American Indian admixture in White Americans

[Barreldriver]

I know plenty of people that come up mixed on autosomal tests in the Appalachia although their autosomal results are not posted and I cant post them. Some are people I just know and some are even my FF matches. However I will say again that I am not a big fan of autosomal race/admixture testing. So we can agree to disagree on autosomal admixture testing. I use Y and MT in direct lines to get the full picture. When your looking at results on Y and MT your only looking at one line not all the lines. So you see R1b come up on a male line in the Cumberland Gap. Are you also looking at his mother's MTDNA? His wife's MT DNA- His wife's Father's Y DNA? When I talk to people who research in the Appalachia they are telling me Y- and MT DNA results in several of their direct lines trying to get the full picture. Those fuller pictures of ones ancestors are not going to be told by you looking and DNA Groups on here. I have Y and MT DNA results from several of my direct line ancestors and I add them to my tree as more people in my family DNA test. I know others who do this too. Many of these people may not post this info on line. My Tree is not public. Our DNA results are public but the full story of how all the Y and MT DNA results connect on my tree is not public.

I'm curious how one can deny the importance of autosomal admix testing? Even if you were to map out all your generations of Y-DNA and mtDNA you still aren't going to get as complete a picture as an autosomal test because you'll then just have a load of incomplete genome parts going back generations, with the autosomal test you get a wealth of information that goes back hundreds of generations which can be used to determine overall population similarity as well, and thus be useful in pinning ethnic origins for ancestors. This is why all the major population studies of today are autosomal based, not Y-DNA or mtDNA based like what was done years ago. It is impossible to get a "full picture" by using Y-DNA and mtDNA alone, one has to combine it with autosomal or else one is leaving out hundreds and thousands, even millions of pieces.

And yes I've been going and adding Y-DNA and mtDNA results to my generations by finding cousins who tested, but the difference is I combine that with the autosomal results, without doing that one is intentionally shutting ones eyes to useful evidences.

Fact is, if as ragincajun says "Appalachians are heavily admixed", then I should be heavily admixed, and I'm not, I'm far from it, not admixed at all and I can prove it going back beyond 100 generations due to having results via RHH counter analysis, which was used in an admixture study this year involving Utahns and previously unreported admixture. Fact is some are mixed, some are not, to say Appalachians in general (as a whole) are heavily mixed is a blatant lie when there's numbers of resources saying the contrary. The results rather say some Appalachians are mixed, some Appalachians are not mixed, both exist.

[Yaffa]

With autosomal each person inherits different DNA from their ancestors. You could show up 100% European where if you have siblings, one of them could show up 20% something other than European and 80% European. Have you tested all your family on autosomal? Parents, cousins, siblings???The next issue I have with autosomal admixture testing is that each company gives a different % of what a person's admixture is. For it to be accurate all companies that do admixture testing should give you same results. When you do Y and MT DNA testing they "should" all come out with the same result. I have tested my MT DNA with more than one company and results are always the same. Same thing with the people in my family who have Y and MT DNA tested.

Since you are in favor of autosomal testing for admixture, again all I can say is I have seen many autosomal results from the Appalachia who come up mixed but I can not posts other peoples results as proof to prove to you the tests are coming back this way.

[Barreldriver]

Hypothetical scenario, lets say someone has an Amerindian ancestor 7 generations back and that descendant does not inherit the Y-DNA or mtDNA of that ancestor, one can still detect it's presence via an autosomal test and by taking a look at homozygote or heterozygote segments (basically find the SNP's in a segment, measure the length of the segment in centimorgans, find the origins of the SNP's in the segment and apply a formula to get the age in generations), so if someone had a segment that is 15cM long is about 7 generations old, one could tell if that segment was Amerindian or not by using a resource like SPSmart.

If one were to only take Y-DNA and mtDNA going back generations you're still leaving out the stuff "in between" when dealing with your great grandparents, great great grandparents, and beyond. The more information the better, and that cannot be had without autosomal testing.

