FT wrote me this about FAMILY FINDER

Concerning the possibility that Melody is not a Clinard, I posed the question of using Autosomal DNA to the experts at Family Tree, Inc.  I asked the question that is at the bottom of this e-mail string:  If Derek and I compare our Autosomal DNA, what can be proven? I’m reading their answer to say if Derek and I match, then Melody is a Clinard; if no match, then Melody is not a Clinard.

I don’t have any idea if this is important to anybody.  It’s just a possibility at this time.

John

 From: helpdesk@ftdna.com [mailto:helpdesk@ftdna.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:42 PM
To: treebyjohn@charter.net
Subject: Re: FF: Problem - prooving 1st cousin once removed (Autosomal DNA) (ID:1094142)

Hello,
Thank you for your email. The Family Finder test is designed to find relatives on any of your ancestral lines within the last 5 generations. Family Finder uses autosomal DNA, which is the mixture of DNA you received from both parents (50% from your mother and 50% from your father). Because autosomal DNA is a mixture of your mother's and father's DNA, it is unique to each person.

Family Finder works by comparing your autosomal DNA to our database and finding other people who have "blocks" of DNA in common with you. Sharing large blocks of DNA with someone else means that you are related in a recent period of time; smaller shared blocks of DNA indicate a more distant relationship. The people that share these DNA blocks with you are called your matches, and you will receive a prediction of your relationship to each of your matches (i.e. 3rd, 4th, 5th cousins, etc.) based on the size of those shared DNA blocks. Per your inquiry, it will be able to establish if you share DNA to be a close relation. With 1st cousin once removed you many come back as a 1st cousin match or maybe a 2nd or 3rd depending on how much DNA you do share. We will provide you with names, email address, and the genealogical records your matches have shared with you. You will be able to communicate with them freely to find your common ancestors. This test cannot distinguish between matches from your mother's side versus your father's side. Once you both have results you can see if you appear on each other's match lists; you can also call us to confirm.

Family Finder also has a component called Population Finder. This component gives you a breakdown of your ethnic makeup by percent. Population Finder compares your DNA to populations around the world that have been tested through scientific research. In our database, this currently includes 62 distinct populations representing 7 continental groups around the world. Based on this comparison, we predict what population(s) your DNA most closely resembles. Please note, any particular ethnicity will need to be 3% or greater to be detected in your DNA.

The most important thing to remember is that receiving your results from Family Tree DNA is just the beginning. As this is relatively new field of science, changes to your results are anticipated as our information and technology improves. As our database increases, you will receive e-mail notifications about new genetic matches. As the tools used to analyze your results are refined, you will have access to this new analysis. These updates and advancements will be available to you over time at no additional charge.

Your Results Will Include:
-Matches: Genetic cousins who share a common ancestor within approximately the last 5 generations. You will have full access to your matches’ e-mail addresses and any genealogical information they have provided. You can begin networking and exchanging information freely as soon as your results arrive!* This feature is optional.
-Predicted Relationship Ranges
-Chromosome Browser: A visual representation of where you and your matches share segments of DNA.
-Population Finder: Your ethnic percentages, predicted based on a comparison of your results against 62 distinct populations representing 7 continental groups around the world.

To find out more about the exciting field of genetic genealogy and how it can help you, we encourage you to attend a Relative Roots Webinar! Click here to register today: http://relativeroots.net/webinars/

Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's anything else I can do for you.

Thanks again,

Kathleen Bryant

Family Tree DNA
www.familytreedna.com
"We put the gene in genealogy!"

Autosomal DNA

So I started thinking about what you have written.  First I’m assuming that the use of Y and mt DNA studies was of no value since you and Alex share none.  Right?

Then I calculate that you and Alex are 3^rd cousins with your MRCA being your 2^nd great grandparents. Right?  This means that you have 1/16^th of the DNA of each your 2nd ggmother and your 2^nd ggfather. (All this based on the fact that all men and women get ½ of their DNA from each of their parents.) And your 3^rd cousin, Alex, also has an equal share. So you and Alex ought to share about 1/8 of your autosomal DNA. The other 7/8 should be different. Of course they test only an extremely small percentage of the autosomes content. And complete misses are thus possible even though you share 1/8^th. So that’s why the test is said by some experts to be only about 80-90 % accurate. There is a 10-20 % chance of a false negative.  But false positives are very rare. If you are identified as a relative by the test, you can probably count on it, I think.  But if you are not found to be relatives, there is always the chance of a false negative. You might still be relatives and the test missed it.

