Topics

Flagging descendants

Jim Ramaley
 

Generally, I have been an advocate of considering adopted children as "part of the family" and have not worried that their gene pool is different from their adopted family's.  However, the widespread use of  DNA to identify relatives tests this notion. 

There are times when failing to acknowledge this distinction leads to error.  In BK there are indicators to show how a parent is related to a child (natural, step, foster, etc) and some reports allow you to see these relationships.  However, the utility that allows you to flag a group of descendants of a person does not allow you to choose only the "natural" (i.e., the birth) children.  This overstates genetic descendants for those of us who are doing one-name studies and I do not see an easy way to even quantify the difference.

It would be useful in the "flag" utility to allow the user to choose whether the flag is only for "natural" descendants.  

John Steed
 

To Jim Ramaley

OK, I will work on adding that option.

John Steed



From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Jim Ramaley <james.ramaley@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:23 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Flagging descendants
 
Generally, I have been an advocate of considering adopted children as "part of the family" and have not worried that their gene pool is different from their adopted family's.  However, the widespread use of  DNA to identify relatives tests this notion. 

There are times when failing to acknowledge this distinction leads to error.  In BK there are indicators to show how a parent is related to a child (natural, step, foster, etc) and some reports allow you to see these relationships.  However, the utility that allows you to flag a group of descendants of a person does not allow you to choose only the "natural" (i.e., the birth) children.  This overstates genetic descendants for those of us who are doing one-name studies and I do not see an easy way to even quantify the difference.

It would be useful in the "flag" utility to allow the user to choose whether the flag is only for "natural" descendants.  

Jim Dell
 

John

Also take that “new” option into consideration on the reasonableness report.

Jim

 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of John Steed
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:11 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Flagging descendants

 

To Jim Ramaley

 

OK, I will work on adding that option.

 

John Steed

 

 


From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Jim Ramaley <james.ramaley@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:23 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Flagging descendants

 

Generally, I have been an advocate of considering adopted children as "part of the family" and have not worried that their gene pool is different from their adopted family's.  However, the widespread use of  DNA to identify relatives tests this notion. 

There are times when failing to acknowledge this distinction leads to error.  In BK there are indicators to show how a parent is related to a child (natural, step, foster, etc) and some reports allow you to see these relationships.  However, the utility that allows you to flag a group of descendants of a person does not allow you to choose only the "natural" (i.e., the birth) children.  This overstates genetic descendants for those of us who are doing one-name studies and I do not see an easy way to even quantify the difference.

It would be useful in the "flag" utility to allow the user to choose whether the flag is only for "natural" descendants.  

Otto Jørgensen
 

In generall all person to a houshold can be added. But ther have to some way to make some differences.  JS have received many proposal and facts on this from Scandinaviann during many years.

---
hilsen/regards Otto -#-

 

Den 19.02.2020 14:11, skrev John Steed:

To Jim Ramaley
 
OK, I will work on adding that option.
 
John Steed
 
 
 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Jim Ramaley <james.ramaley@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:23 PM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Flagging descendants
 
Generally, I have been an advocate of considering adopted children as "part of the family" and have not worried that their gene pool is different from their adopted family's.  However, the widespread use of  DNA to identify relatives tests this notion. 

There are times when failing to acknowledge this distinction leads to error.  In BK there are indicators to show how a parent is related to a child (natural, step, foster, etc) and some reports allow you to see these relationships.  However, the utility that allows you to flag a group of descendants of a person does not allow you to choose only the "natural" (i.e., the birth) children.  This overstates genetic descendants for those of us who are doing one-name studies and I do not see an easy way to even quantify the difference.

It would be useful in the "flag" utility to allow the user to choose whether the flag is only for "natural" descendants.  

Sue Horsman
 

Equally it would be useful to be able to flag descendents of the non-biological offspring.

Sue