Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ABDNA Test Results...

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

  • #91
    Agree

    Yes I agree that DKF and especially JR-R1b need to learn more than a few manners !!! After DKF aka Dr. Faux jumped on Rainbow she hasn't posted. I hope she is OK. He hurt her fellings

    Comment


    • #92
      I find this whole comment offensive whatever my ancestry and as a predominantly European person I find it offensive that you imply that European people are better than another group-there is no such thing we are all the same! This is exactly how racism developed and continues to develop. And why does someone need a title to stay in Europe?!
      Regards,
      Burto, 4th Marquis of Bognor.
      Last edited by burto; 28 October 2007, 06:30 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        To be the 4th Marquis of Bognor - I'm pretty sure that class played a big part to your make up. We are probably even cousins...

        Should natives have more rights or occupiers? Humans will be - how they have always have been - throughout history.

        It comes down to psychology, survival of the fittest, and being at the right place at the right time - during times of warfare.

        Would you fight for your ancient Brittany land titles - if it come down to combat? You probably would. It's in your genes.

        The human race - is one species - one family. Name me of one people - in our species - who has not differentiated themselves from each other - throughout history. This is would we have mixtures and different types of people around the world. It's kept species alive for over 200,000 years.

        I agree - we should celebrate - this wonder, this achievement.

        Comment


        • #94
          Human race will 'split into two different species'
          By NIALL FIRTH - More by this author ยป Last updated at 16:18pm on 26th October 2007

          The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.
          100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.
          The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.
          If you want to read more of this article, click below.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

          It's a first, I have no comment on this article... d

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Yaffa
            Yes I agree that DKF and especially JR-R1b need to learn more than a few manners !!! After DKF aka Dr. Faux jumped on Rainbow she hasn't posted. I hope she is OK. He hurt her fellings
            I don't think so. Where in any of my postings could the term "jumped on" be constued. I guess if tactfully and, unless my radar is badly out of tune, with some sensitivity, providing well established information on the all to obvious flaws in a particular test means "jumping on" then I plead guilty. The most recent comments highlight exactly what the authors of the Science article warned about.

            The autosomal tests at best can only be used to support a known genealogy or perhaps one where there is strong circumstantial evidence. They can provide, possibly, leads to follow, although if taken only at face value I would have been looking to Saudi Arabia for my primary heritage and wasting a lot of time and resources. I have taken each of these tests, and think that as a scientist I may be able to offer some sensible comments about strengths and weaknesses.

            When one's identity hinges on the results of a test with a number that could as well be zero as 20% that is a problem. Ideally there will be a statistician to help interpret the test. Anyone who posts to Rootsweb will get that assistance from experts in math. They will also say that you can't take 15 markers used in forensic science to "convert them" to ancestral informative markers and provide a "top 20" list with meaningful numbers - people are chronically misinterpreting these results. It is clear that scientists who try to separate fact from fantasy are only welcome if they are saying the "right things". I am "Gentle Ben" compared to what anyone can expect if they moved the discussion to Rootsweb.

            Every year a fellow on Rootsweb asks the same question, "Has anyone by virtue of finding a Native American score on the ABDNA test been able to validate it with traditional paper genealogy?" So far not a single person has answered in the affirmative.

            All present autosomal tests will have a very high rate of false positives (e.g., in the case of the ABDNA test Greeks and Pakistanis typically scoring 10 to 30% Native American), and false negatives (those with a strong paper trail to recent times obtaining zero percent NA). None of these tests can in any way shape or form detect minority ancestry from the 1600s (that would be less than one percent).

            BTW, the surname comment in a previous post was unwarranted. The ancestral name is Faulkes originally Falke in the Middle Ages, a Danish surname from England which means falcon. Comments such as these only come in utter frustration (as they did from the test designer of the ABDNA test who stepped on to Rootsweb List to field questions).

            Again, I get back to my last posting where I said that I think that those with a science background need to bow out and allow those who see things differently to continue their discussions unimpeded, and in a supportive forum. Perception is reality.

