest of the youngest way back of large families. My 4 times great grandfather was born in 1758. My grandparents were all born in the 1800's. Mom side, 1890 and 1891, and on dads, 1894 and 1897
My family's generations run long, too, and my grandfathers were born in 1898 & 1896. My timeline is similar to yours. History is very close when generations are so long. My oldest 1st cousin was born in 1947, and I was in 1970. His kids were my age.
@@celtaciaclemment1229 same here, my oldest first cousin was born in 1939, and I was born in 1965
@@ruthking7884My oldest 1st cousin was born in 1943. My youngest sibling was born in 1989.
On my current case, the mother was only 13 when the child was born.
In my family, my mother's dad was 57 when she was born, and she was 36 when I was born.
So generations really vary.
Yep same in my family as some generations overlap due to adults having children in their 20s to 40s/50s. So my child who is 5, has cousins who are in their 20s and 30s due to the age gaps I have with my siblings.
It's true. In my own family I could relatively easy track down to my 3rd great grandparents (I think is the term in English). I have 64 of them. And I know the names of the 128 parents more or less from the next generation. But for date of births and other information there's administration from 1811 and onwards thanks to Napoleon. My 3 times great grandparents were born between 1770 and 1830 so quit a range. The people on my fathers side lived longer and less children died on that side simply because they had generational wealth with a farm so more of them survived. My moms side was poor. Multiple children and spouses died, there's a foundling on that side and they were seasonal workers. The records make clear that it was a hard life.
My Grandfather was 40 at marriage and 52 when My mom was born. Mom was 17 when I was born in 72. Now my Great Grandfather was born in 1882 90 years before me. Then again my first wife's father was born in 1917 like my Grandmother and grandfather on my dads side. His youngest Grand child was born in 2015 two months before he died. Still loved my father-in-law, even though he was Gestapo in WWII.
My Nan's paternal line great grandfather was born in 1786. My Nan is alive. there is an average of 50 years between the generations in her paternal line. She's the youngest child of the youngest child of the youngest child and hence there are huge generation gaps. Other Gr Grandchildren of my Nan's gr Grandfather died of old age before my Nan was even born. So agreed high potential for variation between generations
Ah, its amazing that you react to that video!
I was blown away by some parts of that video and it was good to see you put it in more context
I watched this video before but I like it more with your reaction and comments, since I could understand some points better than when I watched the video without reaction. I hope you keep going with videos about genetic and DNA inheritance.
22:05 It really should show King Charles with twice as much DNA from Victoria and earlier, since Prince Philip was also her great-great-grandchild.
I think that would have been an interesting thing to include, especially to show how when an ancestor is your ancestor multiple ways, you will then be inheriting more DNA from them in total but in smaller segments than you would expect. As well, since the relation is through both Maternal and Paternal side, we would see segments of DNA on both pairs of the chromosomes. I imagine it was left out because that gets a bit more complicated and it's best to show the inheritance through a single line of descent.
Maybe Queen Victoria passed less of her dna than Prince Albert who was her cousin. It's the role of the dice.
Genetics does not work like that.
@@Ponto-zv9vfGenetics does not work like that. This would only be true if we inherited 100% of our parents genes but we do not. No one inherits all their parents genes. We only inherit 50% and that 50% is random. Each child of a parent does not have the same genes as their siblings. This is why your sisters Heritage DNA can show Italian, for instance, but yours does not. You didn't inherit the "Italian." Genealogy DNA also determines your heritage DNA by comparing it to ALL of the other results from ALL of the other donors in their database. They often, also use uploaded family trees with verified information on location) birth or death place of certain ancestors. If an ancestor lived in Italy for 20 years, having children who had children, but they are so far back in the tree that genetic inheritance today is not possible, they'll say that person is Italian. But that original ancestor may have been born in Egypt, and their parents born in China, so unless there are enough people in the database with Chinese DNA to share some with the person whose grandparent was born in Italy, that person will never know they are Chinese, Not Italian.
I really enjoyed the extra commentary and ideas you added to the reaction. Lots of useful points and ways of looking at all this to do with DNA. I do have a caveat but maybe it gets too in the weeds, but I'll leave it here for consideration: Even though, at some point, we no longer receive contributions from direct ancestors, in a sense, through DNA shared at the population level across time, we would likely receive segments from them that they carried, in that indirect way, seeing as certain segments appear to become 'fixed' according to population groups. And this is in a way how ancient DNA is used to match up current day people to those samples. Anyway, a bit in the weeds. I really liked this episode, super interesting.
