Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA news and argument

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DNA news and argument

    Channel 7, ABC Los Angeles news did a short news report on DNA testing for ancestry. It aired tonight at 6:00 PM PST. Interestingly one of the customers who possibly is a Family Tree DNA customer reported his ancestry came back as Native American but he claims to be Irish. All his family records indicate an Irish descent. He even pointed out on Family Tree DNA's website of results he obtained from Family Tree DNA. I'd say he probably has been misled by family albeit not intentionally, but because the records become more scarce as time goes further back. DNA is not a perfect science, but it's all we have for now when it comes to determining deep ancestry. Then of course, whoever was watching this news report with me made statements that the DNA tests are all "Bullsh!t"!! And that it's all probabilities. So if that's the case, then perhaps we should just throw away the only evidence left behind from a murder crime being DNA, because of probabilities. Perhaps we close all the labs that deal with fundamental particles (particle accelerators) down because of all the probabilities involved.

    The labs which test DNA for ancestry need to hold more responsibility in their statements or claims, not that they're all doing the wrong thing, but the impression people come away with is misleading some of them. We'll always have people that do not understand science or technology and are quick to dismiss any findings, or probabilities with no valid argument to back their comments which are more opinionated than based on facts. I'm hoping companies like Family Tree DNA, Ethnoancestry, DNAtribes, etc. are aware of the potential problems they could be facing if the customers think their direct or specific ancestry can be determined by DNA testing. It's still relatively a "new" science and even case law has been slow to adopt it, but it's definitely better than throwing away DNA forensics based on probabilities.

  • #2
    Was this the basic haplogroup testing? As you know, it is entirely possible that there was an adoption or other situation in this family and his direct paternal line in the Irish family was not ancestral Irish. Were possibilities not even discussed in the news feature? That is a shame because it misleads viewers. I hate news stories that latch onto only negative aspects of stories. If his paternal line were truly Irish, it would show. If you don't want to know, don't take the test!

    Comment


    • #3
      Many native Americans went to Europe to start families too . . . the numbers were not as great as those who came to America.

      Comment


      • #4
        He he. I bet it was Dale from King of the Hill who had his son Joseph tested.

        http://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/bios/index.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Arch Yeomans
          Channel 7, ABC Los Angeles news did a short news report on DNA testing for ancestry. It aired tonight at 6:00 PM PST. Interestingly one of the customers who possibly is a Family Tree DNA customer reported his ancestry came back as Native American but he claims to be Irish. All his family records indicate an Irish descent. He even pointed out on Family Tree DNA's website of results he obtained from Family Tree DNA. I'd say he probably has been misled by family albeit not intentionally, but because the records become more scarce as time goes further back. DNA is not a perfect science, but it's all we have for now when it comes to determining deep ancestry. Then of course, whoever was watching this news report with me made statements that the DNA tests are all "Bullsh!t"!! And that it's all probabilities. So if that's the case, then perhaps we should just throw away the only evidence left behind from a murder crime being DNA, because of probabilities. Perhaps we close all the labs that deal with fundamental particles (particle accelerators) down because of all the probabilities involved.

          The labs which test DNA for ancestry need to hold more responsibility in their statements or claims, not that they're all doing the wrong thing, but the impression people come away with is misleading some of them. We'll always have people that do not understand science or technology and are quick to dismiss any findings, or probabilities with no valid argument to back their comments which are more opinionated than based on facts. I'm hoping companies like Family Tree DNA, Ethnoancestry, DNAtribes, etc. are aware of the potential problems they could be facing if the customers think their direct or specific ancestry can be determined by DNA testing. It's still relatively a "new" science and even case law has been slow to adopt it, but it's definitely better than throwing away DNA forensics based on probabilities.
          I think records can't prove your breed like DNA can(no one REALLY knows what you have)-that's why I'd like DNA to confirm my ancestry as a second or first opinion.I'd like to get my paternal side done and the whole autosomal to see both sides at once-to get a better picture of myself.

