Tweet
Originally posted by Yaffa
-
Using this interpretation 8% NA "should" mean that one of my great great parents or great parent where an native american, thats fairly recently and within what the older generations in my familiy could remember, and the geneological research going back minimum 8 generations has not revealed any arrivals from the New World. DNAPrint's chief scientists suggest my 8% NA is an signature of Central-Asian influence. -
Abdna
I have not taken the test but they do say that Asian and NA markers matchOriginally posted by NoaideComment
-
No one said you did not have NA ancestry Maria, or based on the posts I have read even implied it. What I have said consistently is that there is no DNA test available, and not likely ever to be one, that can detect NA ancestry 12 generations back. In my family it is only 5 generations in some lines and still it is very iffy as to whether even that will register. Have you asked the makers of the test whether they can detect minority ancestry 12 generations back? Even they will agree that no, it is not possible.Originally posted by Maria_W
I and others have taken the test apart to examine its workings. I and others have studied genetics and allied disciplines for years. All agree that this test is in the questionalbe category with minority ancestry below 30%. How could one expect that it will detect 1 / 4069 NA ancestry? This does not even enter the realm of possiblity let alone possiblity. I wish that it were otherwise.
I do not question your lineage, I question the DNA test results that many here are using to support their oral traditions when in fact there is often no indication as to how many generations back the supposed ancestor lived. In other words you have your paper trail, but that is basically it unless perchance you find in a direct line somewhere someone to test for mtDNA or YDNA. To be frank, those presently busy constructing tests of biogeographical ancestry are looking at 5% as the very lowest level of minority ancestry that could possibly be detected (even then there will be the occasional false positive necessitating a paper trail to compare with the results) - and that is the absolute best case scenario. The authors of the recent article in Science were absolutely correct, it is incumbent upon those who sell tests of DNA ancestry to place caveats as to the limitations of their particular measure, and perhaps offer examples of those with minority lineages extending back to the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s and so on and by number of generations, so that the consumer is not led to expect more of the test that it is capable of delivering.
DKF.Comment
-
Part in New World...
Forgot to add that Cheif Robert "Two Eagles" Green who was 58 at the time of the movie, played a Powhatan councelor in the movie.
His son Jason was 26 years old at the time of the movie in 2005.
MariaComment
-
EthnoAncestry is about to release their bio-geographical test and from what I have heard it will be more accurate than the ABDNA test. You are correct that DNA Tribes and ABDNA are not accurate except in cases like my wife, she is Mexican-Native American and that is what her DNA Tribes also showed.Originally posted by DKF
Two others in my family tested with one matching to India and the other to African-American. Both showed these to be there majority scores. If we had not done 30 years of genealogy research maybe we could have seen a remote possibility that the results were correct.
Maybe in the future they will find a genetic marker that is exclusively native American and that people with small degrees of Native American might get the results they are looking for.
Currently these tests are more recreational fun then science.
Tom K.Comment
-
What does the 10% represent?
O.k. So you never disagreeded about my Amerindian ancestry. Sorry. It is actually on both sides I just didn't post my dads yet. It is almost identical to listed. Say that I agree you (not that I am) that the ABDNA test can't go back that far then where is the 10% Amerindian for me and 7% for my mother comming from? I was told that you can't mistake Native markers. They were very distinct. From what people are saying apparently they are not that distinct...
MariaLast edited by Maria_W; 20 October 2007, 04:08 PM.Comment
-
With some rare exceptions (e.g., the duffy-null marker for Africans) all of the markers used to denote e.g., NA are found in other populations, just at different frequencies. Hence it is not an either-or situation, just a probability model which is subject to random chance factors when looking at a relatively small number of markers (the problem is much worse with the DNA Tribes test). By chance I match 5 separate Arab groups on the DNAT test. I am not going to be looking for Arabs in my family tree, there are none. Other people from the same part of England that spawned a majority of my ancestors (the Danelaw) have received similar results. They are suprious and need to be ignored as they are like distractors in a multiple choice test.Originally posted by Maria_W
We would all like to think that perhaps through some very rare chance event that a "message" in the form of key autosomal DNA markers were passed generation to generation from an ancient NA ancestor. In a world where anything is possible then one has to entertain this as a hypothesis to be explored. Realistically it is off the scale unlikely. One marker perhaps, but that would not be enough to trigger any sort of true percentage value on the NA part of the test.
