Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

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

  • Originally posted by DKF
    Rainbow - In reading your various posts I gather you have no known NA ancestry, and the only "candidate" is someone who resided in the New Amsterdam settlements of the 1600s. Considering there does not seem to be any doubt about your apparently close to 100% European ancestry, if you did match any NA tribe using the DNA Tribes test it would be a spurious match (false positive).

    The test takes 15 alleles from each parent, with no way of the test knowing from which side (maternal, paternal) any of the scores come from, so in all likelihood you would at most have one out of 30 alleles potentially NA. This is simply too small to fall anywhere on the radar screen. The test is not designed to detect admixture, only compare total alleles to an assortment of world populations (with a serious under representation for the British Isles). For this test to work your mother and father would both have to have a large percentage NA, and from the same tribal group or geographical region.

    Most of my matches actually do make sense on the DNA Tribes test. Genealogically my ancestry is Danelaw English first and foremost and then Scottish - with "other" not being too large to swamp the other two. The two top matches were Strthcylde Scottish and Danish and the third was Morocco. The latter and other Arab matches are spurious and a result of convergence (random chance) and I have discarded them. It appears that some would take some significance in these findings, but nothing would lead me to see any of this as meaningful. My well documented NA did not show, as I hoped it would not - or the European matches would be highly suspect.

    Your 17% score of NA on the DNA Print test is within the zero confidence interval parameter. In other words your true score could be zero and someone with a zero score could have 17% Na or EA. Someone who is 90% PA German and 10% English obtained an East Asian score of 25%. Hidden ancestry? - not likely based on the area in which his ancestors lived and on a thoroughly researched genealogy. He used to joke about his Japanese grandmother (reflecting the interpretation given in the ABDNA literature). As you know the test will show 33% or more NA for Pakistanis and Greeks (for example), and simply cannot be trusted below the levels at which a mirror would give you the information sought on admixture (perhaps 30%).

    I fully understand that people will believe what they want to believe, and a "score" that "seems" interesting or seems to confirm what one hoped to find will be latched upon and given meaning that the raw data does not contain. I am as "guilty" as anyone as I have done exactly the same thing.

    We don't need over - interpretation of flawed test scores, we need an excellent biogrographical autosomal test with an unblemished record of being both reliable (consistently giving the same results) and valid (measuring what it purports to measure). In my opinion we must face the inevitable fact that we do not have such a measure, and while rumors continue to circulate about the appearance of a better mousetrap, nothing has yet surfaced. Knowing human nature I suspect that until then we will all try to make what we can out of the slender thread of valid information that may be embedded in those tests that are presently on the market. Hopefully we all use the "law of parsimony" in our interpretations, but this is not much "fun" so I expect it will be ignored by a lot of us as we see ghosts in the shadows.

    DKF.
    Thank you for the response. My mother's AncestryByDna has zero Native American, so that means it must be from my father's side, from New Jersey. And that is my Dutch/New Netherlands side.
    What does "we see ghosts in the shadows" mean? I never heard that phrase before.
    You have Morocco too? That is in my top 20.

    My newest Top 20 are:
    Portugal (0.52) 16.86
    London, England (0.49) 15.80
    Central Portugal (0.67) 15.62
    Northeast Spain (0.46) 14.76
    Denmark (0.41) 12.55
    Flemish (0.47) 12.23
    Ireland (0.45) 12.02
    Portugal (0.55) 11.80
    Piemonte, Italy (0.48) 11.64
    Syria (0.63) 11.06
    Bosnian Mountain Villages (0.53) 11.02
    Morocco (0.47) 10.66
    Flemish (0.43) 10.50
    Northern Ireland (0.38) 10.45
    Dundee, Scotland (0.36) 10.15
    Flemish (Belgium) (0.39) 8.91
    Switzerland (0.41) 8.69
    Lille, France (0.34) 8.56
    Glasgow, Scotland (0.37) 8.43
    Extremadura, Spain (0.4) 8.04


    Here are pics of my paternal relatives in New Jersey. Do they look partly Amerind?
    http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee123/9ab846a7/
    Last edited by rainbow; 16 October 2007, 12:02 AM.

