Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confusing results and infidelity....

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

  • confusing results and infidelity....

    I wasn't sure whether to post this.
    Reading all of the problems with DNA resuts,
    People finding native american when they don't have
    family history, etc or visa vera.
    This being inconsistant with family history,leads
    me to question one thing,
    Is it possible that although, we know
    who our parents were who raised us,
    maybe our fathers may not be our biological fathers.
    This is a pretty strong,observation I know.
    But I saw a documentary on Nova , a while ago.
    It said something in the range of 30% of babies are
    not biologically the same dna as their believed fathers.
    I am not pretending to be an expert here but it just seems,
    possible.
    You guys on here are very smart by the way,
    I am still a learner on this board, I just think wow,
    when I read the posts,what a group of DNA experts!

  • #2
    There are two different questions you pose here.

    First, you bring up unexpected results that indicate Native American ancestry where none was expected or vice versa. There are two possibilities here. First, the yDNA was tested and came back as a haplogroup that was unexpected. C3 and Q are Native American yDNA haplogroups, all others usually indicate no Native American ancestry in the paternal line. Second, the mtDNA was tested and came back as an unexpected haplogroup. A, B, C and D and sometimes X are Native American haplogroups and all others usually indicate no Native American ancestry in the maternal line.

    In either case, it's quite common for people who have family stories about Native American ancestry (usually in the maternal line) to have a non-Native American haplogroup come back. (This happened to my girlfriend, who was told her maternal grandmother had some Native American ancestry, but her haplogroup is U5a1, a European haplogroup.) This may be because the family story is untrue. But it also may be that the Native American ancestry is not in the line being tested. For instance, let' say that the family story has the maternal grandmother being part Native American and the mtDNA haplogroup for the tested maternal line descendant is H, a very European haplogroup. This may mean that the maternal grandmother's father, instead of her mother, was Native American. If you could find a male relative in the paternal line of her father, then you may be able to find this out with a yDNA test.

    Your second question relates to illegitimacy being implied by yDNA results. The only way you would know this for sure is if a father and son or two brothers with the same father come back with very far off results, whether not a close match on marker values or different haplogroups. I have never heard a figure from any study that supports a 30% level of different DNA results between fathers and sons! I have heard that some researchers claim 5-10% illegitimacy, but even those claims are disputed by genetic genealogists I know who are knowledgeable. And of course, there are cases where people with the same surname try to prove they are cousins of some sort and their results are not close. If it's a common surname, Johnson or Jackson or something like that, this does not mean necessarily mean illegitimacy, since common surnames don't necessarily mean the same ancestry in the paternal line. Of course, if it's not a common surname and two close cousins, like first or second cousins, come back with results that don't match closely, then there is the possibility of illegitimacy or perhaps adoption.

    I don't know if this reply addresses your specific situation, but those are the general guidelines for genetic genealogists to apply results to a specific situation of possible non-relatedness. The best approach is to use DNA test results together with a good paper trail documentation of the line. Now if you're talking about autosomal results you have, these rules don't apply as well. Given the nature of autosomal chromosomes, it's less clear-cut what any results say or don't say about Native American or other ethnic ancestry or possible illegitimacy.

    Mike Maddi
    Last edited by MMaddi; 13 August 2007, 04:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just posted something similar in the Montgomery thread. Why is it that every time I post something I later find a thread that is more relevant to what I just posted?

      It was expected in society for people to be married and have children. I believe that gay men married women and the men had their own private affairs with men, but to keep up appearances married people had to have children. I believe that these gay husbands encouraged their wives to have children with another man, and the gay husbands would claim to be the father. That is the so-called 'open marriage', privately at least.

      Nowadays it isn't important to have children, but some people still marry for whatever reason they have. I know a gay man from Europe who married an American (not me) solely so he can stay in this country. Two hundred years ago children would have been expected to keep up the facade.

      So if you find that you are not descended from a certain man, don't automatically assume the wife was a wanton woman because the bitter truth just may be that the husband, the person you thought was your blood ancestor, was gay and wouldn't touch any woman with a ten foot pole, so to speak.
      Last edited by rainbow; 13 August 2007, 06:42 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MMaddi
        There are two different questions you pose here.

