Dna Calculator

[1798]

DNA Calculator tells you how much of your DNA is shared, indicating how much of your total ancestry is shared. This is different to Autosomal DNA statistics which assumes only one relation in very recent past.

Sharing 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA among Eurasians is not the same as considering them as 5th cousins. So please don't use a benchmark that is entirely different for what the tool was meant for.

If I want to be clear, the tool is meant to know the shared DNA which tells your total percentage of shared ancestors in each others pedigree.

The dna Calculator shows that I share 33.28% of my dna with Ust'Isham but he died 41,000 years ago. This is not the same as the 49% that I share with my son because my son and I have matching segments. The ancient ancestry calculator shows that I don't have any matching segments with the ancient dna if I set it to 100%.

[suttonwho]

DNA Calculator tells you how much of your DNA is shared, indicating how much of your total ancestry is shared. This is different to Autosomal DNA statistics which assumes only one relation in very recent past.

Sharing 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA among Eurasians is not the same as considering them as 5th cousins. So please don't use a benchmark that is entirely different for what the tool was meant for.

If I want to be clear, the tool is meant to know the shared DNA which tells your total percentage of shared ancestors in each others pedigree.

Hi Felix. Thanks for adding a little more information. The archaic DNA piece specifically quoted you saying that the percentage shared concerned only .3% of total matching DNA. In the DNA Calculator piece it was also pointed out that ISOGG autosomal relationship percentages don't apply to this calculator. I will add your extra clarification to the piece, and this thread is also linked in the comments section.

The problem is, there are people very new to genetic genealogy and very confused by everything and anything. I can't overstate how confused they are. When news of new tools begins making the rounds they inevitably try them. Then comes a deluge of people questioning why they share 30% DNA with people they know they aren't related to, or people that don't realise that their 5% Denisova is only 5% of .3 % of their DNA.

I like your tools. I think they are fun and I recommend them as long as people understand what exactly they are measuring. I've also been answering questions from new people long enough to know that they are going to find out about the tools, try them and most of them are NOT going to understand what they are measuring. Thus the little pieces to send them a link to when the questions start.

[1798]

Hi Felix. Thanks for adding a little more information. The archaic DNA piece specifically quoted you saying that the percentage shared concerned only .3% of total matching DNA. In the DNA Calculator piece it was also pointed out that ISOGG autosomal relationship percentages don't apply to this calculator. I will add your extra clarification to the piece, and this thread is also linked in the comments section.

The problem is, there are people very new to genetic genealogy and very confused by everything and anything. I can't overstate how confused they are. When news of new tools begins making the rounds they inevitably try them. Then comes a deluge of people questioning why they share 30% DNA with people they know they aren't related to, or people that don't realise that their 5% Denisova is only 5% of .3 % of their DNA.

I like your tools. I think they are fun and I recommend them as long as people understand what exactly they are measuring. I've also been answering questions from new people long enough to know that they are going to find out about the tools, try them and most of them are NOT going to understand what they are measuring. Thus the little pieces to send them a link to when the questions start.

The calculator shows shared dna. It does not show 33% of 3% which would be a very small percentage. I entered H4 and H5 and the dna shared is 1.62%. For me it shows 14.33% so it is not accurate.

[suttonwho]

1798, are we talking about the same tools?

The bit you bolded is not entirely concerning the DNA Calculator. There are 3 new tools in addition to the DNA calculator.

[1798]

1798, are we talking about the same tools?

The bit you bolded is not entirely concerning the DNA Calculator. There are 3 new tools in addition to the DNA calculator.

http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/dna-calculator.html

[suttonwho]

Right. The link you provided is not related to the, "5% of .3 % of their DNA." That is concerning the Archaic set of tools. It is also not 3% as you mentioned, but POINT 3 %. So, while in my study we were getting ranges of 5% Neanderthal or Denisovan, that was concerning 5% of .3% as stated previously. You're right, it is a very tiny amount. I would be curious to see what others find in when they run their data.

The DNA calculator is another ball of wax and the way Felix explained it makes sense to me. My unrelated grandmothers share about 31% of their total DNA. Only 16% of it is in the 1-2 cm/ 100 snps range and the rest is below. In other words, it is DNA everyone human shares. They have no shared DNA anywhere near 7 cm/700 snps. It isn't genealogical time range sharing or anything remotely similar to that.