I think another way to look at what you are thinking (assuming I am understanding your consideration) is that as pedigree collapse happens in our tree, there will be certain ancestors who are represented as an ancestor more in our tree than others at that same generation. Those ancestors represented more have a higher chance of contributing to your DNA. So if your parents are 1st cousins, you technically still have 8 great-grandparents, it's just that one set of great-grandparents is represented twice in your tree and will contribute more DNA overall. So looking deeper, we have 1024 8th-great grandparents but let's say that 1 set of 8th-great grandparents are represented 10 times in your tree. That 1 set represented 10 times will have a much higher chance to contribute more DNA because there are 10 lines of descent, but what is inherited will be much smaller segments. As well, if any of our other 8th-great grandparents are related to this set that is represented 10 times, then they may have shared DNA with us but not because we inherit it from them but we instead inherited it from their cousins who are also our ancestors.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts That's a great example and way to write it out. Yes, that was one of my thoughts and you detailed it better I think. I also shared a 2nd case or idea, where current day people can share ancient DNA aside from haplogroups, just through their autosomal segments. At a population level, certain segments are ubiquitous today, across regions, coming from way back. An extreme example is FTDNA and their ancient DNA results, where they divide our percentages into Hunter-Gatherers; Early Farmers; and Yamnaya, as opposed to the familiar Autosomal categories. It's the same DNA, just using different naming conventions according to what time period they're viewing. Well, these certain ancient segments are shared between people coming from a geographic area, and they likewise are recombined, but testing and comparing old samples to modern people, the segments still exist in them today. So we'd also share these population wide segments with our very own direct ancestors in the past, but indirectly, because those segments, though recombined, are common across a population either way. I hope I wrote that in a way that does not botch up the concept.
Seeing it visually , it make more sense
Hi there! I would love to watch your reaction to a video NYTN did I think on AI estimating her geneology more correctly than the varied DNA test results she received. Hope you see this comment and find the video otherwise I will paste in the comments after watching you! Have a great day!
You are right: this is brilliant.
Brilliant video once again Jarrett. I truly appreciate and am thankful to you for helping me learn so much as well as giving me much to ponder on with each video you create. Kudos!
Thank you! Your video has helped me understand more. You have managed to explain the facts in simpler terms, and I continue to learn.
We are one race.
Genetics are so interesting!!
I have been focusing more on document research and I'm stuck in the late 1700's. In some of my lineage, I'm almost certain that their parents were enslaved, hence why it has been so difficult finding their records.
I loved your video. New sub ❤
According to 23 and Me, I'm carrying around some Neanderthal DNA. How is it possible to go back that far? I'm happy that I don't have heavy eyebrow ridges though.
Me too!
Very interesting and makes sense!
I don’t know if it’s covered in a different video but a video about the super old generic matches (such as Richard III or Cheddar man) made through mitochondrial DNA would be cool.
This was super interesting. Would be interested in seeing the contrary, re: bottlenecked groups.
I find it interesting how the genes split up and the dna match differences between siblings. I have a lot of cousins my siblings aren't matched to. It seems that I got the dna from the hanky panky side of the family because I have matched to several people who were adopted and the result of affairs. This is on top of being French Canadian and my parents sharing several common ancestors makes trying to figure out my family tree a challenge.
Hi. If your parents have several common ancestors, it can be more of a family wreath than a family tree, similar to the royal families of Europe. 😊 The channels "Useful Charts" and Lindsay Holiday (sp?) have interesting vids on the royal families.
And then there are the NPE sporatically throughout your pedigree - so even if you have a paper trail - it at some point will not be true.
Yeah, noticed that during the napoleonic wars one of my foremothers managed to persuade her employer to take her and her daughter in, obviously claiming she was his. Somehow my grandmum has lots of french cousins, and when this was still a thing that Geneanet allowed to look into dna-matches family-trees, I noted that most of her dna-relatives featured the same family in their ancestry... well... the guy that passed by my foremother during the napoleonic wars was obviously not her employer...
My only issue is with the royal chart. Charles III is decended from Queen Victoria twice. So he should have more of her DNA and those going back.