It is possible that due to customer expectation the algorithm used to come up with the minority percentages has been tweaked to allow more NA matches - there seem to be more than ever. The test depends on a very very complex mathematical formula which can be altered ever so slightly to give more people more of what they want. I do not in any way know that this has happened, or that those presently in charge of the test would ever do that, but I do know of something called experimenter bias in research where the pressures to provide data that say a drug company expects will weight heavily on the mind of a researcher and perhaps unconsciously result in a shift of the data in order to conform to expectations. Hence the need for "placebo controls". I do know that the complaints about this test have been unremitting from day one and that being human, those who are on the front lines may unconsciously have amended the formula to obtain "better" results. It is also entirely possible that the test is simply "quirky" with anything under about 30% and virtually any result is possible and there is no rational explanation for the percentages. No one knows how many "iterations" - amendments - to the algorithm have occurred.
Ultimately it is often the case that those who receive results that please them become fans and cheer on the test; those who receive results that disappoint them will tend to discount the test. This simply does not happen with mtDNA and YDNA testing since, for example, either there is a deletion of one base pair repeat at a known position on the Y-chromosome or there is the regular 4 nucleotide bases. The deletion relates to M17, the designator for haplogroup R1a1. This is crystal clear and requires no interpretation since it is known that the father's father's father's paternal line was the originator of this marker perhaps 10,000 years ago. No excrutiatingly complex algorithm is needed, no red dots, no triangles - just an either - or, you are either ancestral for M17 (do not have the deletion) or you are derived (you do have the deletion). If the latter, and you are from the Iceland, the Faroe Islands, or the Shetland Islands, and you have an aboriginal surname (patronymic) then the evidence is very clear that your paternal ancestor most likely arrived with the Norse Vikings in the 9th Century - especially if the haplotype tends to be most concentrated in the Trondheim to Bergen area of Norway (where most of the Norwegian settlers to these areas appear to have originated). Alas in population genetics mtDNA haplogroup and haplotype matches tend to be very widespread - hopefully the full genome sequencing, now becoming more popular, will give more regional specificity.
DKF.Comment
-
The people at Ethnoancestry say they will release their test in 2008, but give no approximate date. I wish they would hurry up, since they have been working on it for years now. I wonder how much they will charge. Also, I had the impression Dr. David Faux was associated with this company.Originally posted by Black DutchComment
-
Juan Carlos, yes it is my understanding that the mysterious and sometimes controversial Dr. Faux is the co-founder of EthnoAncestry, and that rumor has it that 2008 will mark the launch date of a BGA test using two or more different technologies. Apparently Faux has retired from any active role in EA, shifting all operations to the UK, in order to pursue research interests.Originally posted by juan carlos
Yes indeed, EA has been working on the BGA test since 2004, but has been side tracked by developing new SNPs and the like. As I recall Faux has always been of the opinion that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", and "don't hold your breath", so has suggested to people that they consider the merits of both the DNA Tribes test and the DNA Print test (known more generally known as the ABDNA test) rather than wait expectantly for something that has yet to materialize since it is still "in development".
DKF.Comment
-
Explain...
Could you please explain this: ABDNA of family= 3-10% Native American or East Asian or both.
MariaComment
-
It really doesn't much matter as I don't put much stock in the results, but anyway I changed my signature line.Originally posted by Maria_W
DKF.Comment
-
O.k....
O.k. since you don't trust the results then theres no point in going any further.
MariaComment
-
What is more important to me are the land deeds from the Six Nations in Council to "one of our people"; an ancestor who, although he moved off the Rez 40 years earlier, treasured his wampum symbol of he chiefly status to his last days (1890s); the diary by a Scottish traveller who provided the Mohawk genealogy; and the stories of my great grandparents being visited by kin from Six Nations. No DNA test can give me this.Originally posted by Maria_W
DKF.Comment
-
A gift...
Yes, I see what you mean. Thank you for sharing that with me. The stories are a gift.
MariaLast edited by Maria_W; 20 October 2007, 11:42 PM.Comment
-
DKF, are you Faux?Originally posted by DKF
Why tell people who are sensitive about ABDNA & DNATribes that those tests are wrong and at the same time 'promote' another test? Are the people on this forum "a bird in the hand"?
I never heard of Dr. Faux/Fake before. I will not test with ethnoancestry.Last edited by rainbow; 21 October 2007, 02:35 AM.Comment
Comment