Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9RA Autosomal Native American Marker

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by DKF
    Dude, you have "issues". FYI I wrote a book that was published so that my cousins on the Six Nations (I lived there) could use it to trace their ancestry. Is this sufficient in your world for making a cultural contribution.
    Depending on the validity of the book, it could be a serious contribution. No denying that.

    But I hope it isn't premised on ideas as flimsy as these ethnic or tribes tests. That would be more like detracting from the quality of the debate than adding to it.

    And yes, I do have a serious issue--with junk science.

    I shouldn't have to tell you that one of the core concepts of scientific rigor is that a hypothesis, in order to have practical import, MUST be falsifiable--capable of being proven incorrect.

    So how does testing DNA fragments that haven't been demonstrated to transmit in any consistent line of descent prove cultural affiliation of one's ancestors? How, possibly, could results of such a test EVER be proven wrong?

    This is almost as bad as the intelligent design ideas. Even if you could choke back the idea that patterns are always a function of intention and never perception, why would it have to be Yahweh and not Vishnu or Allah?

    Yes, I have a serious issue w/ junk science. Why do these non-licensed companies pump out error-ridden haplotypes on the well-attested and relatively standard YSTR product? Because they're wasting energy on products that don't even have a sensible, scientific basis, like these ethnic or tribes things.

    That is the idea that should have been clear all along.

    Jack

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Clochaire
      Depending on the validity of the book, it could be a serious contribution. No denying that.

      But I hope it isn't premised on ideas as flimsy as these ethnic or tribes tests. That would be more like detracting from the quality of the debate than adding to it.

      And yes, I do have a serious issue--with junk science.

      I shouldn't have to tell you that one of the core concepts of scientific rigor is that a hypothesis, in order to have practical import, MUST be falsifiable--capable of being proven incorrect.

      So how does testing DNA fragments that haven't been demonstrated to transmit in any consistent line of descent prove cultural affiliation of one's ancestors? How, possibly, could results of such a test EVER be proven wrong?

      This is almost as bad as the intelligent design ideas. Even if you could choke back the idea that patterns are always a function of intention and never perception, why would it have to be Yahweh and not Vishnu or Allah?

      Yes, I have a serious issue w/ junk science. Why do these non-licensed companies pump out error-ridden haplotypes on the well-attested and relatively standard YSTR product? Because they're wasting energy on products that don't even have a sensible, scientific basis, like these ethnic or tribes things.

      That is the idea that should have been clear all along.

      Jack
      Dude, it is a genealogy book so Six Nations people can trace their ancestry through available record sources. Standard how to book (lots of suggestions, examples, specifics on what to expect of a record source). I don't even mention DNA.

      Have you not noticed that I have taken a great deal of heat on this forum becaue of my unremitting criticism of the "Tribes" test and the ABDNA test. I have punctured them with so many holes the term Swiss cheeze does not do justice. That does not mean that the concept of autosomal testing is flawed, far from it. Simply that you cannot take 21 autosomal STR markers used in forensics for individual identification, construct a meaningful BGA test, and expect it to "work". There are doubtless more false positves and false negatives than spot on finds so essentially, in my view this and similar tests are more likely to mislead than to guide or support genealogical research. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a phlethora of new peer reviewed publications that will be used to form the foundation of truly useful BGA tests. We are seeing the harbinger of this with the 9RA repeat test.

      I really don't understand a great deal of your post. It appears to be more political than science and frankly I would rather a separate thread be started for comments about BGA tests in general. This one concerns only material related to the 9RA and related new or likely to be upcoming tests.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DKF
        I have done some brief explorations into the orgins of the Sioux and it appears that they originated in the regions where the Catawba and Tuscarora lived and so anyone with ancestry from the Eastern Seaboard (including the northeast considering the number of Catawba captives brought there), might want to consider testing for this marker. if they did obtain an allele value of 19 and had no eastern Arab, Tibetan or Mongolian ancestry then this could be interpreted as a clear signal from NA ancestors (also of course the 9 repeats which is the slam dunk).

        Here is a snippet that gives the migration trajectory: "While social migrations have yet to be definitively worked out, linguistic and historical sittings indicate a southern origin of Siouan people, with migrations over a thousand years ago from North Carolina and Virginia to Ohio, then both down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and up to the Missouri, and across Ohio to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, home of the Dakota." (Wikipedia, Siouian Languages).

