Comments on: Blind as a Genealogist

By: washergenes

washergenes — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:16:46 +0000

Thanks for all your comments (and for reading!) This is definitely an issue that will continue to be debated . . . while we keep on researching our ancestors. The history aspect is so much the point: every discovery about ancestors is a door to history and material culture waiting to be opened. . . . I have felt that Mendel’s analysis undercuts Pinker somewhat, but I’m very much a layperson re genetics, hence I didn’t want to get into that on the basis of my “instinct.” So, thanks particularly for adding that point.

By: sfgayle

sfgayle — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:56:43 +0000

Pinker’s argument of mathematics fails on a significant point first made by Mendel in the 19th century: a biological trait follows the path of dominant/recessive. So if mama has brown eyes and dad has blue, you are likely to have brown eyes. It is not an algorithm of mathematical power.

Sperm and ovarian eggs are single strands of DNA, called gametes. They are exact copies of the original. They are not “diluted” by generations. To illustrate my point, consider that there are only 2 genes that determine sex: X and Y. If you combine a matching pair (XX), you get female; combine a non-matching pair (XY), you get male. So what; you don’t have blue eyes. This does not mean that the trait inherited from dad has been eliminated from your genetic make up.

That is not to say that mutations don’t change the outcome of traits. But does the disconnect make us less “related” to our ancestors? I don’t think so.

We are products of both our environments and our genetic predispositions. These two factors are not independent of one another. Studies in psychobiology have long established this tight relationship between environment and biology.

By: Jeanette Sherbondy

Jeanette Sherbondy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:26:35 +0000

Tracing mt DNA and Y-DNA is not intended to discover one’s own genetic make-up, but to help trace migrations of populations on a grand scale.

I’ve been having fun getting cousins to have their DNA tested so that I can get the haplogroups of all my grandparents and some great grandparents as well.

By: Jane Gramlich, Librarian

Jane Gramlich, Librarian — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:21:28 +0000

I would agree with Sharon. It makes no difference how my genetic makeup has or hasn’t been influenced by my ancestors. To me, genealogy is a branch of the larger study of history, and genetics has little to do with it. What genealogists do is lend the personal to the historical. We will “keep on keeping on” because what we are really studying is nothing less than the role of individuals and families in the development of our culture.

By: Sharon Centanne

Sharon Centanne — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:39:39 +0000

We are influenced by more then just the genetics of our ancestors. Their descisions, cultures, religions, education, point of view, lifestyle, climate, physical environment all shaped who they became, and what they passed down to their children and grandchildren in family stories, folklore, music, systems of government, ways of dealing with problems. Our ancestors laws, taboos, arts, priorities, travel patterns, and socialogy affected who they became and what they passed along. Genealogy can address all of this. It is more than names upon a tree. It is a history of who they were as a people and what they taught the next generations. It is a history of how they dealt with what live gave them. The names and dates can be analyzed and compared to learn their stories, their decisions and their challenges. For us, it is a fascinating challenge of our own to uncover the secrets, hopes, hurts, and triumphs they endured. It is a fasicinating journey I would not want to have missed!

Sharon Centanne
Genealogical Research Instructor
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/centans/genguide.html