Determining Native American Ancestry

[Yaffa]

what kind of records because you already said your not registered so it must be birth citificates and any one can put indian on it.

Why would anyone south of the boarder be registered. Only Canadian and American Indians are governed by rolls and cards. There are no cards or enrollment south of the boarder. Most of the people in or from Mexico and South America are Indian. Read court documents and church records. Mine go from present 1900's back to early 1800's-late 1700's

You said it about birth records. That why they wont let you register. The tribe only accepts birth records from people who can prove they descend from a tribe which you cant prove

[msc_44]

Its not wrong. I think you need to consult a Dr on more than just DNA.

Go be a % I need to help someone who is interested in learning about Accurate DNA

it is wrong and have fun with your shrink

[Yaffa]

you say it on page 7

I wasn't done posting

"Y and MT DNA are accurate and give you one line ancestor. if you had Y and MT DNA on as many direct line ancestors as you can possibly get would be the best way to go on figuring out your closest admixture."

"If your ancestor comes up African or Indian on MT DNA haplogroup much easier to figure out. They had to be African or Indian within 500-600 years due to Slavery or European invasion ( in North America). It's then finding paper to find out where your haplogroup falls on your tree within 500-600 years, Could be back further or close."

these statement above are wrong you cant get someones admixtures or percentages from halpogroups, ancestry changes haplogroups stay the same.

Its not wrong. I think you need to consult a Dr on more than just DNA.

Go be a % I need to help someone who is interested in learning about Accurate DNA

[msc_44]

That does not say that someone is Indian today. You cant read.

No its not wrong. Consult a DR since I know by your ridiculous interpretations of DNA you are not a DR . Im done. the person who started this thread is asking me for help in pms since you like to argue so I will go help her privately where she may get some peace.

Enjoy being a %!

you say it on page 7

I wasn't done posting

"Y and MT DNA are accurate and give you one line ancestor. if you had Y and MT DNA on as many direct line ancestors as you can possibly get would be the best way to go on figuring out your closest admixture."

"If your ancestor comes up African or Indian on MT DNA haplogroup much easier to figure out. They had to be African or Indian within 500-600 years due to Slavery or European invasion ( in North America). It's then finding paper to find out where your haplogroup falls on your tree within 500-600 years, Could be back further or close."

also page 8

"% test will not give you a % of what you are. Y and MT DNA on all your lines will give you accurate results."

these statement above are wrong you cant get someones admixtures or percentages from halpogroups, ancestry changes haplogroups stay the same.

[Yaffa]

you say it on page 7

"Y and MT DNA are accurate and give you one line ancestor. if you had Y and MT DNA on as many direct line ancestors as you can possibly get would be the best way to go on figuring out your closest admixture."

this statement above is wrong you cant get someones admixtures or percentages from halpogroups ancestry changes haplogroups stay the same.

That does not say that someone is Indian today. You cant read.

No its not wrong. Consult a DR since I know by your ridiculous interpretations of DNA you are not a DR . Im done. the person who started this thread is asking me for help in pms since you like to argue so I will go help her privately where she may get some peace.

Enjoy being a %!

[msc_44]

I was told about the DNA fingerprint test by a DR who who is an expert in DNA testing as is very highly regarded in the DNA field. Many in this forum know this person

Y and MT DNA are accurate and give you one line ancestor. if you had Y and MT DNA on as many direct line ancestors as you can possibly get would be the best way to go on figuring out your closest admixture. Money better spent on knowing who each one of your ancestors exactly were which a % test will never tell you

Family finder use both autosomal and X genes. I believe 23andme does also.

I think you need to research some more on what you buy before buying.

you say it on page 7

"Y and MT DNA are accurate and give you one line ancestor. if you had Y and MT DNA on as many direct line ancestors as you can possibly get would be the best way to go on figuring out your closest admixture."

"If your ancestor comes up African or Indian on MT DNA haplogroup much easier to figure out. They had to be African or Indian within 500-600 years due to Slavery or European invasion ( in North America). It's then finding paper to find out where your haplogroup falls on your tree within 500-600 years, Could be back further or close."

these statement above are wrong you cant get someones admixtures or percentages from halpogroups, ancestry changes haplogroups stay the same.

[msc_44]

You dont know what your talking about. I have spoken to Drs. Like DKF, Ann Turner, Dr Khran who works at FTDNA.

My ancestor is listed in records as Indian in the 1900's therefor still Indian!! GET IT!!!!!!! My Mother is listed as Indian in records!! GET IT!

what kind of records because you already said your not registered so it must be birth citificates and any one can put indian on it.

[Yaffa]

you keep detouring around what you posted earlier you think everyone that has a indian haplogroup now is indian you are wrong they could be 100% african by now you never know that's why those haplogroups your all hyped about wont work and you can get ancestral information from it but some might if the keep being indian all the way down to you but that's not always the case.

also if your so worried about dna test why are you here then.