Family Tree says straight out that they can locate all descendants of all 16 2^nd ggparents.  But this is a recent claim based on recent improvements in the technology (better chips for calculations). But they claim noting for cousins more remote than 3^rd cousins.  When did you have this 23andme test?  If it was more than a year ago or so, it was certainly pushing the technology to find all 3^rd cousins.

Also, as you say, there is a chance that there was some sort of break in the DNA chain. But no way would both the man and the woman ancestor not be who you think they are. So I don’t see this as being an explanation. So, if the test were done correctly today by Family Tree, the thing should have worked for you and Alex. Your son is more remote to Alex, 3^rd cousin once-removed. But you sisters should have scored the same as you did in the calculations. And you should have matched very closely to the autosomal DNA of your sisters.  Right? In fact… perfect matches.  But you should match only ½ the autosomal DNA of your son; the other half being that of his father.

Still, I hope you found the story interesting.  I wouldn’t share it with just anybody. Only with someone who might understand the complexities of family relations.  And you know a lot about that.

Stay in touch,

Update of family lines for Riggs study

To: ArtSikes@aol.com
Cc: 'Nancy Fatheree ', "'Lucy K. Gump'" , 'Liz Carlin' , 'Kathleen Rogalla' , 'horace riggs' , "'Clyde B. Austin III'" , 'John Austin' , robertcarteraustin@gmail.com, alvyray@gmail.com, Curtis Travis , scenicphoto@highland.net
Subject: Horace Lester Riggs


Art Sikes (coordinator of FT Austin Y-DNA study),
This is John Clinard.  I have been responsible for the various Austins/Riggs who submitted their Y-DNA to your study, even though they are from the Riggs family genetically.

That includes:

Kit 192444 for Robert C Austin (Riggs)

Kit 204922 for Clyde B Austin (Riggs)
Kit 208228 for William L Austin (Riggs)
Kit 219226 for John Ellison Austin (???)
Kit 218723 for Horace Lester Riggs

The 1^st 3 kits below matched perfectly for 67 markers which shows that the Y-DNA goes all the way back to Clisbe Sr.  John E Austin’s Y-DNA was supposed to show a perfect match to Arch Sr. But it was a backfire; he was neither an Austin nor a Riggs. Now Horace should almost prove the point that the Y-DNA goes back to Ed Riggs.  There is a little problem of a mutation at marker 47.  John Austin’s DNA was going to show us where that mutation occurred, either in Clisbe Sr. or Arch Sr.  Now I have to start that loop again with John’s 2^nd cousin Clay Austin, if I can convince him to participate.  He should be a Riggs and should prove the match all the way back to Arch Sr. and should produce the answer we are looking for to the marker 47 mutation. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  It will take another couple of months to get Clay to participate and to see his results.

I have also submitted all these kits to Alvy Ray Smith who runs the Riggs Y-DNA study of FT. Maybe you know him.  Nice fellow.

There will be another kit coming sometime in the future, if I can convince him, for a man named Clay Austin.   Here is how all these men connect:

Robert⁷ Austin (Robert, Sr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

Clyde⁷ Austin (Clyde, Jr.⁶, Clyde B.⁵, Clisbe, Jr.⁴, Clisbe, Sr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)

William Luther⁸ Austin (William Brinks⁷, William Thompson⁶, Robert White⁵, William Thompson⁴, Clisbe³, Archibald Sr², Edward Riggs¹)

John E.⁷Austin (Woodrow⁶, Jacob⁵???, William⁴, Arch Jr.³, Arch Sr.², Edward Riggs¹)… this test backfired! John Ellison Austin  had no Austin Y-DNA and no Riggs Y-DNA.  I now suspect a break in the Riggs Y-DNA chain at Jacob who is probably not a son of William but rather of William’s daughter Sara and a man with the likely name of Stultz. But this is another story in itself which I’m also working on.

 

Clay⁷ Austin (Joseph C. Jr.⁶, Joseph C Sr.⁵, William⁴, Archibald Jr.³, Arch Sr.² Austin, Edward Riggs¹)… if he will do the test

Horace Lester⁷ Riggs III (Horace Lester⁶, Horace Lester⁵, John Woodson⁴, Samuel³, Clisbe² Riggs, Edward Riggs¹)

Alvy Ray Smith is aware of my study and my attempt to prove all these men are descendants of Ed Riggs. I wrote up the story of Archibald Austin (Riggs) for the Nov. 2011 issue of the AFAOA magazine.  Maybe you saw it.

Do with Lester’s DNA as you must.  The rest of his results will be to you on 1/16/12. All these guys took the 67 marker test.  I am looking for an explanation of a mutation at marker 47, so the 37 marker test just wasn’t enough.