[Barreldriver]

With autosomal each person inherits different DNA from their ancestors. You could show up 100% European where if you have siblings, one of them could show up 20% something other than European and 80% European. Have you tested all your family on autosomal? Parents, cousins, siblings???The next issue I have with autosomal admixture testing is that each company gives a different % of what a person's admixture is. For it to be accurate all companies that do admixture testing should give you same results. When you do Y and MT DNA testing they "should" all come out with the same result. I have tested my MT DNA with more than one company and results are always the same. Same thing with the people in my family who have Y and MT DNA tested.

Since you are in favor of autosomal testing for admixture, again all I can say is I have seen many autosomal results from the Appalachia who come up mixed but I can not posts other peoples results as proof to prove to you the tests are coming back this way.

With things like RHHcounter your concerns with autosomal testing are moot since it detects admixture going back thousands of years, your concern about recombination is moot because one can look at different areas of the genome and find areas with slow recomb rates, if the hits on an RHH counter analysis are from an area with slow recombination and do not form a segment larger than 1 centimorgan then there's no case for admixture, rather ancient left overs.

And so what if you've seen mixed results from Appalachia, it does not mean all Appalachians are mixed, just means some are. How you get all Appalachians are mixed from the results of some is beyond me.


The key is not in the painting companies give, but in what the raw data holds, and fact is you're claim about inconsistent results does not apply to me as I've had a number of different analysis done that came to the exact same result, FTDNA, 23andMe, Eurogenes, Eurogens with RHH counter, Dr. Doug McDonald, and the Dodecad ancestry project all say the exact same thing about my genome, Western European through and through, a 6 out of 6.

[Barreldriver]

Also, you stated "You could show up 100% European where if you have siblings, one of them could show up 20% something other than European and 80% European." So what, especially with modern analysis utilizing the latest tools (again I will point to RHH counter and related tools), if the admixture is there and recent enough it will manifest itself somehow in all the descendants in varying degrees, so if there's an Amerindian ancestor 10 generations back, the descendants of that family would have a segment of Amerindian DNA anywhere from at least 10cM-or more, if it's not there then one would not have a segment of any size. So even if a sibling were to score 100% and the other 80% via one of the companies paintings one could still find the admixture in the one who scored 100% with an RHH analysis, the one who scored 100% on the traditional painting just had a smaller segment of that Amerindian ancestor than his/her sibling and it took a deeper analysis to find it.

Fact is in people like me there are zero segments on these RHH analysis, and people like me score typical with native Western and Northwestern Europeans, and my admixture results are consistent over 6 different analysis, unless you want to be so bold as to say all 6 result sets were wrong? Which is statistically foolish.

[Yaffa]

I am using this as an example. There have been discussions on the web that American Indians descend from the Middle east. That they match on SNPS on autosomal. Well, They say Italians, Spaniards. Greek, Turkish, Arab, Israeli, ect match on these SNPS too. Well is this is true how does one figure out which group their ancestor belonged to. Especially is there is no paper to back it up. Could all these people share SNP's in common because they all have inherited darker skin tones? People with darker skin tones I also notice darker skinned toned people seem to have black pigmentation in there eyes. Im not a DR but some on this board are and maybe able to give an explanation.

I was given a Middle eastern % on FF yet my family are not recent immigrants and have all been Colonial American and did not live near the shoreline for hundreds of years. My 12-13% Middle Eastern I was given is supposed to be 1 great grandparent or possibly Two 2nd great grandparents. None of this supports my paper or Y or MT DNA. I have seen a few others in the Appalachia being given Middle Eastern %. Our area in Western NC was not documented to have had a lot of people descending from the Middle East region. I do have some paper in this region on my family as Indian ( no tribe)

I also got a % of Pima/Maya being Central American Indian. My Ancestors on my direct mother line, MT DNA Indian was not from Central America. They were from N. Mexico and TX. One of the people that married into my direct line (cousin) was of the Tlaxcala Tribe. My ancestors records dont list tribe nly Indian. I may have Inter-tribal mixing in my lines. My whole point is these DNA testing companies who do autosomal do not have 'A lot" of Indian DNA to compare to.

[Barreldriver]

Also, the farther back an admixture is the less likely it is to get passed on down, especially with Amerindian and Asian segments.