[1798]

Right. The link you provided is not related to the, "5% of .3 % of their DNA." That is concerning the Archaic set of tools. It is also not 3% as you mentioned, but POINT 3 %. So, while in my study we were getting ranges of 5% Neanderthal or Denisovan, that was concerning 5% of .3% as stated previously. You're right, it is a very tiny amount. I would be curious to see what others find in when they run their data.

The DNA calculator is another ball of wax and the way Felix explained it makes sense to me. My unrelated grandmothers share about 31% of their total DNA. Only 16% of it is in the 1-2 cm/ 100 snps range and the rest is below. In other words, it is DNA everyone human shares. They have no shared DNA anywhere near 7 cm/700 snps. It isn't genealogical time range sharing or anything remotely similar to that.

I checked out Hinxton 4 and 5 with BR2 and NE1 and their results are 16% and 14%.
The ancient ancestry shows how well that I am related to the ancients. I have 20 matching segments when I use it at 80% but at 100% I have none. I have checked out some of the SNPs whereby I have a different genoptype to the ancients and I have the MAF for the majority of them but some ancestral alleles as well.

http://www.y-str.org/2014/11/ancient-ancestry.html

[suttonwho]

The Ancient tool you referenced isn't the group of tools I'm referencing. I am talking about the 3 new tools listed under Calculators:
http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/neander...alculator.html
http://www.y-str.org/p/tools-utilities.html
http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/clovis-...alculator.html

I don't have the raw data of Hinxton 4, 5, BR2 or NE1 on my computer to do any test runs. Maybe someone else can theorize why they are only sharing 14-16%.

I have run my raw data against all the ancient DNA uploaded to Gedmatch (there is a tool there to do it all in 1 fell swoop) and I share a 6.9 cm with Loschbour. That tool doesn't provide the shared percentage but it wouldn't much matter. The other shared segments are small and inconsequential, similar to the tiny segments my grandmothers share.

[felix]

DNA Calculator updated for more clarity ...

I just updated the DNA calculator to customize thresholds/settings along with 2 predefined options for total and recent ancestry. Hope this will avoid confusion. I also made the other 3 tools obsolete.

Link: http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/dna-calculator.html

[1798]

I just updated the DNA calculator to customize thresholds/settings along with 2 predefined options for total and recent ancestry. Hope this will avoid confusion. I also made the other 3 tools obsolete.

Link: http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/dna-calculator.html

Thanks for making all these tools available free of charge.I think you are a genius at this dna stuff.

[felix]

Thanks for making all these tools available free of charge.I think you are a genius at this dna stuff.

No, please don't assume more about me. I am just an amateur hobbyist.

[suttonwho]

Felix, I just tried out the updated DNA Calculator and it will be much less confusing. However, I also want to thank you for the original version because the results were very enlightening!

Also, I do hope you will reconsider putting your Ancient Calculators back up. There is so much interest in those subjects, and for those who didn't test at Nat Geo or 23 this is another way to get an idea of our numbers.

[1798]

No, please don't assume more about me. I am just an amateur hobbyist.

How long should it take to analyse the data with the Autosomal Segment Analyzer? I have tried it a few times but it doesn't work for me.

[1798]

Right. The link you provided is not related to the, "5% of .3 % of their DNA." That is concerning the Archaic set of tools. It is also not 3% as you mentioned, but POINT 3 %. So, while in my study we were getting ranges of 5% Neanderthal or Denisovan, that was concerning 5% of .3% as stated previously. You're right, it is a very tiny amount. I would be curious to see what others find in when they run their data.

The DNA calculator is another ball of wax and the way Felix explained it makes sense to me. My unrelated grandmothers share about 31% of their total DNA. Only 16% of it is in the 1-2 cm/ 100 snps range and the rest is below. In other words, it is DNA everyone human shares. They have no shared DNA anywhere near 7 cm/700 snps. It isn't genealogical time range sharing or anything remotely similar to that.

suttonwho
I have 693,734 SNPs from FF. So we should match at all but .3% of them. Isn't that right? So you and I would have to compare our files to find those SNPs that we don't match in. How many autosomal SNPs happen in every birth?

[felix]

Felix, I just tried out the updated DNA Calculator and it will be much less confusing. However, I also want to thank you for the original version because the results were very enlightening!

Also, I do hope you will reconsider putting your Ancient Calculators back up. There is so much interest in those subjects, and for those who didn't test at Nat Geo or 23 this is another way to get an idea of our numbers.

I made an another calculator for ancient DNA.
Link: http://www.y-str.org/2014/12/ancient-calculator.html