    Comment


    • I think what he means is that your 17% NA score is probably in error. The test is not reliable and any admixture they "detect" below 30% is to be taken with a grain of salt. Particularly if you know of no such ancestry in your family in at least four or five generations. I think that is what he meant.

      I say that even if you suspect or knew of some remote NA ancestry, 17% would still be to high to be accurate. Your mom tested zero NA and since your dad does not have any NA ancestors either, that figure is not to be trusted.

      Comment


      • Part 9....

        1617-Matoake Amunute (Pocahontis)dies in England. Her father, Wahunsenacawh greives at the news of her death. In the summer of 1617, Wahunsenacawh gives up his leadership of his domain to his brother, Opitchipam and went to live among the Potowomecke Tribe(my line) where he died April 1618. Opitchipam, who also later used the names of I-Toyatan and Sesawpen, had allowed his brother, Opechancanough (later known as Mangopeesomon), to take over leadership of the Wahuncecawh (Powatan) Confereracy. The supreme leader, due to place of residence, later became known as the King or Queen of Pamunkey....

        Maria

        Comment


        • Part 11...

          1622-The great massacre of the English colonist by various tribes under the leadership of Opachcacanough, who had changed his name to Mangopeespmon before the battle, took place on March 22. The Potowomecke Tribe(my line) refused to take part in the massacre. (Very smart idea). Shortly after the massacre, Capt. Raleigh Crawshaw, an associate of Capt John Smith and old friend of the King of the Potowomecke, sailed to the Potowomecke village in search of food supplies. Upon learning of Capt. Crawshaws whereabouts, Mangopeesomon send 2 baskets of beads to the King of the Potowomecke, asking him to kill Crawshaw and join his allaince against the English. After comtemplating the matter for 2 days, the King of the Potowomecke, returned the beads to Mangopeesomon stating the English were his friends and that Opitchipam was his brother and that there should be no blood shed between them. It is generally assumed that Japasaw(my ancestor) was King of the Potowomecke at this time. In May, Capt Ralph Hamor, arrived and joined the Potowomeckes in a raid against the Nacotchtanks to obtain corn. In June Governor Wyatt sent Capt. Isaac Maddison to the Potowomeckes to assist the King against his emines and the enemies of the English. The leader of the Nanzaticos, who begrudged the King of the Potowomeck for not helping him to take revernge on the Necosts, an enemy tribe who had displaced him from his country, tricked the interpeter, Robert Poole, the treasures agent among the Potowomeckes into beleiving that the King of the Potowomeke was planning an attack against Capt. Maddison and his men. Poole told Maddison,and Madison with out hisitaion murdered 30 to 40 Potowomeck men, women and children. Maddison took hostage the King of the Potowomecke(Japasaw, my ancestor) his son(Wahangonoche, my ancestor))and two other Amerindians and carried them to Jamestown. In October, the captured Potowomecks were ransomed for Potowomecke corn brought by Capt Hamor.

          Maria

          Comment


          • Originally posted by juan carlos
            I think what he means is that your 17% NA score is probably in error. The test is not reliable and any admixture they "detect" below 30% is to be taken with a grain of salt. Particularly if you know of no such ancestry in your family in at least four or five generations. I think that is what he meant.

            I say that even if you suspect or knew of some remote NA ancestry, 17% would still be to high to be accurate. Your mom tested zero NA and since your dad does not have any NA ancestors either, that figure is not to be trusted.
            Thanks for the explanation.