From DNA forums:

The cM, or centiMorgan, is meant as a measure of the likelihood of recombination. An area of a chromosome that is 1 cM has a 1% chance of recombining through the crossover mechanism (thus fragmenting the segment) in one generation somewhere between the start of that area and the end of that area. It also follows that the chance is 1% * 1%, or 1/100 of 1% that there will be two crossovers in one generation over that distance. These values are only estimates, and are also gender averages, because recombination is quite a bit more likely in the female parent than the male.

Now, this doesn't mean that you have a 100% chance of a crossover in 100 generations, in the same way you don't have a 100% chance of getting at least one heads if you flip a coin twice (even though you have a 50% chance of getting heads on each toss).

For 1 cM the chance of it surviving intact is 99% in one generation. You could multiply generations by say 30 years to get estimate of years. Beyond that it's:
generations..: 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300
chance intact: 99% 98% 95% 90% 82% 61% 37% 13% 5%
A 50% chance it's 69 generations, or 2,070 years old or older

For 2 cM the chance of it surviving intact is:
generations..: 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300
chance intact: 98% 96% 90% 82% 68% 36% 13% 1.8% 0.2%
A 50% chance it's 34 generations, or 1,020 years old or older

For 5 cM the chance of it surviving intact is:
generations..: 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300
chance intact: 95% 90% 77% 60% 36% 8% 0.6% tiny% tiny%
A 50% chance it's 13 generations, or 390 years old or older

For 10 cM the chance of it surviving intact is:
generations..: 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300
chance intact: 90% 81% 59% 35% 12% 0.5% tiny% tiny% tiny%
A 50% chance it's 6 generations, or 180 years old or older

[Barreldriver]

I am using this as an example. There have been discussions on the web that American Indians descend from the Middle east. That they match on SNPS on autosomal. Well, They say Italians, Spaniards. Greek, Turkish, Arab, Israeli, ect match on these SNPS too.

I would recommend looking at SPSmart and analyzing things SNP by SNP.

Well is this is true how does one figure out which group their ancestor belonged to. Especially is there is no paper to back it up. Could all these people share SNP's in common because they all have inherited darker skin tones? People with darker skin tones I also notice darker skinned toned people seem to have black pigmentation in there eyes. Im not a DR but some on this board are and maybe able to give an explanation.

One could find the origins with SPSmart by looking at frequencies and comparing it to known genealogical history, if one has a segment that is shared between Amerindians and Yakuts, yet your genealogy suggests British and you're from the American South you can thus assume that the segment is Amerindian in origin.

I was given a Middle eastern % on FF yet my family are not recent immigrants and have all been Colonial American and did not live near the shoreline for hundreds of years. My 12-13% Middle Eastern I was given is supposed to be 1 great grandparent or possibly Two 2nd great grandparents.

Number of possibilities, crypot-Jew or other Semitic convert who passed mixed with your ancestors before they came to Europe, the only way to tell is by the size of the segment, if the segment that is Middle Eastern is rather large and is also shared with Amerindians, and you have no reported Mid East ancestry then it's logically Amerindian, but if it's a small segment that is shared with both it can be attributed to distant Eurasian ancestry from the initial peopling of Europe and Eurasia.

None of this supports my paper or Y or MT DNA. I have seen a few others in the Appalachia being given Middle Eastern %. Our area in Western NC was not documented to have had a lot of people descending from the Middle East region. I do have some paper in this region on my family as Indian ( no tribe)

See above

I also got a % of Pima/Maya being Central American Indian. My Ancestors on my direct mother line, MT DNA Indian was not from Central America. They were from N. Mexico and TX. One of the people that married into my direct line (cousin) was of the Tlaxcala Tribe. My ancestors records dont list tribe nly Indian. I may have Inter-tribal mixing in my lines. My whole point is these DNA testing companies who do autosomal do not have 'A lot" of Indian DNA to compare to.

Northern Mexico and Texas is rather close to Central America, even if there wasn't inter tribal admix it's likely that the Amerindians who first settled in Northern Mexico were already genetically similar to those who settled Central America, it could also be very ancient inter tribal admix.

