Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNAPrint vs. decodeme vs. 23andme

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starr173
    Mr. Faux, what would you say of my 8% Native-American on DNAPrint 2.5? My ancestry is from Puerto Rico and the Native-American population died out in the early 1500's. By the 1600's they were no pure Native-Americans. So, I too, do not have any recent Native-American ancestry but DNAPrint was still able to pick up 8%.
    Thats what they say about Mexico but this has proven to be wrong. Many people from Mexico have a lot of NA blood. Just from reading marriage records. Even looking at the DNA results. The Spanish were very specific on listing race for a long period of time. I don't know what the records look like in Puerto Rico and if they were listing race the way they did in Mexico.
    Last edited by Yaffa; 1 December 2008, 07:58 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Also

      Also, There was Indian slavery from the US going into the Islands up through the 1700's

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Yaffa
        Thats what they say about Mexico but this has proven to be wrong. Many people from Mexico have a lot of NA blood including DNA results. Just from reading marriage records. The Spanish were very specific on listing race for a long period of time. I don't know what the records look like in Puerto Rico and if they were listing race the way they did in Mexico.
        Yes, church records in Puerto Rico also listed race. The term they most often used was "pardo" which in the 1500's referred to Native-American/Spanish mixes. Later on the term came to mean "mulattos." Also, before the abolition of slavery, slaves were listed as such. It's probably much the same all around Latin America being that they were all governed by Spain.

        Mexicans usually show more Native-American than Puerto Ricans because the Native population in Mexico was much larger. Puerto Ricans show more European or African. Still admixture for each individual whether Mexican or Puerto Rican varies greatly.
        Last edited by Starr173; 1 December 2008, 08:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starr173
          Yes, church records in Puerto Rico also listed race. The term they most often used was "pardo" which in the 1500's referred to Native-American/Spanish mixes. Later on the term came to mean "mulattos." Also, before the abolition of slavery, slaves were listed as such. It's probably much the same all around Latin America being that they were all governed by Spain.
          Yes and then you also have the issue of Indian Saves from the US that were taken into the Islands. Im sure slaves were traded off from one Island to another. So trying to figure out in the Islands if Native DNA came from the US or were originally from the Islands would be hard. I have never checked ship records. The US was not specific on keeping records on race as the Spanish were. I suspect that US slave ship records on Indians might be a rare find if they exist.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Starr173
            Mexicans usually show more Native-American than Puerto Ricans because the Native population in Mexico was much larger. Puerto Ricans show more European or African. Still admixture for each individual whether Mexican or Puerto Rican varies greatly.
            I suspect that Puerto Rico shows up with admixture like Cuba but I have met very few Cubans that will admit there is Native in their blood lines. Most I have met will only claim they came from the mother country of Spain.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starr173
              ... Why doesn't 23andme offer just the ancestry painting and the global similarity option for those of us who already know our mtDNA and y-dna haplogroups? I'm also not too keen on knowing my risks for various disorders. Knowing your family history can tell you almost the same thing. No I'm not completely sold on 23andme for those reasons.
              An affordable and comprehensive admixture-mapping DNA test has long been a goal of epidemiologists as a means of quickly screening persons for their liability to inherited disease. Genealogists are not likely to have the use of such an instrument before epidemiologists. Similarly, the focus of DNAPrint is forensics and identity testing.

              So, there is a bit of a technological race going-on as to which instruments come to market first: a broad-application admixture tool or application-specific tools showing disease markers, on the one hand, and hair-eye-skin color (e.g.) on the other.

              At the recently reduced price, 23andMe is a superior value to AbDNA or all the DNApint offerings combined. Although 23andMe results still offer more potential information than usable information.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tomcat
                An affordable and comprehensive admixture-mapping DNA test has long been a goal of epidemiologists as a means of quickly screening persons for their liability to inherited disease. Genealogists are not likely to have the use of such an instrument before epidemiologists. Similarly, the focus of DNAPrint is forensics and identity testing.

                So, there is a bit of a technological race going-on as to which instruments come to market first: a broad-application admixture tool or application-specific tools showing disease markers, on the one hand, and hair-eye-skin color (e.g.) on the other.