            Comment


            • AncestryByDna explanation of my 17%

              Here is the explanation I was given by email months ago:

              Dear Elizabeth:

              Dr. Thomas passed your email back to me to again respond to your inquiry. I think the information I gave you last Fall still holds true. The "Native American" genetics
              found in many Europeans such as Italians, Greeks and Turks do overlap with those of American Indian Native American genetics. Their genomic information is basically derived from the same group of markers. Also, as I am sure I stated previously, the influence of the Roman armies has been found throughout the parts of Europe that they occupied. Just like the influences of the invasions and occupations from East Asia (for example, Genghis Khan) are felt within the Scandinavian and Eastern European regions. The information in your AncestryByDNA 2.5 genomic marker test results may come from many thousands of years of genetic heritage.

              Our Native American database is taken primarily from Indian groups in Central America. The markers in our genomics tests do coincide with those from Central Asia....and we have identified migrational information that indicates when these populations started moving, they went both North and East to the Bering Land Bridge AND also South and West back to Southeastern Europe through Turkey. This may have occurred thousands of years ago, but in very sensitive tests, the same markers may be found in both groups. We call them "Native American" because the strongest influence from these markers is found within the Western Hermisphere.
              (In truth, NO American is "Native" since everyone in the Western Hemisphere is believed to have migrated here. Actually, all humans came out of Africa if you go back far enough in time.)

              We rechecked all your DNA information. The blue bar graph depictions (MLEs) and the range intervals shown (red range bars shown in the middle of the blue bars) are 95% and 85% accurate respectively. Your percentages and ranges do fall within the ranges seen for Native American ancestry in our mostly European customers' results. I may previously have told you of my own, being Italian, were 10% N.A. with ranges from 3% to 19%. Your 17% N.A. ancestry was on the high side, but because of the Confidence Interval range you had for that population group (9% -24%), it was still viable as a result. (REFERENCE: Frudakis, Tony N., Powerful but Requiring Caution: Genetic Tests of Ancestral Origins, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, 93 [December 2005], 260-268. - The N.A. percentage given for Europeans as an example in this peer-reviewed scientific article is about 15%.)

              We also checked all your genotype data and they were quite normal and with very few marker failures. Our very stringent Quality Control requirement indicates that we may allow as many as 15 genotype marker "Failures" to still produce an accurate result and you had only 7. Thus, we consider your results quite accurate and within the possible range for Native American markers within strongly European anthropological populations.

              You stated you have also taken a DNA Tribes test which indicated no Native American ancestry. DNA Tribes performs an autosomal test using the CODIS system, STR (Short Tandem Repeat) markers which does not use the information provided by the discovery of the human genome in 2001. Our AncestryByDNA 2.5 test is based on the Ancestry Informative Markers (AIMs) which are SNPs (Short Nucleotide Polymorphisms) only available since the advent of the human genome revelation. Thus, our test is based on different information than the CODIS STR autosomal information: it is genomic in origin, not just genetic. DNAPrint Genomics is the only company in the world that does such a SNP autosomal test as the technology is new and it is proprietary. We perform the autosomal SNP test for people all over the world, including many law enforcement agencies who use our DNAWitness tests to apprehend criminals.

              We do base our information on the Native American SNP information we have collected. Just because we call it "Native American" does not mean that no other genomic markers from any populations other than the commonly known Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere will apply. The four major world population groups we do identify are described by anthropologists, so we cannot just make up another population group other than the ones described. The human genome is 99.9% identical in all people. It is merely the tiniest fraction of that 0.1% among all people that can identify individual genetic heritages. Ultimately, if you could trace all human ancestry back to the origins of mankind, we all came from the same genomic common ancestor. (FYI: Even the chimpanzee's genome which also split off from a common ancestor further back is 98.3% identical to the human genome.)

              For the reasons cited above, we believe that the AncestryByDNA 2.5 test you took is quite accurate with regard to what is in your personal DNA and that can be determined by this type of genomic test. This does not mean that the test you took from DNA Tribes is wrong or that DNAPrint's genomic autosomal SNP test is wrong. THey just show differing results, based on different technologies producing different types of data.