As a genealogist for the past 40 years, it's weird to go back 10-15-20 generations and then see many of the same names. Out of my 10th great-grandparents, only 2 names are different. Pedigree implosion I have called it. At least on the lines I have found. Sure I am descended from Charlemagne and Julius Caesar and Cleopatra and most of the kings of Europe, but my dna says I am not British or French or Italian or Greek.....
I kind of like the UsefulCharts video by Matt Baker about how pretty much everybody with European ancestors descends from Charlemagne (Hi, cousins!). It is entertaining but not quite as scientific.
This is a perfect example. I trace back to Charlemagne on multiple lines!
I don't trace to him at all.
I think this is related, but the DNA test I got showed onés heritage from various places around the world and what percentage of my genetic make up came from those places. The majority was from places in Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and France, but it showed i had a very small amount from Finland. What was notable was that my brother who also got the test showed no heritage from Finland and at the time I couldn’t understand that because I thought we would have the exact same match, but as you point out, we don’t because some ancestor of mine had some Finn in him, and I got it, and my brother didn’t. He or she must’ve gone back a few generations.
Yeah, saw that, too, but I'd have definitively NOT chosen Charles's relationship to the Saxons as my poster-boys. He has a 'nice' pedigree collapse, his parents being cousins, his grandparents being cousins, his greatgrandparents being cousins... and that means, many of his ancestors have multiple chances to show up in his DNA. In his 5th to 6th generation CIII's ancestry folds inwards: Queen Victoria's participation is doubled, Victoria's grandparents also, so are the Danish- and the Hesse-Lines. For this demonstration he should have gone up the Bowes-Lyon-side, there it would be correct and disapper in 'some muddy european pond' with the perhaps 120 remaining SNP's we all share with the same Bulgarian or Czech Bronzeage-graves from 3000 - 1800 BCE.
EDIT: I almost killed my Elanor-File, that has a 'rather' complete Tree of European Noble ancestry. After a 30 Minute hangup it had finished the math and drawn an ENORMOUS 2766x406cm Tree showing all the direct lines that led from Barbara Jagiello to Charles III: he's descended from Barbara Jagiello by 129 different lines
This makes every person their own cousin
I have often wondered about testing DNA from the old rings that had strands of hair from dead relatives in them or the old art work that use to be made from hair of a relative.
That would be so interesting!! But I think that it should be hair with a follicle to find DNA on it, do you have that? I hope you do!!! ❤
The generation length aspect you mention also shows why King Charles is like many monarchs not a typical example, because of primogeniture. In the "royal" line, he/she will be the firstborn so to a firstborn son etc. Deeper in the past, it may shift from firstborn to the oldest surviving, but still, a monarch should have atypically short generation times.
I've toyed around with DNA Painter Coverage Estimator where it uses a descendancy tree and lets the user put in all the various identified/known DNA testers relative to a specific ancestor. Anway, toying with this I managed to so far achieve an estimated (actual not known of course) coverage of 91.2% of my 4th great grandfather's genotyped genome (meaning the portions examined in atDNA tests). I've also determined all the Y-DNA mutations he had (by Big Y testing branching descendants of different sons of his) and those he didn't have (by testing descendants of his uncles).
I heard a quote the other day that after ten generations, you don't share any DNA with your ancestors. Depending upon what constitutes a generation, 20, 25 or 30 years, we count back 200 to 300 years. This made sense on the surface but then I started thinking.....
There is a village in England, Eyam, that "sacrificed" itself during bubonic plague in the 1600's. While the premise that they sacrificed themselves is problematic, DNA from that time is fascinating.
Enough people have continued living in that area, that DNA of the people who survived the plague has been passed down to the present time. These people are immune to HIV and scientists are studying this phenomenon.
And then we have the scientific claims that modern populations have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, sometimes as high as 3%.
What the heck with these findings? Genealogy drives me crazy because there are too many moving parts to create the whole. My interest in this field is purely medical.
If evolution favours success, if harmful traits are bred out, it seems successful genes will perpetuate through many generations. Surely the same successful genes are not so changed in less than a millennia, that they are not from a "shared" ancestor?
Historians theorize that when times were really tough, people began consuming animal milk. Perhaps horse, goat and sheep in the beginning, moving up to bovine. People with the lactose intolerance gene did not fare as well as those who could digest milk and these people were at least partially less successful in life and reproduction. Therefore in a milk drinking society, lactose tolerant genetics became the majority.