            DKF.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by DKF
              When one's identity hinges on the results of a test with a number that could as well be zero as 20% that is a problem. Ideally there will be a statistician to help interpret the test. Anyone who posts to Rootsweb will get that assistance from experts in math. They will also say that you can't take 15 markers used in forensic science to "convert them" to ancestral informative markers and provide a "top 20" list with meaningful numbers - people are chronically misinterpreting these results. DKF.
              It would be similar to a statistician being asked what a persons chances are at winning the lottery. Most people don't want to here the truth when it comes to their fantasies.
              I am not a scientist, but am a realist and like to know the science behind anything. Thanks for your honesty DKF. It bothers me that some of these people are getting Native American results when in reality they have little or no Native American in their ancestry. Numerous Greeks and Italian people got results from ABDNA showing significant Native American scores. The producers of the ABDNA test do not have a good answer for this.
              As I have said before, how would these tests stand up in a court of law? The answer is; they wouldn't.
              Like many others I am a test junkee and am waiting for something new to come out. The main reason I will continue to test is because occasionally they are accurate, my wife being the best example.

              Tom K.

              Comment


              • #97
                Hi,
                I'm sorry to say that I was just joking about being the 4th Marquis of Bognor if you've not already guessed JR-R1b, the nearest any of my ancestors seem to have got to gentry was one who looked after the local land of Queen Elizabeth 1st and being a descendant of his daughter who was 4th in line, clearly she didn't get an awful lot which is a bit of a bugger.
                You said it when you said "The Human Race is one species one family" maybe we should leave it there?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Reply

                  Originally posted by DKF
                  I don't think so. Where in any of my postings could the term "jumped on" be constued. I guess if tactfully and, unless my radar is badly out of tune, with some sensitivity, providing well established information on the all to obvious flaws in a particular test means "jumping on" then I plead guilty. The most recent comments highlight exactly what the authors of the Science article warned about.

                  The autosomal tests at best can only be used to support a known genealogy or perhaps one where there is strong circumstantial evidence. They can provide, possibly, leads to follow, although if taken only at face value I would have been looking to Saudi Arabia for my primary heritage and wasting a lot of time and resources. I have taken each of these tests, and think that as a scientist I may be able to offer some sensible comments about strengths and weaknesses.

                  When one's identity hinges on the results of a test with a number that could as well be zero as 20% that is a problem. Ideally there will be a statistician to help interpret the test. Anyone who posts to Rootsweb will get that assistance from experts in math. They will also say that you can't take 15 markers used in forensic science to "convert them" to ancestral informative markers and provide a "top 20" list with meaningful numbers - people are chronically misinterpreting these results. It is clear that scientists who try to separate fact from fantasy are only welcome if they are saying the "right things". I am "Gentle Ben" compared to what anyone can expect if they moved the discussion to Rootsweb.

                  Every year a fellow on Rootsweb asks the same question, "Has anyone by virtue of finding a Native American score on the ABDNA test been able to validate it with traditional paper genealogy?" So far not a single person has answered in the affirmative.

                  All present autosomal tests will have a very high rate of false positives (e.g., in the case of the ABDNA test Greeks and Pakistanis typically scoring 10 to 30% Native American), and false negatives (those with a strong paper trail to recent times obtaining zero percent NA). None of these tests can in any way shape or form detect minority ancestry from the 1600s (that would be less than one percent).

                  BTW, the surname comment in a previous post was unwarranted. The ancestral name is Faulkes originally Falke in the Middle Ages, a Danish surname from England which means falcon. Comments such as these only come in utter frustration (as they did from the test designer of the ABDNA test who stepped on to Rootsweb List to field questions).

                  Again, I get back to my last posting where I said that I think that those with a science background need to bow out and allow those who see things differently to continue their discussions unimpeded, and in a supportive forum. Perception is reality.

                  DKF.
                  Dr Faux,

                  Rainbow used the the Fake/Faux name. Faux is the French word for Fake. You came in here talking about your self in the 3rd party pretending not to be you. I can fully understand why she called you a Fake. No one in here has a problem with you promoting you Mega BGA. If you want to sell you test, you might try admitting who you are. As they say "Honesty is the best policy" !

                  To say that Rainbow's 17% is inaccurate is not for you to say. She knows nothing on her father's side to say if the 17% is NOISE or not.

