The Striptease of Human Discovery - P.S.

[This is a postscript to the previous post...]

Family history research as a pastime, that is, armchair genealogy, is far from an exact, um...science. In fact, human error, both in the recording and researching (as well as the procreating-- not the act itself, mind you, but the he-said-she-said that often follows). I enjoy it, as it provides at least some pieces of my (and my family's) identity puzzle, even if only myopically. DNA analysis sheds light on a person's (not necessarily the entire family's) more recent origins, but is a useful tool nonetheless to redirect a search or eliminate a possibility. Ancestry's DNA analysis report is very broad and consists of estimates based on probabilities. Church and Science both agree that we all came from somewhere; and both point confidently to a "Mitochondrial Eve" and a "Y-chromosome Adam."

Genealogy-- the bona fide science-- is really interesting! While it remains more of a hobby for me, I still enjoy finding connections, learning more about where I fit in on the backdrop of the rest of the human population.

So, in an effort to keep it all in perspective (if you are unsure what I mean, go to YouTube and search for Ancestry DNA results-- it's really not about race, ethnic superiority, fueling the Creation-Evolution debate, or bragging rights), I offer two very good sources of information on the topic...

1. What DNA Says About Human Ancestry—and Bigotry, an article posted to MIT's website. An excerpt:

Not only is our concept of race arbitrary, but it is based on a relatively insignificant difference between people. Skin pigment, eye shape, and hair type are all determined by genes. Indeed, as the human genome is mapped, geneticists might be able to reconstruct what mummies or other ancient people looked like. But the physical ''stereotypes'' of race, writes Cavalli-Sforza, ''reflect superficial differences.'' For example, light skin color is needed in northern climates for the sun's ultra- violet light to penetrate into the body and transform vitamin D into a usable form. This mutation may well have arisen at different times, in different ancestral groups, on different points along the DNA. That's true for cystic fibrosis, which occurs almost exclusively in people of European descent but is caused by several different mutations.

In other words, ''white people'' do not share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia. Such mixing is true for every race. ''All living humans go back to one common ancestor in Africa,'' explains Paabo. ''But if you look at any history subsequent to that,'' then every group is a blend of shallower pedigrees. So, he says, ''I might be closer in my DNA to an African than to another European in the street.'' Genetics, he concludes, ''should be the last nail in the coffin for racism.''

2. The Ancestry DNA Witch Hunt, an insightful 2014 post to the The Genetic Genealogist blog, excerpted here:

Indeed, even the most documented and sourced tree is likely wrong, although genealogists are loathe to admit this. NPEs (non-paternal events) happen, and many were either never publicized or were lost through time. Further, there are simply errors in most family trees that result from inaccurate source documents, or other sources.  Ironically, it will eventually be the DNA that reveals the errors in our trees, even without documentation. 

At each generation, only 50% of a person’s DNA is passed to their children.  That 50% is almost completely random. Further, at about 5-9 generations, ancestors start to completely fall off your Genetic Family Tree.

Of course, take all tree hints with a serious grain of salt, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. A professional genealogist knows to question all records, no matter how official or ordained, and tree hints are no different.

...beware anyone who tells you to avoid Ancestry DNA... You’ll be missing out on one of the largest autosomal DNA databases, and all the discoveries that could come from that.

Hmmm... Maybe in the end (as in the beginning) we're not so different, after all?