          Comment


          • #6
            DNA gets you in the Know.I'm in the Know(now)

            Originally posted by Jambalaia32
            I think records can't prove your breed like DNA can(no one REALLY knows what you have)-that's why I'd like DNA to confirm my ancestry as a second or first opinion.I'd like to get my paternal side done and the whole autosomal to see both sides at once-to get a better picture of myself.
            I mean really ,how do you actually know someone is Irish or anything ? Cause they told you? Maybe they don't know what they have.

            Comment


            • #7
              Unconvinced

              Since having my y chrome tested I am completely convinced that I am unconvinced that science has yet to figure out a way to prove relationships. It IS based entirely on probabilities and also based on one single theory-that there was one set of parents first and foremost. This supposition is and probably never will be proven.

              I am not disregarding science completelely, but I am not convinced that they know precisely how genetic relationships work and how genes mutate.

              Oppenheimer's work while credible, leaves much to the imagination due to the fact that it is difficult to prove theories that have no empirical and solid foundation.

              Much like religion, science needs to keep a very open mind theoretically speaking and indeed science seems to be doing that.

              Since finding out my personal results I have watched my family implode into an emotional abyss. I (whom on paper am related to everyone in my Group Project but am not anywhere near matching the people in my project genetically speaking) had to bring these results to the table and ask the tough questions, "was I adopted?", "is my father REALLY my father?", "did grandmother have my father out of wedlock?" etc. etc. These results have really torn us apart. My brother has agreed to take a scrape so that we can prove our fraternity at least. Imagine if science got it wrong and genes CAN mutate a lot faster and I really am a member of my group-then what?

              FTDNA has told me that either I or someone in my paternal line was part of a "non paternal" event.

              It's tough being a revolutionary.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SaintManx
                Since having my y chrome tested I am completely convinced that I am unconvinced that science has yet to figure out a way to prove relationships. It IS based entirely on probabilities and also based on one single theory-that there was one set of parents first and foremost. This supposition is and probably never will be proven.

                I am not disregarding science completelely, but I am not convinced that they know precisely how genetic relationships work and how genes mutate.

                Oppenheimer's work while credible, leaves much to the imagination due to the fact that it is difficult to prove theories that have no empirical and solid foundation.

                Much like religion, science needs to keep a very open mind theoretically speaking and indeed science seems to be doing that.

                Since finding out my personal results I have watched my family implode into an emotional abyss. I (whom on paper am related to everyone in my Group Project but am not anywhere near matching the people in my project genetically speaking) had to bring these results to the table and ask the tough questions, "was I adopted?", "is my father REALLY my father?", "did grandmother have my father out of wedlock?" etc. etc. These results have really torn us apart. My brother has agreed to take a scrape so that we can prove our fraternity at least. Imagine if science got it wrong and genes CAN mutate a lot faster and I really am a member of my group-then what?

                FTDNA has told me that either I or someone in my paternal line was part of a "non paternal" event.

                It's tough being a revolutionary.
                The appropriate quote here is "Don't ask the question, if you might not like the answer."

                I think there are enough success stories to indicate that genetic genealogy is a useful tool in family history research. It's unfortunate that in your case it disproved something you and your family believed.

                Mike

                Comment


                • #9
                  Incorrect assumption

                  Originally posted by MMaddi
                  The appropriate quote here is "Don't ask the question, if you might not like the answer."

                  I think there are enough success stories to indicate that genetic genealogy is a useful tool in family history research. It's unfortunate that in your case it disproved something you and your family believed.

                  Mike
                  You have erroneously assumed my intentions. The question that you pose(don't ask the question if you might not like the answer) is an assumption not based on fact but on the probability in your experience of it being true. This proves my point on how science thinks and people in general.

                  Just because there might be success stories (again, how is that being defined?) does not make the means of testing,the results,and the theories of humankind's genesis empirically true.

                  Don't you think if this were an exact science the testing companies would say that it was? They stand by their results but not their applications.

                  BTW- I enjoyed my results but they have taught me that I cannot wholly rely upon science as a tool in this medium yet.
                  Last edited by SaintManx; 30 December 2006, 08:36 AM. Reason: more editorial

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SaintManx
                    You have erroneously assumed my intentions. The question that you pose(don't ask the question if you might not like the answer) is an assumption not based on fact but on the probability in your experience of it being true. This proves my point on how science thinks and people in general.