        I did test came back 16-18. MT Hg is B2. Tomcat also in the forum tested 5 siblings no 9 or 19 either. His MT Hg C1. He also has a rare mutation in his C1 that comes up in the Sioux. Ann Turner told me the marker " If" your ancestor had it ( only 31 % of NA carry ) it depletes 50 % with each generation if it will be passed on to the next. It is very rare that someone will test positve for this marker. She told me if you don't carry it doesn't mean you don't have an Indian ancestor. This is true per both mine and Tomcat's results. I think Maria W also. I believe she has a paper trial to an Indian ancestor in VA.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DKF
          Assuming you and your sister both had the same parents, then she must for sure have either your 15 or your 16 (one came from your mother and the other from your father) but the other allele is unknown. Your sister could have the exact same motif as you, or It could also be the allele that your mom has or the allele that your dad has that was not passed on to you. Only testing could determine this - but she will have a 15 or 16 as one of the alleles.

          Is that true even on this test? Maybe I should ask them to look at the result again.
          We are full siblings and we matched up on our autosomal markers and X markers

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by purple flowers
            my great aunt tested. really my great grandma's sisters granddaughter .. but we call her 'aunt' because she is our oldest female in our family tree . . now MY grandaughter will test.. her father is african american not indian, part indian, or white.. just going to check for ourselfs.. to see if it makes any differences who or what the dad is and if it effects the mtdna. just our own experiment!
            Her Father's DNA will not effect her MT DNA. Your daughter will pass her MT-DNA to her child male or female. My Great Uncle ( Mother's mother's brother )has the same MT-DNA as me, my mother and her mother.My Uncle can not pass his MT DNA to any of his children.
            Last edited by Yaffa; 6 September 2008, 01:51 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              different results

              Originally posted by Kathleen Carrow
              Is that true even on this test? Maybe I should ask them to look at the result again.
              We are full siblings and we matched up on our autosomal markers and X markers
              Tomcat posted in a different thread. He has different results on 5 siblings for D9S919.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Yaffa
                Tomcat posted in a different thread. He has different results on 5 siblings for D9S919.

                But his siblings all shared a marker..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kathleen Carrow
                  But his siblings all shared a marker..
                  This I am not sure of. I know he is waiting for one more result. I would email FTDNA and ask them about yours and if its possible for 2 siblings from the same parents to not match on either marker. This is the first autosomal I have ever taken so I am no expert on the subject.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Yaffa
                    This I am not sure of. I know he is waiting for one more result. I would email FTDNA and ask them about yours and if its possible for 2 siblings from the same parents to not match on either marker. This is the first autosomal I have ever taken so I am no expert on the subject.
                    Thinking about it..there is no reason that she and I need to share a marker..with autosomal each parents have 2 markers..so Sister and I each got 1 from Mom and I from Dad but since all 4 were different it is possible for us to not match at all..

                    It is NOT an X markers where we get only one from Dad

                    So this is fine..

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DKF
                      Assuming you and your sister both had the same parents, then she must for sure have either your 15 or your 16 (one came from your mother and the other from your father) but the other allele is unknown. Your sister could have the exact same motif as you, or It could also be the allele that your mom has or the allele that your dad has that was not passed on to you. Only testing could determine this - but she will have a 15 or 16 as one of the alleles.
                      Not necessarily. The two parents have among them, potentially, four different alleles. And in this instance two sisters results exhibit all four. But that is all one can say, that the parents were, collectively, 15, 16, 17, 18.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Kathleen Carrow
                        Thinking about it..there is no reason that she and I need to share a marker..with autosomal each parents have 2 markers..so Sister and I each got 1 from Mom and I from Dad but since all 4 were different it is possible for us to not match at all..

                        It is NOT an X markers where we get only one from Dad

                        So this is fine..
                        X is different. On your fathers side all daughters will share the same X but on your mother's side, your mothers 2 x are supposed to recombine so your sister may not match you exactly on x on mom's side.

                        I would think the autosomal would work in the same way as like in mom's X. Parents do pass different genes down to each child with the exception of Identical twins.