        First, you bring up unexpected results that indicate Native American ancestry where none was expected or vice versa. There are two possibilities here. First, the yDNA was tested and came back as a haplogroup that was unexpected. C3 and Q are Native American yDNA haplogroups, all others usually indicate no Native American ancestry in the paternal line. Second, the mtDNA was tested and came back as an unexpected haplogroup. A, B, C and D and sometimes X are Native American haplogroups and all others usually indicate no Native American ancestry in the maternal line.

        In either case, it's quite common for people who have family stories about Native American ancestry (usually in the maternal line) to have a non-Native American haplogroup come back. (This happened to my girlfriend, who was told her maternal grandmother had some Native American ancestry, but her haplogroup is U5a1, a European haplogroup.) This may be because the family story is untrue. But it also may be that the Native American ancestry is not in the line being tested. For instance, let' say that the family story has the maternal grandmother being part Native American and the mtDNA haplogroup for the tested maternal line descendant is H, a very European haplogroup. This may mean that the maternal grandmother's father, instead of her mother, was Native American. If you could find a male relative in the paternal line of her father, then you may be able to find this out with a yDNA test.


        Now if you're talking about autosomal results you have, these rules don't apply as well. Given the nature of autosomal chromosomes, it's less clear-cut what any results say or don't say about Native American or other ethnic ancestry or possible illegitimacy.

        Mike Maddi
        I think dnaval was referring to the autosomal results.
        She & I both received Native American results from AncestryByDna, with no known Native American ancestry.

        My autosomal result from AncestryByDna is 83% European, 17% Native American.

        I then had reports done by DNA Tribes but it does not match me to the Americas (only by diaspora). The shocking thing was that DNA Tribes matched me to Mozambique and Pakistan in the top 20 of my first report. It dramatically changed in my newest update, with Mozambique and Pakistan gone. But...why don't I have any DNA Tribes Native American matches to back up what ABD says?

        My family history is 3/4 Holland & British Isles, and 1/4 Czech.
        My mitochondrial haplogroup is European H.

        My DNATribes reports keeps matching me to Portugal.
        Is there something I don't know about?
        Maybe I'm descended from Portuguese sailors that shipwrecked in the British Isles?
        On the other hand, I've read Sykes new book that basically says that most British people are descended from the ancient Celtic Iberians (Portugal)
        Last edited by rainbow; 13 August 2007, 07:51 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          And what about all of the other reasons?

          Originally posted by rainbow
          So if you find that you are not descended from a certain man, don't automatically assume the wife was a wanton woman because the bitter truth just may be that the husband, the person you thought was your blood ancestor, was gay and wouldn't touch any woman with a ten foot pole, so to speak.
          Of course there are many other reasons why the person thought to be the father wasn't. Maybe both the man and woman thought it was better to adopt than to add another child to the rapidly growing population. Maybe one or the other couldn't have children so they adopted. Maybe the woman was raped. Maybe the woman was gay so they adopted. I'm not sure why we must assume someone was gay. Maybe the woman's parents had a child late in life and the couple adopted it. How many more reasons would you like?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rainbow
            I think dnaval was referring to the autosomal results.
            She & I both received Native American results from AncestryByDna, with no known Native American ancestry.

            My autosomal result from AncestryByDna is 83% European, 17% Native American.

            I then had reports done by DNA Tribes but it does not match me to the Americas (only by diaspora). The shocking thing was that DNA Tribes matched me to Mozambique and Pakistan in the top 20 of my first report. It dramatically changed in my newest update, with Mozambique and Pakistan gone. But...why don't I have any DNA Tribes Native American matches to back up what ABD says?

            My family history is 3/4 Holland & British Isles, and 1/4 Czech.
            My mitochondrial haplogroup is European H.

            My DNATribes reports keeps matching me to Portugal.
            Is there something I don't know about?
            Maybe I'm descended from Portuguese sailors that shipwrecked in the British Isles?
            On the other hand, I've read Sykes new book that basically says that most British people are descended from the ancient Celtic Iberians (Portugal)
            What you're describing is the problem with autosomal results. You can't attribute results to a specific line, as you can with yDNA and mtDNA and, to a limited extent, xDNA. Not being able to pin down an autosomal result to a specific line also means you can't match it to your paper trail and say, "Aha, now I know that gggg-grandma Bessie must have been a Native American."