                  Since you state the test is to be taken with a grain of salt, you still havent given me an answer on where you get that your mother in laws 10% came from the Cherokee as you claim. By the way The melungeon surname Collins, and I know a few, came up African so may be her 10% is just noise and not NA

                  Jodi
                  Last edited by Yaffa; 29 October 2007, 11:37 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by DKF


                    Every year a fellow on Rootsweb asks the same question, "Has anyone by virtue of finding a Native American score on the ABDNA test been able to validate it with traditional paper genealogy?" So far not a single person has answered in the affirmative.


                    DKF.
                    There are 2 people in this forum who's MT-DNA is Native American and also shows NA up on an ABDNA test. Thes two people are validated.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Yaffa
                      Dr Faux,

                      Rainbow used the the Fake/Faux name. Faux is the French word for Fake. You came in here talking about your self in the 3rd party pretending not to be you. I can fully understand why she called you a Fake. No one in here has a problem with you promoting you Mega BGA. If you want to sell you test, you might try admitting who you are. As they say "Honesty is the best policy" !

                      To say that Rainbow's 17% is inaccurate is not for you to say. She knows nothing on her father's side to say if the 17% is NOISE or not.

                      Since you state the test is to be taken with a grain of salt, you still havent given me an answer on where you get that your mother in laws 10% came from the Cherokee as you claim. By the way The melungeon surname Collins, and I know a few, came up African so may be her 10% is just noise and not NA

                      Jodi
                      Dr. Faux,

                      Since I have received no reply or explination on above, one would think I will never get an honest answer or will anyone else in this thread you have chose to discredit. Silence is Golden!

                      Jodi

                      Comment


                      • Waiting for 2.5...

                        Hi all,

                        Just talked to a lady at DNA Print Genomics. She told me that my daughters 2.5 test results should be in no later than Dec 1. They were recieved there Oct 9 , a little over 3 weeks ago. Hope they come in sooner!

                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • ABDNA results...

                          Haven't been on for awhile. Trying to get my self together emotionally after my fathers death. Will check in from time to time.
                          My youngest daughters ABDNA test results just came in.

                          Daughter
                          Indo European 84%
                          East Asian 2%
                          Amerindian 14% (Potowomeck)
                          Sub Saharran 0%

                          Mother (Maria)
                          Indo European 90%
                          East Asian 0%
                          Amerindian 10%
                          Sub Saharran 0%

                          MG.Mother
                          Indo European 89%
                          East Asian 0%
                          Amerindian 7%
                          Sub Saharran 4%

                          MG. Father
                          Indo European 100%
                          East Asain 0%
                          Amerindian 0%
                          Sub Saharran 0%

                          Still waiting on my Euroasian 2.0 test results....Maria
                          Last edited by Maria_W; 23 November 2007, 03:40 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Maria Thanks for sharing the results.
                            It's a little confusing to me how the Amerind results get higher with each younger generation. I thought it would be the other way around. Your Amerind scores are higher than your parents and your daughters is even higher than yours.

                            Comment


                            • Look at it 2 ways...

                              Rainbow.

                              I think you can look at it 2 ways: If you were using blood quantum (which is not autosomal dna based and started by the us government)where every generation divides 100/50/25/12.5/6.25 then no it makes no sense.
                              But we are using autosomal dna based testing which comes from everyone of her ancestors and it is random and can give you all kinds of results. We were all given different amounts. Its a genetic roll of the dice. I admit I was surprised at the 14%, which is twice as high as her grandmothers results and 1 1/2 higher than mine. My daughter is very happy with it. Have you figured out where yours comes from?

                              Maria

                              Comment


                              • Stealth DNA?
                                Does DNAP regularly change the assortment of 175 SNP's they sample?
                                Do we need to reset the mutational clock for SNP's?
                                Is it possible than a child can be more Native American than her parents?

                                ?

                                Relax. Someday we will all be Native Americans, much more Native American than our ancestors were. It is all part of becoming native to a place.

                                (African Americans are out of luck. We have made-up our 'mind' and we are sticking to it!)
                                Last edited by tomcat; 24 November 2007, 05:07 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X