Confused and feeling buyer's remorse

Jasmine, have you already transferred your results into Family Tree DNA? If not, you should definitely do so -- it's free to transfer. Just go to the bottom of your Genographic results page, and follow the instructions in the "What else can I do with my results?" section.

After your FTDNA account is created, join the mtDNA haplogroup J project:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-mtDNA/

Hi - I am new to Family Tree, but did join the NG Genographics study back in 2006. Recently I saw the info for 2.0, and that brought me to FT. Since then I have recently ordered the Family Finder tests.

I also just saw I can transfer my NG results to FT. So a few questions:

1) I cant see how to do this, when I go to my NG page and click the link to "What else... - Learn More" I just get sent to the FT 'Select a Product' order page. How can I add my NG results to FT?

2) If I can do the above, do I then need to consider upgrading my Y tests to 25 or 37 markers as I already have 12 from NG?

Thanks in advance - I'm still in the early stages of a very steep learning curve.

[yomo]

I was in the same "J" boat

I was trying to understand why my exact HVR1 and HVR2 matches had different haplogroups - J versus J1b1. So, I downloaded my FASTA file (save it in a txt format) from the familytreedna site and uploaded it to the posted link. After crunching a few seconds, the results came back as best match is j1b1a1. Thanks for helping to clear up this little bit of murkiness! :^ )

[Nomatches]

nomatches, I think it's the other way around: Genographic Project is associated with the U. of Arizona -- and FTDNA is a lab in Houston.

You have to transfer the Genographic results to FTDNA, but they do it free of charge, because they are partners.

I'm aware of this because we started at Genographic and came here. Also I'm a U. of Arizona alum and found it interesting Genographic is based there.

I think you're right. FTDNA's address for its world headquarters is in Houston. Now I did remember that Genographic was based at U of Arizona because of the video I received with my kit.

[lgmayka]

Although Whit Athey's predictor has not been updated for some time, as long as the markers are entered accurately, in my experience it's usually pretty accurate in predicting general hg.

Athey's predictor does not deal with haplogroup B, so any actual B individual will be "predicted" to be something else.

[Janelle]

Keep talking, I'm learning

Aren't there genealogical DNA projects in Europe, too?

[Wilma Wildcat]

nomatches, I think it's the other way around: Genographic Project is associated with the U. of Arizona -- and FTDNA is a lab in Houston.

You have to transfer the Genographic results to FTDNA, but they do it free of charge, because they are partners.

I'm aware of this because we started at Genographic and came here. Also I'm a U. of Arizona alum and found it interesting Genographic is based there.

[gtc]

With withney's hg predictor I am predicted to be Rb1 in spite of being told by Ftdna (with backbone test included) that I'm hg B.

That's quite a disparity.

Although Whit Athey's predictor has not been updated for some time, as long as the markers are entered accurately, in my experience it's usually pretty accurate in predicting general hg.

What are your STR values?

[Nomatches]

Genographic's testing Partner is Ftdna. Genographic is more research and academically oriented; Ftdna is a commercial service based in the university of Arizona. I have posted my results in other databases and it's been confusing. At ysearch and Sorensen I get relatively close matches with people outside my haplogroup but none with my hg. With withney's hg predictor I am predicted to be Rb1 in spite of being told by Ftdna (with backbone test included) that I'm hg B.

[Janelle]

Other DNA testing sites?

Ok, it sounds like this Genographic Project is a completely different DNA testing site and here I thought it was some sub group of FTDNA. Is it possible and would it be a good idea to post FTDNA results to other sites? How would one go about that? Of course, this is all hypothetical since my results won't be available until July 20, but in the meantime I'm trying to learn as much as I can. It's rather confusing.

[nathanm]

They've always only tested SNPs. From their 2002 press release:

"ANCESTRYbyDNA 2.0 will scan the genome for customers in order to determine their BioGeographical Ancestry (BGA) or ancestral proportions. The test is powered by DNAPrint's ANCESTRY panel of proprietary Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), and reveals the proportional extent to which a customer is of European, Native American, African, East Asian, South/Middle Asian and/or Pacific Islander genetic heritage."

Wow, I didn't realize that. The website today doesn't even explain that about the test. They're not doing a good job marketing it. If they were smart, they'd proudly boast about beating 23andMe and FTDNA to the market with autosomal SNP testing. I doubt they're getting much business.

[Javelin]

It might be now, but I don't think any companies were testing SNPs back in 2003.

They've always only tested SNPs. From their 2002 press release:

"ANCESTRYbyDNA 2.0 will scan the genome for customers in order to determine their BioGeographical Ancestry (BGA) or ancestral proportions. The test is powered by DNAPrint's ANCESTRY panel of proprietary Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), and reveals the proportional extent to which a customer is of European, Native American, African, East Asian, South/Middle Asian and/or Pacific Islander genetic heritage."

[nathanm]

That test (Ancestry by DNA) is in fact autosomal SNPs, but at very low resolution (176 markers compared to Population Finder's hundreds of thousands), and often gives ridiculously unbelievable results, for example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-..._b_402795.html

It might be now, but I don't think any companies were testing SNPs back in 2003.

[Javelin]

Regarding the test results and your reaction as a whole, have you heard of the case of Wayne Joseph? He's from a Louisiana Creole family, who believed they were African. But his DNA test came back European, Native American, and a little East Asian, but no African ancestry. And that wasn't just Y or mtDNA, it was autosomal STR testing that gives percentages of ancestry.

That test (Ancestry by DNA) is in fact autosomal SNPs, but at very low resolution (176 markers compared to Population Finder's hundreds of thousands), and often gives ridiculously unbelievable results, for example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-smolenyak-smolenyak/playing-with-dna-is-larry_b_402795.html

[gtc]

I realize that I sound as if I'm being consumed by denial about my HG membership, and perhaps I'm being affected a bit, but it's more an issue of scant and contradicting information.

You are entitled to question your results if they don't make sense to you.

In order to get a "reasonableness check", do you have a male relative on your paternal line who would be willing to test?

[Nomatches]

I think it would be worth your while calling and discussing your results with FTDNA (I suggest using the phone rather than email as emails sometimes "go missing"). If there is significant doubt they may decide to perform a retest for you.



If you do decide to test again, I would recommend that you stick with FTDNA and get a deep clade test done.

Meanwhile, if you want to accept your current results as potentially true, then you could upload them into Ysearch using the link labeled ...

Click here to upload to Ysearch.org

... which is half way down your Y Matches page.

The Ysearch public database (hosted by FTDNA) contains haplotypes from a range of testing companies. You may find some interesting matches there.

I did that and obtained no matches. I also uploaded my STR values into YHRD (Human Haplotype Reference Database) and with the Sorensen Molecular Genealogy Foundation. I did get matches there but none in the Sub-Saharan African samples.
I realize that I sound as if I'm being consumed by denial about my HG membership, and perhaps I'm being affected a bit, but it's more an issue of scant and contradicting information.