I do not think we can squelch that discussion by suggesting some ethnic groups, for instance indigenous populations of the Americas, never had access to animal milk. There are people with primarily European descent who are lactose intolerant.
At one time it was loosely said that those of African descent were more likely to be lactose intolerant, yet there are the Masai who drink milk from cattle, mixed with blood from the same cows. Maybe the blood portion obliterates lactose intolerance or maybe evolution has favoured this group consuming bovine milk?
I simply cannot sort out all of these factors in reference to no shared DNA from 10 or 30 generations ago. I see evolution as a race for successful survival, therefore I assume the most successful genes will perpetuate over many hundreds or thousands of years. And we could throw in epigenetics.....?
Excellent upload.
New sub.
If one of your ancestors was missing, you would be missing.
Not really. Some of your supposed ancestors wasn't the Joe listed as father, but a neighbor or a child taken into the family.
@@Ponto-zv9vf Not with the paternal or maternal lineages. They go back to our origin.
@@Ponto-zv9vfread comments with more care before you make ridiculous comments, for example one and one makes three, it has always been so.
When my dad died, we took locks of his hair. I wonder if I could DNA it. My mom is 92 and aunt is 103 and both did their DNA. But my dad was the last of his siblings to die in 2004.....it would be nice to get his.
Hair does have dna. I don't think 23andMe have the technology to extract it. I don't think it matters. My parents are not dna tested but I have 1st cousin from my father's brother, and a 2nd cousin on my mother's side.
If you got roots, yes. The DNA in hair is in the roots.
Very interesting.
using the royals as an example is a weird one considering how interrelated they all are. Charles' parents were cousins.
Talk about 'pedigree collapse' as he said it's called. No wonder Charles' sister looks so much like some earlier female relatives (collateral not lineal).
Pre watch query... are there not still clear delineations of direct anscestors when theyre being discussed? I used to understand three terms on this topic, direct ancestors(maternal and paternal heritage lines), familial ancestors(other relations) and ancestors(a general cultural or locational connection with which the familial ancestors are tied).
It was funny finding out how me and my first and second wives were related. Both were German and I was from the US stationed in Germany a few times.
So wheeee I have Pedigree Collapse right out the door. My mom and dad are half 2nd cousins.
Everyone has pedigree collapse. Yours is more severe, but it could be worse.
This explains why our heritage is not always apparent
Apologies in advance if this is a silly question but if this is the case and we can only go back so far because previous ancestors didn't contribute really anything to our DNA then how are they able to tell that we may be related to ancient people.
For example my DNA apparently links me to Cheddar man who lived a very long time ago, or even to certain people from the Viking age that have been discovered, when they compare their DNA to mine it is a match but these people lived back in roughly 800-900AD.
Given that "normal" genetic testing only uses a modest amount of one's genome do the observations cited in this video also apply to the normally untested balance? Specifically, if we were to test our complete genome would it reveal more contributing ancestors going back in time? I realise that ultimately the same effects apply even if there is an affirmative answer to those questions.
Well most of human dna is identical. It would be pointless during a whole genome dna test and more expensive.
this is a rare 2.5x speed video
What would be a good service to use to do Y-chromosome testing to try an determine male lineage for someone from Wisconsin with Norwegian/Swedish heritage? Would think that the service with the largest database of a US/Scandinavian population would be the best.
A female line is more accurate than the male line and therefore is the true line. You can’t guarantee who fathered the child, but you can guarantee who the mother was in genetic genealogy.
I think because we, in the modern world, live in homogenized communities, even in big cities like NYC, pedigree collapse is possible to happen regardless whether it is intentional or not and we don't even think about it. GEDmatch has the "are your parents related" tool for this very reason.
I have been wanting to ask about mtDNA. I noticed that on WikiTree there is someone on my profile that is showing is a DNA match and when I look at how we are related, it is strictly material lines. It shows that his haplogroup is j1b2. I didn’t do mtDNA, but if we connect strictly with maternal lineage, would that be my haplogroup?
If the paper-trail is correct and you both share the same purely matrilineal line, then you would be the same haplogroup. If you test and it is not the same haplogroup, that is indicative of an NPE in your tree.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts I need to go back and see, but I am almost certain that it is. I have a cousin who specializes in DNA and is in charge of a few different Acadian surname projects on FTDNA and she has told me that she is confident about my mtDNA haplogroup and it was the same as the one that is on my profile as a match. The endogamy is rampant, we are related in like over 70 different paths. So as much as I would love to utilize chromosome painting, it seems impossible
You didn't link it in the video & Im having trouble determining which of your other videos you were referring to. That you mentioned having discussed something similar before.