                    Just because there might be success stories (again, how is that being defined?) does not make the means of testing,the results,and the theories of humankind's genesis empirically true.

                    Don't you think if this were an exact science the testing companies would say that it was? They stand by their results but not their applications.

                    BTW- I enjoyed my results but they have taught me that I cannot wholly rely upon science as a tool in this medium yet.
                    You can choose to accept your beliefs over generally accepted scientific principles if you wish. There is debate about the mutation rates, but there is a small range of generally accepted rates for each marker. This is based on father-son studies and things of that sort. You are correct in that these are probabilities based on averages in these studies. It may be the case that your paternal line has a higher mutation rate than the average rate.

                    Before we assume that your beliefs or what FTDNA has told you is correct, let's examine the evidence.

                    First of all, what do you base your belief on that you are in the same paternal line as others in your surname project? Do you have paper-trail evidence that you've collected, like birth certificates, census listings, etc.? Is this surname very common, like Smith or Jones or Johnson, or is it not very common or somewhere in the middle? If it's a very or fairly common British Isles-based surname, then it's possible that that is actually the true surname of your paternal line, but it's not the same paternal line of the others in the surname project, at least not in the last dozen or more generations.

                    Next, what do the yDNA test results show? How many markers do you differ from, at 37 markers, in comparison to the nearest person to you in the project? Which markers are these? Are they regarded as fast or slow mutators, and how much are you off on these markers, 1 or 2 or 3?

                    If you're willing to share this information with us, maybe we can see where it is the case that possibly your paternal line is a "fast mutator" that can be fit within the far ranges of mutation rates. However, if you're so far off that it would be incredible to believe that you're of the same paternal line as others in the project, then you can accept the evidence of the results and FTDNA's interpretation or continue to believe what you now believe. That's your choice.

                    If you reject FTDNA's interpretation and the science they are using, it would seem like a waste of money to have your brother tested. Why spend more money with a company whose method and conclusions you reject?

                    Mike
                    Last edited by MMaddi; 30 December 2006, 02:06 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      single ancestor

                      Originally posted by SaintManx
                      Since having my y chrome tested I am completely convinced that I am unconvinced that science has yet to figure out a way to prove relationships. It IS based entirely on probabilities and also based on one single theory-that there was one set of parents first and foremost. This supposition is and probably never will be proven.
                      All science is relative and based on probabilities. In this case, all you have to do is find one human being that doesnt carry that Y chromosomal Adam polymorphism (SNP) and you can disprove the single paternal ancestor theory. Afterall, none of the apes not even Neandertal carried it, but all humans seem to.

                      regards,

                      bob

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bob_chasm
                        All science is relative and based on probabilities. In this case, all you have to do is find one human being that doesnt carry that Y chromosomal Adam polymorphism (SNP) and you can disprove the single paternal ancestor theory. Afterall, none of the apes not even Neandertal carried it, but all humans seem to.

                        regards,

                        bob
                        So, where did we evolve from? I am not being condescending but rather, truly interested.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MMaddi
                          You can choose to accept your beliefs over generally accepted scientific principles if you wish. There is debate about the mutation rates, but there is a small range of generally accepted rates for each marker. This is based on father-son studies and things of that sort. You are correct in that these are probabilities based on averages in these studies. It may be the case that your paternal line has a higher mutation rate than the average rate.

                          Before we assume that your beliefs or what FTDNA has told you is correct, let's examine the evidence.

                          First of all, what do you base your belief on that you are in the same paternal line as others in your surname project? Do you have paper-trail evidence that you've collected, like birth certificates, census listings, etc.? Is this surname very common, like Smith or Jones or Johnson, or is it not very common or somewhere in the middle? If it's a very or fairly common British Isles-based surname, then it's possible that that is actually the true surname of your paternal line, but it's not the same paternal line of the others in the surname project, at least not in the last dozen or more generations.

                          Next, what do the yDNA test results show? How many markers do you differ from, at 37 markers, in comparison to the nearest person to you in the project? Which markers are these? Are they regarded as fast or slow mutators, and how much are you off on these markers, 1 or 2 or 3?