As I said please show me where I stated that because I didnt. you making things up as you go along or just cant read

[msc_44]

You dont know how to read. My post said If you MTDNA is Indian it happened within 500-600 years. It could be close or far on the tree

YOU NEED PAPER to prove where your Indian ancestor falls on the tree. If someone had an Indian ancestor 500 years ago and blended in with Europeans they probably wont have paper

you keep detouring around what you posted earlier you think everyone that has a indian haplogroup now is indian you are wrong they could be 100% african by now you never know that's why those haplogroups your all hyped about wont work and you can get ancestral information from it but some might if the keep being indian all the way down to you but that's not always the case.

[Yaffa]

what don't you get are you dumb or you just don't know how to read. I was not taking about you I was making a point because you think everyone that has a indian haplogroup now is indian well you are dead wrong that's why haplogroup are never going to help you tell what percentage you are haplogroup go back to far.

You dont know how to read. My post said If you MTDNA is Indian it happened within 500-600 years. It could be close or far on the tree

YOU NEED PAPER to prove where your Indian ancestor falls on the tree. If someone had an Indian ancestor 500 years ago and blended in with Europeans they probably wont have paper

Do show me where I stated that if someone who had an Indian ancestor 500 years ago would be classified as Indian today. Someone who had an Indian ancestor 500 years ago would not be classified as Indian today.

% test will not give you a % of what you are. Y and MT DNA on all your lines will give you accurate results. And my whole direct mother line both men and women are listed Indian in records. I dont need a %. Dont want to be a % but it just seems to be so important to you to be a %. My X who is a tribal member hates being a blood %. In fact for those of us who do have Indian ancestors they were not a % until the European stole their identity and made them a blood %

[msc_44]

You dont know what your talking about. I have spoken to Drs. Like DKF, Ann Turner, Dr Khran who works at FTDNA.

My ancestor is listed in records as Indian in the 1900's therefor still Indian!! GET IT!!!!!!! My Mother is listed as Indian in records!! GET IT!

what don't you get are you dumb or you just don't know how to read. I was not taking about you I was making a point because you think everyone that has a indian haplogroup now is indian well you are dead wrong that's why haplogroup are never going to help you tell what percentage you are haplogroup go back to far.

[Yaffa]

so there's people that have native american haplogroups just like you but there ancestor was 500 years ago just because you have the haplogroup now doesn't mean you still have the same ancestry today there 100% european that's what you don't get. how about you take your advise and talk to a dr because you apparently don't know what your talking about.

And I guess you did not read the post I made to you 6 hours ago on a previous page so ill post it again

6 Hours Ago
Yaffa Yaffa is online now
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by msc_44 View Post

mtdna is just a for tracking were your female ancestor was thousands of years ago.

This is also not true. If your ancestor comes up African or Indian on MT DNA haplogroup much easier to figure out. They had to be African or Indian within 500-600 years due to Slavery or European invasion ( in North America). It's then finding paper to find out where your haplogroup falls on your tree within 500-600 years, Could be back further or close.

HRV 1 and 2 on MT DNA is very ancient. Full Gnome Sequence on MT-DNA is your direct mother line. FGS can also tell the difference between Indian DNA and Asian where HRV 1 and 2 can not.
__________________
MT-DNA FGS - Haplogroup B2
Mitosearch XKBS6

[Yaffa]

so there's people that have native american haplogroups just like you but there ancestor was 500 years ago just because you have the haplogroup now doesn't mean you still have the same ancestry today there 100% european that's what you don't get. how about you take your advise and talk to a dr because you apparently don't know what your talking about.

You dont know what your talking about. I have spoken to Drs. Like DKF, Ann Turner, Dr Khran who works at FTDNA.

My ancestor is listed in records as Indian in the 1900's therefor still Indian!! GET IT!!!!!!! My Mother is listed as Indian in records!! GET IT!

[msc_44]

My ancestor is Indian from the 1900's all the way back thousands of years. Her Haplogroup matches to her paper in the 1900's. I think you need to speak to the experts ( dr's) so you can further understand how to use ACCURATE ( Y and MT) DNA in genealogy research. You might want to read DKF's post that is right above yours. Enjoy your % tests

so there's people that have native american haplogroups just like you but there ancestor was 500 years ago just because you have the haplogroup now doesn't mean you still have the same ancestry today there 100% european that's what you don't get. how about you take your advise and talk to a dr because you apparently don't know what your talking about.

[Yaffa]

once again you are wrong ydna and mtdna halpogroups only show were they were thousands of years ago how is that going to help you figure out recent ancestral percentages its not so you can waste all your money on mtdna and ydna halpogroup because you will only find out what they were thousands of yours ago which in recent times they are a totally different mix.

My ancestor is Indian from the 1900's all the way back thousands of years. Her Haplogroup matches to her paper in the 1900's. I think you need to speak to the experts ( dr's) so you can further understand how to use ACCURATE ( Y and MT) DNA in genealogy research. You might want to read DKF's post that is right above yours. Enjoy your % tests