            So you're left guessing exactly how you got 17% Native American. Was it an abnormally high concentration of autosomal markers you happened to get from one line 5 generations ago? Or is it just that you have autosomal markers, by chance, that match markers found among Native Americans?

            And if dnaval is asking whether different autosomal results between her and one of her parents or siblings indicates she is illegitimate, then she's worrying herself for no reason. If she feels the need to test that, there are commercial testing labs that specialize in paternity and siblingship testing, which is different than genetic genealogy testing. I don't think it's wise, without some expert guidance, to conclude from autosomal test results that someone is illegitimate.

            Autosomal testing is going to have to make a lot of progress before it can be truly reliable. Even then the recombination of autosomal markers in each generation places an inherent limit on what it can tell us with any degree of probability. I admit that it can be interesting to see what it may say about your overall ethnic makeup, but it remains interesting and not very reliable.
            Last edited by MMaddi; 13 August 2007, 08:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Dnaval, like you I am still learning about the science of DNA and the meaning of the terminology (sometimes very daunting ). I am both a student of history and a genealogical researcher and, from my own research in both areas, I wanted to respond to some of the questions you raised.

              About American Indian ancestry: there was a time, even in the 20th century, when possessing Ameican Indian blood was not looked upon with favor. Some families went to great extremes to hide any Indian ancestry not even leaving oral traditions behind. Of course, there are instances of the exact opposite -- families who vehemently and vocally declare connections with a "Cherokee Indian princess." In the end, DNA does not lie although it can reveal strange new side-roads on the human journey through history.

              Secondly, when DNA reveals something totally unexpected it seems reasonable to explore the possibility: the only way to do this is to look at the historical time and place. Dnaval wrote: "I saw a documentary on Nova , a while ago. It said something in the range of 30% of babies are not biologically the same dna as their believed fathers." As to this, I have to ask where was this and what was the historical period? Even in the US during the 1960s, 30% is incredibly high . Here it becomes important not to just research the historical record but ask the question, how reliable are the sources? This source material can be either historical and scientific. Just because it is in print (or on TV) does not mean it is either factual or reliable ! Side-issue: this is also why it is of critical importance that DNA labs have strict quality controls in place so "errors" do not occur.

              Also there is the whole issue of adoption (or fosterage). Even a hundred years ago adoption was not a formal legal proceeding. So if you have a child raised by another family and the child took the adoptive family's name -- there may be no paper trail at all. In this case, DNA comparisons with the adoptive family could prove totally futile.

              Finally, as others here have pointed out, DNA is not cut-and-dried (I find autosomal results hard to understand, but I am working on it). MMaddi wrote: "The best approach is to use DNA test results together with a good paper trail documentation of the line. Now if you're talking about autosomal results you have, these rules don't apply as well. Given the nature of autosomal chromosomes, it's less clear-cut what any results say or don't say about Native American or other ethnic ancestry or possible illegitimacy." Amen to this! It is vitally important to research the genealogical record to match with your DNA results. ~~Marnie

              Comment


              • #8
                I think you are all right...

                My point was not to assume everyone with unexpected results is illegitimate.
                Remember I am not an expert on this site at all.
                You guys are teaching me more than I can ever teach you.
                30% I agree maybe a bit exaggerated..sorry about that #.
                The last quote about native american being hidden, sounds about right.
                It is really hard to be in the Americas for hundreds of years and
                not have a bit of African or Native American ancestry, I suppose.
                Really were kinda lucky that, the states,mexico and south america
                is the only place reall full-blood natives started.
                Ok,Maybe a bit is found in the mediterranean areas.
                I kinda wondered about that theory, though.
                Isn't it possible when John Smith,Bolivar and other sailors came over
                to the Americas, they took some natives back with them?
                Because you see,It seems if Asians went to southern europe, before reaching alaska, (referring to the bering strait theory)researchers would find NA in southern europe and they would have formed tribes in Greece Italy etc..much like the states...humm..ok I'm rambling again,but,it's Just a thought.