                        If you find an answer, do post. It is interesting.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by purple flowers
                          it wasn't saying they were the same, they are not..
                          this study showed Cherokee are not close genetically to any other southeastern people. THE closest is plains siouan. which was so odd... this must have to do with some kind of deep origins , something we do not now understand for it to be true.I think the answer is found in south America.. because the plains was a ice berg for at least 1000 years and the Sioux couldn't have been there then .
                          PS I'm a Collins. and a PONI ( 'big foot PONI Indian' supposed to be 'Blackfoot saponi ' is what I called it as a child)..:P I know all about that eastern Sioux stuff..
                          They need to take into consideration that inter-tribal marriages did occur. Even way back when before there was paper. MT-DNA results can be very ancient. Proving a person has Native ancestry through DNA is one thing but proving tribe is a whole nother story. Need paper trail or if by some miracle if they ever come up with certain genes that are only found in a certain tribe. This issue is a long way off.

                          From what I know the Collins family comes up with different Haplogroups on Y DNA. I don't know your direct line. I do know some of the Collins family were classified Melungeon in records in TN. I do know a Collins line
                          (Melungeon) that is African. Ancestry.com has the Collins DNA project if you are interested in results if your family has not tested or maybe someone else in your direct male lines has.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DKF
                            Dude, it is a genealogy book so Six Nations people can trace their ancestry through available record sources. Standard how to book (lots of suggestions, examples, specifics on what to expect of a record source). I don't even mention DNA...

                            I really don't understand a great deal of your post. It appears to be more political than science ...
                            Well, I think I've said what I came to say, so this is likely to be my last post. Just want to emphasize 4 things:

                            1. With all due respect, you're the one who started the discussion of your book. I never claimed its subject matter was DNA. You shouldn't claim that I did.

                            2. The words 'political', 'politician' and 'politics', the names of any political body, party or politician appear in NONE of my posts in this thread. Not sure where you got that.

                            3. I think a careful word count will show that words like 'scientific', 'science' and 'hypothesis' actually DO appear in my posts. Quite often. So I think that most careful readers will conclude that they do actually pertain more closely to the topic of science, rather than politics.

                            4. Probably the primary motivation in my posts is to foster an environment of healthy skepticism about company claims regarding their product, and encourage the companies to focus on their core competencies.

                            That's all.

                            Jack

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              New study of haplotype blocks

                              This is the next step in finding out whether a match at say 19 repeats is identical by descent (same ancestor even many many thousands of years ago) or idential by state (mutations occured in different places at different times). The way to do this is to look at the haplotype blocks associated with this marker. This study will likely be published fairly soon:

                              http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg07s/f21508.htm

                              Things are moving quite quickly these days not that we are getting beyond using the questionable measures of the recent past, and move into an arena where we can hopefully obtain clear answers to the questions we want answered - such as what genetic traces remain that would link me to the ancestors shown in the genealogical records (NA being but one possibility - a clearer analysis of specific European ancestry is just around the corner - I think).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Yaffa
                                They need to take into consideration that inter-tribal marriages did occur. Even way back when before there was paper. MT-DNA results can be very ancient. Proving a person has Native ancestry through DNA is one thing but proving tribe is a whole nother story. Need paper trail or if by some miracle if they ever come up with certain genes that are only found in a certain tribe. This issue is a long way off.

                                From what I know the Collins family comes up with different Haplogroups on Y DNA. I don't know your direct line. I do know some of the Collins family were classified Melungeon in records in TN. I do know a Collins line
                                (Melungeon) that is African. Ancestry.com has the Collins DNA project if you are interested in results if your family has not tested or maybe someone else in your direct male lines has.
                                well I do know beyond a doubt that eastern Blackfoot/saponi USED to HATED Cherokee .. maybe because they fought a lot and stole from them , maybe it was people the Cherokee were stealing/ selling or slaving them . maybe they kept some too. and I also know lots of saponi/and allies got into Mohawks and Powhatan and VA Algonquins too and they later maybe they ended up in the Cherokee.. so there is a couple of different routes Cherokee could have gotten some saponi genes I guess. I still suspect something very much older than that. .
                                but my 'DAY' relations was probably fairly rare Cherokee/ saponi combination.
                                I do not believe in "melungeons" . I think that whole dang thing is just a missinterpetation of their explanations of their best understanding of how to express their origins. I do not feel that is the correct terminology now days to explain what the old ones were trying to tell us.
                                white folks come here calling them africans and making them slaves and how do you convince someone you are not late coming africans if they are convinced you are? they did the best they could with the limited knowledge they had..
                                now it has not changed they are still calling them white and africans.. what's new..
                                Last edited by purple flowers; 7 September 2008, 12:12 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X