[Barreldriver]

All I can do is give my results, and for you to suggest that my results are false despite having 6 different analysis which utilize peer reviewed techniques is just wrong on your part. Good for you that you and some have Amerindian ancestry, does not mean that I and others have to have it. My results, Y-DNA, mtDNA (traced a number of generations of this via cousins results), and 6 different autosomal analysis say 100% European, and 100% European for a very very very very long time.

[Yaffa]

All I can do is give my results, and for you to suggest that my results are false despite having 6 different analysis which utilize peer reviewed techniques is just wrong on your part.

Im sorry if you dont understand that people can agree to disagree. I know my results are not accurate and do not support paper backed up with Y and MT DNA. I know others who have said the same thing about their results. They also say when people are mixed it is harder to detect the exact admixture. If you are satisfied with your results than thats all that matters.

[Barreldriver]

Im sorry if you dont understand that people can agree to disagree. I know my results are not accurate and do not support paper backed up with Y and MT DNA. I know others who have said the same thing about their results. They also say when people are mixed it is harder to detect the exact admixture. If you are satisfied with your results than thats all that matters.

I'm sorry you can't understand that not everyone's analysis are wrong.

Guarantee if you were to have tested with 23andMe or Decodeme and then ran your data through Eurogenes (both the normal analysis and Chromosome Mosaic RHH analysis) or Dr. McDonald the tools would have been able to distinguish between the Mid. East and Amerindian DNA, sounds to me like you've only tested with Population Finder, which is not the most reliable of the analysis available, the only way you can get an accurate picture is to save your bucks and get a number of different tests done.

For me my paper trail is backed up further by my DNA results, granted a few mix ups with some cousin lineages made me think there was distant admix but I've found the correct genealogical records that separate my lines from those cousin lines who mixed, and my genes reflect that via comparisons of a number of Y-DNA and mtDNA results and 6 different autosomal analysis, the latest of which is used in recent published studies (which can all be found by googling RHH counter, admixture, Utah, Utahns, etc....).

Until you show me proof that I'm admixed I'm not going to believe that all Appalachians are always mixed, when the truth really is some are mixed some are not.

I also want to know why you disagree that unadmixed people can exist along side mixed people?

[Yaffa]

This thread is about Admixture of Indian's. There are many people who fall under this category. You claim you dont fall under this category per all your DNA testing so why do you insist on trying to start an argument with those who do? We disagree on things so leave it at that

[Barreldriver]

This thread is about Admixture of Indian's. There are many people who fall under this category. You claim you dont fall under this category per all your DNA testing so why do you insist on trying to start an argument with those who do? We disagree on things so leave it at that

I'm not trying to start crap, ragingcajun stated that Appalachians are heavily admixed (suggesting that people of the region are all admixed or that they're the majority), I said he's no 100% correct because I'm Appalachian and I'm not admixed (and I share with others from nearby regions with results like my own), then you come in stating that my results are false given the troubles you've had with your tests, then I provided reasons for the validity of my results and my view that some Appalachians are mixed, some are not.

So there's no point for you to accuse me of trying to start anything, I'm defending a reasonable viewpoint. Also the thread is not about just Admixture of Indian's, the title actually has to do with Amerindian admixture in Whites. So you in fact seem to be the misguided one here not I. Good day.

[Yaffa]

Someone stating the Appalachia region is heavely mixed and opposed to stating "ALL" are mixed are 2 different things. So your line your stating is not mixed. I know a lot of researchers who come from the Appalachia who are mixed. A lot more who are mixed than people who arent. Who ever posted to start with that the Appalachia with is heavely mixed is a pretty fair statement from the results I have seen.

[Barreldriver]

Someone stating the Appalachia region is heavely mixed and opposed to stating "ALL" are mixed are 2 different things. So your line your stating is not mixed. I know a lot of researchers who come from the Appalachia who are mixed. A lot more who are mixed than people who arent. Who ever posted to start with that the Appalachia with is heavely mixed is a pretty fair statement from the results I have seen.

Guess I misinterpreted what he meant by heavy, I thought that by stating "Appalachians are heavily admixed" he meant Appalachians are always heavily admixed, or something, as opposed to there are Appalachians who are heavily mixed. That's my bad.

If the proportions you saw are typical then I guess I'm a minority now . lol