If you see this I got a mystery that's several layers deep....
My Dad was conceived in Japan before my grandparents came stateside. GM is Japanese GP is American.
Gp is AB Gm I can't remember at this point but for this it doesn't matter. Dad is O.
Simple right? Except Dad has DNA matches with GP's maternal line and GP is the only boy in his family. This is also the only line Dad has any matches on cause know cousin's on GP paternal line haven't matched. How and where do I go to try to unravel this....😅
YIKES! royal family is in trouble 😃😃😃😃😃
One thing that I don’t think he mentioned with King Charles is that his parents were cousins.
Very interesting! However, I didn't understand everything. For instance, if you are not descended from ancestors, say, about 400 years ago (there are so many that chances are you only got a tiny amount from each of them), then who are you descended from? That is, if ancestor K didn't contribute any genetic material, then ancestor M must have contributed twice as much.
The main point is that you will reach a point in your ancestry where only a small percentage of those ancestors are contributing to your DNA. At the18th-great grandparent level, there are over a million ancestors, so if you are only inheriting DNA from 1% of those ancestors, that is still 10,000 18th-great grandparents who are contributing to your DNA. You are correct with your last statement that part of this is due to some ancestors contributing more to your DNA than others. We even see this at the grandparent level, where people often inherit varying amounts of DNA from each grandparent (although an average of 25%).
This is interesting, because I have more DNA in common with my maternal grandmother and and my mother's second eldest sister (almost as much as with my grandmother), than what my sister does. However, if you look at the ethnicity elements, the arrangement of the DNA is interesting as my sister has higher percentages of certain markers on similar levels as these other two women. And examining further, my sister and I have higer percentages of other ethnicities than the other two,
Others, my aunt and I have in common but my sister and grandmother either have or don't have.
indicating that the rest come from my maternal grandfather, and our respective fathers. And I can kind of deduce what comes from my father and maternal grandfather. Of course, it helps that other members from these 3 generations on both sides have done tests.
SegcM doesn't tell me much I don't already know. I put in info from a match in England just to check it. It actually puts the probability starting at 2nd cousin once removed. (which is not possible just because I know, and he is white European but at 0.2% probability), all the way up to 7th Cousin. Ancestry of course places it at 4th - 6th cousin. But therein lies the dilemma. I have a lot of family who have tested, so I know which branch it is from my side, but couldn't trace that line back into Europe (because I got lazy), He filled in the blanks the best he could. But I assume endogamy is the culprit and he is futher out than what the DNA would suggest.
How many different X and Y's are there?
The generations, like you said are not always 25 years, This relating to my father family shows this distinctly. My father's mother was 36, when my father was born in 1938, my older sister was born in 1962, my parents were married in the year before when my father was 22 and my mother was 19 My parents oldest grandchild was born in 1985, my sister was 22, my mother was 43 and my dad was 46, then my niece had a son at 17, in 2002. So today, my dad will be 86 on Wednesday and my mom 83 in September. They have to great-grandsons by the same mother (my niece) 22 and 15 respectively. Then my father's paternal grandmother's maternal line (York) and my mother's paternal line (Dodsworth) do have a link. In 1794, William York married Isabella Dodsworth my 4 x gr-grandparents), as of yet I have do found a direct link between my father's and my mother's families, but I did a gedmatch 1-1 comparison between my parents, I lowered the cM threshold to 3 from the default of 7 cM. The largest segment was 6.6 cM; Total Half-Match segments (HIR) 119.3cM (3.325 Pct); 31 shared segments found; 69.665 Percent of SNPs are full identical.
Wow that's really fascinating to learn about... how you are more likely to inherit a more or less balanced quarter of your DNA from each of your two paternal grandparents; unlike your two maternal grandparents. I have 3 half brothers who share the same mother as me, and 1 half sister who instead shares the same father. It MAY explain why I resemble this half sister moreso than any one of my three half brothers.
King Charles had cousins marrying cousins. His mom and dad. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.