                At the recently reduced price, 23andMe is a superior value to AbDNA or all the DNApint offerings combined. Although 23andMe results still offer more potential information than usable information.
                I think 23andme is an excellent option for the newbie. But for me, who already shelled out quite a bit of money for DNA testing, not so much.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I have spent thousands testing myself and siblings. Would gladly spend more for more information.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DKF
                    Maria and all interested parties:
                    Clearly if you "want" to find Native American ancestry one would be well advised to go to ABDNA for your testing. If someone is interested in the facts and not the romance, it will have to be 23andme testing.

                    .
                    So If I want to be an Indian I would test with another company.
                    I'll stay with FTDNA.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I am trying to move on...

                      ABDNA 2.5 version:
                      My final conculsions:
                      1. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA is not comming from the 1600's.
                      2. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA was an error, based of my families very unbalanced results..
                      3. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA will no longer be on my signature tag and most likely won't be mentioned again.
                      4. I am not Native American.... I do have documented Native American ancestry and it is a part of me, just like the European is... I am trying to focus on other DNA issues...

                      DeCodeMe results:
                      I am assumming that the DeCodeMe results are wrong too. Why would 20,000 markers vs 175 be any different....Still can't go back to the 1600's...

                      For me, the ancestry percentage results just caused confusion... Happy hunting...

                      Maria
                      Last edited by Maria_W; 1 December 2008, 11:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Happy holiday 2008....

                        By the way, happy holiday everyone... Stay safe and hope everyone has family or friends to share it with....

                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Maria_W
                          ABDNA 2.5 version:
                          My final conculsions:
                          1. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA is not comming from the 1600's.
                          2. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA was an error, based of my families very unbalanced results..
                          3. The 10% Native American result that I recieved from ABDNA will no longer be on my signature tag and most likely won't be mentioned again.
                          4. I am not Native American.... I do have documented Native American ancestry and it is a part of me, just like the European is... I am trying to focus on other DNA issues...

                          DeCodeMe results:
                          I am assumming that the DeCodeMe results are wrong too. Why would 20,000 markers vs 175 be any different....Still can't go back to the 1600's...

                          For me, the ancestry percentage results just caused confusion... Happy hunting...

                          Maria

                          Happy Hunting Maria. My 17% caused a lot of confusion and is elusive too. Looking back I realize that trying to find out how my paternal grandmother could have Native American ancestry makes me feel like Elmer Fudd trying to get that rabbit Bugs Bunny. lol
                          I still don't know what tribe I'm descended from.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            So Called Non-Asian A2

                            I tested my father's DNA, and he was a non-Asian A2 with a mutation at 5105C with no mutations at 16111 and at 152. I just guessed it was a non-Asian type because of his oral history of being in Virginia for a long time. I do not see any tribal history for at least 150 years (if not longer). Achilli A, Perego UA, Bravi CM, Coble MD, Kong Q-P, et al (2008) suggest as others have done for other groups that there is a change in the mtDNA for admixtures of the American people from the indigenous populations. However, I can find all of my father's mutations in the data bank as well as for my own mtDNA. This type of problem suggests that the sample size for the data is too small. So, I would assume the idea that autosomal data banks need more study to understand sets of mutations, and how they overlap since autosomes follow laws of segregation no matter what computer programs are used.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Tribal names were from place, not only descent.

                              Originally posted by rainbow
                              Happy Hunting Maria. My 17% caused a lot of confusion and is elusive too. Looking back I realize that trying to find out how my paternal grandmother could have Native American ancestry makes me feel like Elmer Fudd trying to get that rabbit Bugs Bunny. lol
                              I still don't know what tribe I'm descended from.
                              Don't get too fussy about which Tribe! People, especially women, would change tribes.
                              Within a general genetic pool or region, a tribal name was usually that of the geographic feature that gave a name to the land it occupied. For example, "Powhatan" means the "upper waterfall" of the James River (?), after which the resident tribe, later taken over by Wahunsunacough, was historically named; and whose name "W" then took as his title.....
                              As recorded, when Chief Powhatan conquered a tribe, after enslaving or driving away the braves, he sent the women and children to merge with another tribe. The Kecoughtan women and children were transferred to Werowocomoco just before Smith's arrival, 1606, and the surviving warriors escaped to Cape Charles. Both groups of people thus acquired new tribal identities.
                              Last edited by derinos; 4 December 2008, 01:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I didn't intend to sound fussy. At least people in Virginia pretty much know that they have Virginian Indian heritage. With me, my 17% must be from my paternal grandmother from New Jersey (who would be about 68%), but all census records list everyone (her, her parents, grandparents, great grandparents) as white.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X