Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Native American Ancestry

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

  • #31
    WARNING! On DNAPrint's Test for Native American Ancestry

    I, for one, had a very bad experience with DNAPrint.

    I stumbled on their poor labeling habits by chance, but can pass it on to those posters in this topical thread seeking to establish their NA ancestry through DNA testing.

    You see, I am in a unique position. I am NOT a member of one of those families that has been in America for generations, NOT a member of one of those families that has family legends of NA ancestry. Both of my parents immigrated to the US from small, isolated mountainous villages in Europe, and I have their family trees traced to the 1500s. Until my parents came here, there was no immigration within the historical period, and also no adoptions.

    Knowing history and speaking to genealogists, we were therefore able to be sure there was simply no likely mechanism for NA genes to enter their gene pool. What I mean is: no ship sailed BACK to Europe with Native Americans, who then hiked up to these tiny (pop. 300) isolated mountain villages to settle. The idea, as anyone who knows history will tell you, is laughable.

    So I took the DNAPrint test to see if I had any Sub-Saharan blood. And you imagine my shock when it came back 25% Native American!

    When I asked DNAPrint how this was possible, it took several e-mails before one of their scientists told me bluntly: (get this!)

    "Italians, Greeks and Finns often type as 'Native American.'"

    As you may imagine, I then asked them why, if so many diverse Europeans have these markers, they continue to label them as "Native American?!?!?!?!?!" Can you imagine the false positives?

    Now, I have no doubt that there could be Europeans that are the direct ancestors of the crossroads people (called Dene-Caucasian by some) who split into NAs and Europeans, but that split happened 40,000 years ago. If DNAPrint's test is not sensitive enough to pick up true continental markers, they should not advertise it as such. Talk about False Advertising!

    I know a family where the husband is 1/2 Italian and his wife IS from one of those 8 generation American families that spent time in Oklahoma and rumor has it, had NA members in the family. If their child took the test and came up as 10% NA, or whatever, I could see them rejoicing at the confirmation of an old family legend. Ironically, that false positive could come from his Italian genes! How messed up is that?

    If you also think of all the Europeans who have some Italian, Greek or Finnish blood (say, Spaniards, people of the Balkan lands and Scandinavians, respectively), you can imagine the potential for tremendous false positives.

    Finally, other posters have also noted that the margin of error is 15% for those tests. Personally, that is unacceptable to me. I wish I knew it before I purchased.

    To that gentleman who posted that his family swears they have no NA blood, but he came up as 60% NA by DNAPrint - I would advise you to disregard the test, especially based on their e-mails to me, which I would be happy to post.
    Last edited by Mikey; 8 December 2004, 01:35 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Another Example/Explanation

      Now, I have no doubt that there could be Europeans that are the direct ancestors of the crossroads people (called Dene-Caucasian by some) who split into NAs and Europeans, but that split happened 40,000 years ago.

      If that is the case, it's the equivalent of a test result showing recent African ancestry in all humans just because we all came from Africa at some point. We all know that! It's the post-mutated, recent continental divergent lines that we pay to test for.

      From what I gleaned from the exchange, the Europeans who false-type as NA on the DNAPrint test appear to be the people who show low Celtic admixture on Cavalli-Sforza's 2nd or 3rd (I forget) Principal Component map. It could, basically, be any people from extreme isolated regions of south or north or eastern Europe!

      I would be happy to post their emails to me, if anyone is curious as to read their explanations!

      Comment


      • #33
        Solutreans

        If Solutreans comunicated and migrated to North America why wouldnt some European sources be shown in a dna print. its just inconvienent for established thought.i for one am not supprized. the only question is whay a italian or greek would cross the ice fields but then again greece and italy were not the same then either

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mikey
          If that is the case, it's the equivalent of a test result showing recent African ancestry in all humans just because we all came from Africa at some point. We all know that! .!
          not everybody!!!

          Comment


          • #35
            "From what I gleaned from the exchange, the Europeans who false-type as NA on the DNAPrint test appear to be the people who show low Celtic admixture on Cavalli-Sforza's 2nd or 3rd (I forget) Principal Component map. It could, basically, be any people from extreme isolated regions of south or north or eastern Europe! "

            Considering that according to y-DNA, the Native Americans (Q haplogroup) are most closely related to the R haplogroup of Europe, I have to wonder if some of the so-called NA alleles may date from before R & Q diverged from P and have been carried into both populations.

            The odd thing is that the Navajo are of the C y-DNA haplogroup & they speak one of the defining Dene-Caucasian languages. What results do the Navajo get on the DNAPrint test?

            One of the great mysteries that I think needs to be addressed is how a classically R1b population (the Basques) wound up speaking a Dene-Caucasian language.