                          If you're willing to share this information with us, maybe we can see where it is the case that possibly your paternal line is a "fast mutator" that can be fit within the far ranges of mutation rates. However, if you're so far off that it would be incredible to believe that you're of the same paternal line as others in the project, then you can accept the evidence of the results and FTDNA's interpretation or continue to believe what you now believe. That's your choice.

                          If you reject FTDNA's interpretation and the science they are using, it would seem like a waste of money to have your brother tested. Why spend more money with a company whose method and conclusions you reject?

                          Mike
                          Mike-

                          I do not reject conclusions, I am merly unconvinced. My paper trail leads me back all the way to 1632, Mass. Bay Colony as do the others in the group to the same immigrant ancestor. I am so far off from the one 37 marker, as well as the 67 marker (like 25 mutations) that science says that a relationship is impossible. My lineage is also published and stored in the NEHGS and is registered with various societies. In order for me to find the truth it is my responsibility to question all of the possibilities, including that science may not be completely correct. The group's members have all established our lineage back to the same common ancestor. FTDNA says that I donated a healthy scrape and that my results are just.

                          I am not a professional scientist so I cannot say that the indeed have it wrong-however due to the lack of guarantees I can say that I am not 100% confident.

                          I believe that you have seen my results ( I do not match ANYONE in the base beyond 12 markers) but here are my numbers-

                          72248
                          9epze
                          St. John Group Project

                          Cheers for your response.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SaintManx
                            Mike-

                            I do not reject conclusions, I am merly unconvinced. My paper trail leads me back all the way to 1632, Mass. Bay Colony as do the others in the group to the same immigrant ancestor. I am so far off from the one 37 marker, as well as the 67 marker (like 25 mutations) that science says that a relationship is impossible. My lineage is also published and stored in the NEHGS and is registered with various societies. In order for me to find the truth it is my responsibility to question all of the possibilities, including that science may not be completely correct. The group's members have all established our lineage back to the same common ancestor. FTDNA says that I donated a healthy scrape and that my results are just.

                            I am not a professional scientist so I cannot say that the indeed have it wrong-however due to the lack of guarantees I can say that I am not 100% confident.

                            I believe that you have seen my results ( I do not match ANYONE in the base beyond 12 markers) but here are my numbers-

                            72248
                            9epze
                            St. John Group Project

                            Cheers for your response.
                            SaintManx,

                            Have you considered testing with another genetic genealogy company just to test the accuracy of your first test?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Pheno-Geno Type

                              Originally posted by Arch Yeomans
                              Channel 7, ABC Los Angeles news did a short news report on DNA testing for ancestry. It aired tonight at 6:00 PM PST. Interestingly one of the customers who possibly is a Family Tree DNA customer reported his ancestry came back as Native American but he claims to be Irish. All his family records indicate an Irish descent. He even pointed out on Family Tree DNA's website of results he obtained from Family Tree DNA. I'd say he probably has been misled by family albeit not intentionally, but because the records become more scarce as time goes further back. DNA is not a perfect science, but it's all we have for now when it comes to determining deep ancestry. Then of course, whoever was watching this news report with me made statements that the DNA tests are all "Bullsh!t"!! And that it's all probabilities. So if that's the case, then perhaps we should just throw away the only evidence left behind from a murder crime being DNA, because of probabilities. Perhaps we close all the labs that deal with fundamental particles (particle accelerators) down because of all the probabilities involved.

                              The labs which test DNA for ancestry need to hold more responsibility in their statements or claims, not that they're all doing the wrong thing, but the impression people come away with is misleading some of them. We'll always have people that do not understand science or technology and are quick to dismiss any findings, or probabilities with no valid argument to back their comments which are more opinionated than based on facts. I'm hoping companies like Family Tree DNA, Ethnoancestry, DNAtribes, etc. are aware of the potential problems they could be facing if the customers think their direct or specific ancestry can be determined by DNA testing. It's still relatively a "new" science and even case law has been slow to adopt it, but it's definitely better than throwing away DNA forensics based on probabilities.
                              Hey, Down the bottom, Where do you get your Phenotype/Genotype tested at ? It's good to know EVERYTHING.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X