When I had my DNA results, it showed no trace of my paternal grandmother. I know that she was half German and half French but I have zero German and zero French DNA 🤷♀️
I traced my family back to 1730 and it was 100% English. But my DNA was 100% Irish? The DNA must go back 500 or 1,000 years.
at 3:00 in your video, he is using his math backwards. Saying the population was only 450 million but you have 3.1 billion base pairs actually contradicts his argument (not in a meaningful way, but it doesn't strengthen it like he implies). Because he is suddenly saying you would have an average of more than one base pair per ancestor.
The biggest problem is when old men marry women half their age and have more children.
I don't understand why people get so hung up on ancestry. It's kinda interesting yeah, but I really don't care. I'm supposedly Scots -Irish, whatever that means but I don't have the time or money to waste finding out.
Another thing that bugs me is the whole cannibal thing. I just about bet you someone, somewhere back in my ancestry,ATE another human for some reason. I don't care.
It isn't a lot of money. People waste lots of money eating and drinking things their bodies can do without. They go on vacations, turn their hair purple, buy things they don't need. So spending money to find out about your ancestry, your genetic vulnerabilities are about you. If that doesn't interest you, okay. Nearly 100% of humanity couldn't care less about you from birth to death, you might as well take some interest in yourself instead of drinking all that vodka out of a bottle you didn't need to buy.
Then how is it possible for someone to look like their ancestor from 11th century?
How would someone know if they look like an ancestor from the 11th century?
@@michaelme1548 descriptions.
We absolutely DO descend from ALL of our ancestors. We do not inherit genetics from all our ancestors. Descendancy and Inheritance do NOT mean the same thing. A professional genealogist should know this and not make such an erroneous statement. You don't inherit all your parents genes, either. But you certainly do descend from your parents. You also have to consider that "generations" are HIGHLY dependent on the average age of parents at the time and offspring is born. Today, it would be odd, so to speak, that someone has a child at age 14. However, Before the 1800's, it was very common, and even more common the further back in time one goes. Average life span decreases as well, so "generations" cannot be divided into specific time frames. For one person, 400 years could equate to 20 generations. For another it could 390, for another it could 410. If we're going to use royalty as an example, Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, was 12-13 when she had Henry. Henry was nearly half a century old when his youngest child was born. My grandfather was born 100 years before his youngest grandchild was born. If you're calling generations "30 years" you'd be a half century off with my family.
I was just thinking the same, but you saved me from having to state why.
Dna isn't in my opinion a good indicator of ones ancestors. Heraldry or your nations equivalent is much better and more accurate.
I will believe in dna when its more accurate and fair.
We all come from Adam and Eve. So what’s the problem? 😂
That video is unnecessarily complicated. All you need to do is assumed you have 128 5th grand parents, who were unrelated and look at the fraction 1 over 128, it's quite visible that 1 over 128 is less than 1%. It is unlikely that you have inherited dna from all those people. Working out segments and King Charles' pedigree is over doing it, as in the end it is still an estimate based on assumptions.
I use my dna results to prove that my ancestors are my ancestors, no NPE, but it's limited how far back you can go. Past that point of proof it really doesn't matter to me who those people are., That is why I only go to my 5th great grandparents even though I can go further back to my 10th great grandparents on paper. With every generation back the likelihood of an NPE increases to the point it makes the family tree fictitious.
The word is geneAlogy, not geneOlogy! You should know better. Surely ALL ones DNA is from ones ancestors, each fragment from one or more of them? Surely they have recombined many times, as there were fewer people in the past to pass them on? This just means family tree 'collapse' means just jumping back generations to find the match, & doing this many times allows for the required number of generations with fewer individuals. We must still descend from some who's DNA is not directly seen, because they had to be there for the next generation to exist to carry on any DNA down to the present.
Claiming there is only one acceptable way to say genealogy is such a stupid and pedantic thing to comment.
@@ProfessionalGenealogistReacts No, it's just English.
Anglish 😄
Dumb, dumb title. Yeah, you got me to click but certainly not to subscribe. By DEFINITION, you ancestors are the people you descend from. If people are created "phantom" ancestors by assuming that there is no overlap of any branches in their family tree, then that's their mistake. It doesn't mean that some of those phantoms really were ancestors but that you don't descend from them. It means they were wrong about how many ancestors they had.
1st!
The gene 'shuffle' really IS A SHUFFLE. It's a tossup what you'll get from whatever is still available in the chromosomes.