            Timothy Peterman

            Comment


            • #36
              i posted about this before Barry Fell wrote AMERICA B.C. in it he wrote that a millenium old monolith in spain was never able to be deciphered. Fell did it by useing Creek to decipher it. Somebody did something somehow somewhere why is dna and its doctrines and dogmas the only science that never exects to be updated.As if every dictate that has been pronounced can never be corrected. We are going from a small sample of human dna to what the future holds a gigantic repository. even what we cant retrive now might be easy in the future . but why do that we know everything there is to know. everyone doing research should stop because the great book has been written. none of the facts can change. some people here think i have an agenda i think i know what they think that is they are wrong . because i do the same thing in the religious areas i circulate in becuse they can be just as hard headed. My favorite story as a yuth and to this day is the emperor and his new clothes.
              iI hate boxes designed to protect some sacred therory show me proof . you know like the doctors did back in the old ebb and flow days. the world is full of problems for all dogmas including dna, genetics, and history.
              have you ever read plato's Critias?
              http://www.artisanpublishers.com/cgi...alogno=HS00149

              Comment


              • #37
                NA Blood

                Timothy,

                Good post. At least is was scientific based... Some of that other stuff - good lord!

                The only thing is - I don't think there has been any conclusive proof of the Dene-Caucasian tree yet. Basque has not been conclusively linked with any other language, despite repeated attempts.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Science and Pseudo-science

                  Mikey, Timothy - I have for several months wondered if the "NA" alleles are derived from the populations that carried Y-DNA haplotype Q into the Americas.
                  The more I learn about the DNApint test (which FTDNA is thankfully no-longer associated with), the more I think it is inappropriate for genealogists. Aspects of the test are scientifically objective,...but the way they interpret the results is scientifically subjective.

                  Jim
                  - From your many posts over the last several months, it is clear that you strongly believe in having an open mind, and to "think outside the square", That new innovative theories are good, and that we should not have our ideas restricted by the "boxes" of old ideas.

                  I agree!!.........However.....

                  There is a quote that I have found on the internet which I think is very appropriate:

                  "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

                  It is a quote credited to Carl Sagan, but from what I've been able to determine,...What he really said was:

                  "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown"

                  When people like me say to you that "there is no solid proof for the latest "innovative theory" you have read about/seen on TV", its not because we are closed minded and don't want to consider any new ideas that may break down traditional concepts, - its because for every genius there are thousands (if not millions) of Bozos. To distinguish between the true new innovative theories/discoveries, and the quackery you need good solid proof.
                  The times in the past that I have disagreed with you, was because the proof wasn't good enough.

                  Another appropriate quote from Carl Sagan is "I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

                  I really honestly don't like telling people they are wrong, least of all you Jim, - which is one reason why I stopping posting here for a while...

                  Like you I believe in keeping an open mind, but I also believe in being discerning about the quality of the evidence.

                  Also Jim,..(referring to the mtDNA Eve conversation) It might be helpful for you to consider that perhaps Religion & Evolution are not mutually exclusive. If I talk about human evolution don't assume that i'm saying your beliefs are wrong. Do not assume that belief in the theory of evolution is synonomous with atheism.
                  So please, can we all keep our religious beliefs seperate from the talk about Human DNA, genealogy etc.

                  Angela.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Quiz Answers

                    when i went to school i had to answer the questions like how old is man
                    my ans born 1948 =40,000
                    my oldest 1973=80,000
                    my youngest 1983 100,000

                    thats what happens over time i might be off on years but it shows the problem. as long as researchers research there are no soild answers
                    when i bring up religion its only because they tend to tie into some date an bishop named usher made 200 yrs ago and now its in genisis which it isnt

                    i just want to have some faith my e3b connection might not be adulteryor 40,000 yrs ago and untouchable. i want that it might be dannenbergs migrating to england as mininistartors for the normans converting and becomming dannans and the name changes to dinnan to dennin to denning.
                    i cant tell you how many people said ignore 24/48 matches being askenazi
                    i think thats important. when i read the dannan message board it all came togther.

                    you cant allow this if i except the neolithic farmers eb3 migration as the only way.i just cant buy that
                    as to religion i cant except much solid dogma thats why i am a keltoi catholic
                    all by myself. i get to make my own dogma . my chuch book of doctrines is almost empty
                    angela i dont mean to be a pain but i am an au contraire

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AngelaCP[B
                      I agree!![/B].........However.....

                      There is a quote that I have found on the internet which I think is very appropriate:

                      "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
                      .
                      lol
                      but remeber most people who laughed at galileo and condemded them were eduated. and newton wasnt a rebel so when they picked up apples they understood .those that laughed at Bozo the Clown. didnt condem Bozo

                      its the rebel for which that laughter is dangerous

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mikey
                        I, for one, had a very bad experience with DNAPrint.

                        I stumbled on their poor labeling habits by chance, but can pass it on to those posters in this topical thread seeking to establish their NA ancestry through DNA testing.

                        You see, I am in a unique position. I am NOT a member of one of those families that has been in America for generations, NOT a member of one of those families that has family legends of NA ancestry. Both of my parents immigrated to the US from small, isolated mountainous villages in Europe, and I have their family trees traced to the 1500s. Until my parents came here, there was no immigration within the historical period, and also no adoptions.

                        Knowing history and speaking to genealogists, we were therefore able to be sure there was simply no likely mechanism for NA genes to enter their gene pool. What I mean is: no ship sailed BACK to Europe with Native Americans, who then hiked up to these tiny (pop. 300) isolated mountain villages to settle. The idea, as anyone who knows history will tell you, is laughable.