              Ms. Emanuela I. Charlton, Ph.D.
              Customer Services

              ---------------------------------
              Last edited by rainbow; 17 October 2007, 06:30 PM.

              Comment


              • DNA Print is saying what?

                So they are trying to say what?

                Maria

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Maria_W
                  So they are trying to say what?

                  Maria
                  Native American = Central Asian

                  John

                  Comment


                  • Long time ago our DNA was almost the same . . . but today, some of the tested DNA markers have changed. In other words, we still have worm DNA in us

                    Originally posted by Johnserrat
                    Native American = Central Asian

                    John

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Maria_W
                      So they are trying to say what?

                      Maria
                      Some time ago on the forum someone asked me if they gave me an explanation and I said yes but it didn't explain what I asked. (I forgot which thread it was but I remember saying, "If someone answers my question without answering my question then they didn't really answer my question.")

                      DNAPrint Genomics/AncestryByDna essentially calls Central Asian markers "Native American" and they can't tell me if my 17% Native American is from people who crossed the Bering land bridge (genuine Native Americans) or from people who went south and east to Turkey and on to Europe.
                      The customer service person said she is of Italian descent and got 10% Native American and that it is not unusual for southeastern Europeans to have that amount. The thing is I am not of southeastern European descent. I'm 3/4 British/Dutch and 1/4 (25%) Czechoslovakian. What I wonder is if my Czech grandfather was of mostly Central Asian descent. Or, if my Dutch/British descent New Jersey grandmother was adopted or if there was/is a lot of genuine Native American on her side. I can't have the 17% evenly distributed from both parents because my mom has zero NA (she is of British descent).
                      It has to be either DNAPrint is wrong or my father is (more or less) 34%.

                      The other explanation from DNAPrint genomics seem to be that these Central Asian markers were in the Romans who then spread these markers to the places they went (just about everywhere).

                      And if my 17% is from Central Asians that never went into the Americas, then there is no point in trying to find out what tribe(s) I'm descended from, because there wouldn't have been any.

                      In my results from the other company, DNATribes, I have top 20 matches to Italy and Syria. In the extended report I do match Turkey, etc.
                      Last edited by rainbow; 18 October 2007, 12:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Worm DNA...

                        I am so shocked. I didn't know that my heritage included 50% worm!

                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • I know it is shocking

                          Over 40% of the predicted human proteins share similarity with fruit-fly or worm proteins

                          http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...er2001/4.shtml
                          Originally posted by Maria_W
                          I am so shocked. I didn't know that my heritage included 50% worm!

                          Maria

                          Comment


                          • Really we share dna with...

                            O.K. I thought you were joking! Oh sorry fruit fly I left you out when I mentioned worm dna. Can you ever forgive me? You know what they say about your relatives!

                            Maria
                            Last edited by Maria_W; 18 October 2007, 06:47 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Maria_W
                              O.K. I thought you were joking! Oh sorry fruit fly I left you out when I mentioned worm dna. Can you ever forgive me? You know what they say about your relatives!

                              Maria
                              This conversation is just bringing back memories of Cronenberg's movie "The Fly."

                              Comment


                              • People could not believe how much we were like flies No one who saw the movie could forget, "Help Me, Help Me." I first saw the movie at military school, and it had people crying in their seats. Just think, what we could do if we attacked genetics like a NFL Sunday. The common cold would be cured in ten years, and people would be too busy for crushing flies


                                Studies of the 180-nucleotide region called the homeobox in Drosophila and vertebrate animals show a unique common ancestor or origin. Humans generally contain homeobox genes in four clusters, called HOXA (or sometimes HOX1), HOXB, HOXC, or HOXD, on chromosomes 7, 17, 12, and 2, respectively. A particular subgroup of homeobox genes are the Hox genes, which are found in a special gene cluster.
                                Originally posted by Pleroma
                                This conversation is just bringing back memories of Cronenberg's movie "The Fly."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X