                Anyway,A lady I talked with yesterday,said why question it so much.
                Just be proud to have a bit of American history in us.
                Rainbow, remember too, that a few others on this board have
                pointed out your obvious NA(Choctaw) characteristics.
                To sum it all up about my little 12% hehe..well
                I guess somebody in my family was hiding something.

                Thanks you guys for helping me figure all this DNA stuff out.


                Val


                Originally posted by Marnie
                Dnaval, like you I am still learning about the science of DNA and the meaning of the terminology (sometimes very daunting ). I am both a student of history and a genealogical researcher and, from my own research in both areas, I wanted to respond to some of the questions you raised.

                About American Indian ancestry: there was a time, even in the 20th century, when possessing Ameican Indian blood was not looked upon with favor. Some families went to great extremes to hide any Indian ancestry not even leaving oral traditions behind. Of course, there are instances of the exact opposite -- families who vehemently and vocally declare connections with a "Cherokee Indian princess." In the end, DNA does not lie although it can reveal strange new side-roads on the human journey through history.

                Secondly, when DNA reveals something totally unexpected it seems reasonable to explore the possibility: the only way to do this is to look at the historical time and place. Dnaval wrote: "I saw a documentary on Nova , a while ago. It said something in the range of 30% of babies are not biologically the same dna as their believed fathers." As to this, I have to ask where was this and what was the historical period? Even in the US during the 1960s, 30% is incredibly high . Here it becomes important not to just research the historical record but ask the question, how reliable are the sources? This source material can be either historical and scientific. Just because it is in print (or on TV) does not mean it is either factual or reliable ! Side-issue: this is also why it is of critical importance that DNA labs have strict quality controls in place so "errors" do not occur.

                Also there is the whole issue of adoption (or fosterage). Even a hundred years ago adoption was not a formal legal proceeding. So if you have a child raised by another family and the child took the adoptive family's name -- there may be no paper trail at all. In this case, DNA comparisons with the adoptive family could prove totally futile.

                Finally, as others here have pointed out, DNA is not cut-and-dried (I find autosomal results hard to understand, but I am working on it). MMaddi wrote: "The best approach is to use DNA test results together with a good paper trail documentation of the line. Now if you're talking about autosomal results you have, these rules don't apply as well. Given the nature of autosomal chromosomes, it's less clear-cut what any results say or don't say about Native American or other ethnic ancestry or possible illegitimacy." Amen to this! It is vitally important to research the genealogical record to match with your DNA results. ~~Marnie

                Comment


                • #9
                  Many people receive surprises in their autosomal tests because they assume they have a fairly complete genealogy. But really what they have is mainly a collection of male lineages, (because the continuous surnames are easier to trace and also because there is a societal tradition of more value placed on males than females.) Up to 50% of their family history may be missing.

                  Hundreds of women contributed to the DNA of this individual but these women go un-noticed, and sometimes lost forever in history. It is often these forgotten women who hold the key to the surprises in the autosomal tests.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Absent woman..

                    Pleroma,

                    For some reason this did ring a bell with me. Family tree's do consist
                    of fathers,father surnames...etc....
                    The women get missed so much in geneology.
                    I also feel that usually not always, the man would marry a
                    full-blood NA rather than visa vera.
                    Sometimes because Europeans would typically come to the
                    Americas alone and sometimes because it was more accepted.
                    Who knows.
                    Later I noticed,that alot of women would marry men that were part
                    native american, (hidden) but still with a European surname.
                    I think possibly ,the high cheekbones and chiseled features, gave them an edge over the ladies...LOL.
                    Anyway thats my amateur analysis.
                    Pleroma made some really good points, if anyone else would like
                    to share your ideas, I would like to read them.

                    Val





                    Originally posted by Pleroma
                    Many people receive surprises in their autosomal tests because they assume they have a fairly complete genealogy. But really what they have is mainly a collection of male lineages, (because the continuous surnames are easier to trace and also because there is a societal tradition of more value placed on males than females.) Up to 50% of their family history may be missing.

                    Hundreds of women contributed to the DNA of this individual but these women go un-noticed, and sometimes lost forever in history. It is often these forgotten women who hold the key to the surprises in the autosomal tests.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X