                        So I took the DNAPrint test to see if I had any Sub-Saharan blood. And you imagine my shock when it came back 25% Native American!

                        When I asked DNAPrint how this was possible, it took several e-mails before one of their scientists told me bluntly: (get this!)

                        "Italians, Greeks and Finns often type as 'Native American.'"

                        As you may imagine, I then asked them why, if so many diverse Europeans have these markers, they continue to label them as "Native American?!?!?!?!?!" Can you imagine the false positives?

                        Now, I have no doubt that there could be Europeans that are the direct ancestors of the crossroads people (called Dene-Caucasian by some) who split into NAs and Europeans, but that split happened 40,000 years ago. If DNAPrint's test is not sensitive enough to pick up true continental markers, they should not advertise it as such. Talk about False Advertising!

                        I know a family where the husband is 1/2 Italian and his wife IS from one of those 8 generation American families that spent time in Oklahoma and rumor has it, had NA members in the family. If their child took the test and came up as 10% NA, or whatever, I could see them rejoicing at the confirmation of an old family legend. Ironically, that false positive could come from his Italian genes! How messed up is that?

                        If you also think of all the Europeans who have some Italian, Greek or Finnish blood (say, Spaniards, people of the Balkan lands and Scandinavians, respectively), you can imagine the potential for tremendous false positives.

                        Finally, other posters have also noted that the margin of error is 15% for those tests. Personally, that is unacceptable to me. I wish I knew it before I purchased.

                        To that gentleman who posted that his family swears they have no NA blood, but he came up as 60% NA by DNAPrint - I would advise you to disregard the test, especially based on their e-mails to me, which I would be happy to post.
                        This is a question for Mikey:
                        What did you mean when you said that no ships sailed back to Europe with Native Americans on them who hiked up isolated mountain villages to settle? Did you mean that it seems impossible that this could have happened? The reason I ask is because history says that Native Americans were routinely taken to Europe by ship and sold as slaves there, beginning in the late 1400’s. Christopher Columbus was the first to take a large group of Native Americans back to Europe. I can imagine that some of them escaped or even stayed there. The famous Native American Squanto is an example. He escaped and then hid in a monastery in Europe for a long time. So, it’s not entirely impossible that there is Native American DNA in Europe because of this. Also, some Native Americans moved there, like Pocahontas, for example. She lived and died in England. But this doesn’t mean that this explains all the Native American DNA in Europe. Considering that Native Americans were originally from Siberia, maybe some of those Siberians migrated to Europe instead of to the American continent. Maybe they blended in with other "races" and now consider themselves Greeks, Italian, Celts, etc. I have no clue. I just thought I’d mention it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hap C

                          To answer your question.

                          1) There are isolated stories of some Indians being brought to Europe as slaves, but not in large numbers.

                          2) The towns at issue in that test are so isolated and so far from centers of farming, etc. that it is just not likely.

                          I only posted that to relate the fact that credible scientists eliminated all potential mechanisms before casting doubt on the DNAP test. They just aren't there. I mean, yes, I suppose an Australian Aborigine could have hitchhiked his way to the Swiss Alps, then rowed by boat to the Fjords of Norway - it just isn't likely.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Native American result from Y-DNA test

                            Ok, I've read these other messages and based on this - (Ethnic and Geographic Origins: All Y-DNA tests allow you to identify your ethnic and geographic origins, both recent and far distant on your direct male descending line. Among others, you will be able to check your Native-American or African Ancestry as well as for the Cohanim Ancestry.) and while I think I understand, what I need to do is run it by all of you and get a confirmation.

                            What I'd like to confirm is that if my uncle does the Y-DNA37 test and he is the great grandson (all male lineage) of the suspected Native American male (whether 100% or less - we don't know), will the Y-DNA37 test indicate whether my uncle has any Native American ancestry even if it was his mother that was the Native American?

                            Thanks for any and all input on this too!

                            Retiree

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Retiree
                              What I'd like to confirm is that if my uncle does the Y-DNA37 test and he is the great grandson (all male lineage) of the suspected Native American male (whether 100% or less - we don't know), will the Y-DNA37 test indicate whether my uncle has any Native American ancestry even if it was his mother that was the Native American?

                              Thanks for any and all input on this too!

                              Retiree
                              Retiree,

                              If the native American ancestry is in the 'direct' male line...father, grandfather, g-grandfather, etc..., a Y-DNA37 test could be used to indicate that. If your uncle's g-grandfather, you're talking about, got his native American ancestry from his father [assuming full blood NA], then the Y-DNA37 is useful.

                              A Y-DNA37 test will NOT show any native American ancestry from ANY female line that married into that direct male line...mother, grandmother, etc. because women do not carry the Y chromosome which is what is being tested. So, if g-grandfather got his native American ancestry from his mother, a Y-DNA37 test would not be useful.

                              DMac

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Thanks DMAC. That's what I thought too.
                                At the moment I don't really know who this g grandfather's(NA) biological parents might truly have been. But at any rate my uncle is the last male of his line so we're doing the test anyway. I guess we'll see what else comes of this.

                                Retiree

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X