Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Admixture or autosomal tests for percentages?

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

  • Paulie
    replied
    Oh, I forgot to mention. I also have a high match in Guinea-Bissau, another African Portuguese speaking country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulie
    replied
    Mozambique has it's official language as Portuguese.

    So you're probably seeing that some persons of Portugal decent live in Mozambique and you happen to have a similar match on markers. Does this mean you have Portugal ancestry? Maybe, maybe not. Could just be convergence (aka Luck).

    I have a similar problem; I'm R1b1c and H, and I have very high scores for Mestizo and Iceland (and Nordic countries). I think my results show more about the Mestizo population admixture than it tells me anything... And no known Nordic ancestry...

    Remember, the results tell you what populations your marker values are in, but that doesn't tell you what populations you actually BELONG to. That's Genealogy.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by juan carlos
    Yes, I understand and you give a very good example of these puzzling results. I mean 17% Native American and there are not even NAs among your ancestors! Consider that, in order to have that percentage, you should at least have a NA great-granparent or even a grandparent. Or several ancestors having some NA genes in such amounts they would have known about it. So I think these results should be not be taken that seriously. I know this is hard to do when you have spent some of your hard-earned money on a test which you expect to make sense, but raises more questions than before.
    Right. And to get Mozambique from DNATRIBES?!?
    The extended report from DNATRIBES is even more bizzarre. It lists Maori, Javanese, Australian Aboriginal, West Polynesian, Oriya Brahmin, Egypt, Fang (Bioko Island), Canary Islands, Cape Verde Islands, South Africa (North & South Sotho), Kathmandu, and much more. Bizzarre.
    I can understand all the European matches. I match every single European country/category on the map, except Lithuania.
    Last edited by rainbow; 15 April 2007, 07:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • juan carlos
    replied
    Originally posted by rainbow
    Thank you Juan Carlos. I am happy someone understands what I'm talking about.
    Yes, I understand and you give a very good example of these puzzling results. I mean 17% Native American and there are not even NAs among your ancestors! Consider that, in order to have that percentage, you should at least have a NA great-granparent or even a grandparent. Or several ancestors having some NA genes in such amounts they would have known about it. So I think these results should be not be taken that seriously. I know this is hard to do when you have spent some of your hard-earned money on a test which you expect to make sense, but raises more questions than before.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by juan carlos
    I was not specifically reffering to Tribes. I was reffering to autosomal tests in general, which I think it was what Rainbow was asking. Based on the many testimonies I have read from people who have taken the ABDNA test and Tribes and the many discrepancies they have seen, I tend to think that, up until now, many people may be even more confused after taking those tests. That is the reason why I am still waiting to see if there is a positive evolution in this field and tests become more universally reliable. I may have to wait a long time, it seems. I am always hoping to read about those who have had positive experiences with their results- in other words, that they make sense- but all I tend to see are what appear to be well-grounded complaints and lots of disappointed testees.
    Thank you Juan Carlos. I am happy someone understands what I'm talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Honeychuck
    KCat,

    You didn't get many responses last night, and it could be because there has been much criticism of percentage-based testing.

    Notice how quiet this results log has been: http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/dnaprint.cgi

    Jim

    I had been looking at the dnaprint log and the dnatribes log again. I submitted my info for the dnatribes log in January, but it wasn't included.
    Last edited by rainbow; 11 April 2007, 04:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Originally posted by tomcat
    My bet would be that the assumption of 100% IE for Dad does not pan-out.
    Noooooo don't say that, it'll just complicate things

    Leave a comment:


  • tomcat
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    So based on my Mum getting 89% IE 11%EA and my Dad probably getting 100% IE as he is 100% English, what EA score should I get? 5.5%?
    My bet would be that the assumption of 100% IE for Dad does not pan-out.
    Last edited by tomcat; 23 March 2007, 12:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc_44
    replied
    So based on my Mum getting 89% IE 11%EA and my Dad probably getting 100% IE as he is 100% English, what EA score should I get? 5.5%?
    your results should be 94.5% European & 5.5% East Asian or Native American
    Last edited by msc_44; 21 March 2007, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    So based on my Mum getting 89% IE 11%EA and my Dad probably getting 100% IE as he is 100% English, what EA score should I get? 5.5%?

    Leave a comment:


  • tomcat
    replied
    Originally posted by tomcat
    1) AbDNA agrees on the 85% Euro across all 3 tested.
    2) The 2% SSAF for msc44 accords with the 4% SSAF of the mother (1/2).
    3) Although AbDNA differs on EA and NA attributions, msc44's 11% is exactly what one would expect given a 15% father and an 11% mother. So, the mis-attribution does not seem to derive from 'quantity' (of markers, e.g.) but possibly from the absence of one or more specific markers in msc44 results that are deemed determinative to parse the difference between EA and NA.
    3) Correction: msc44's 13%X is exactly intermediate to the father's 15%X and the mothers 11%X and that is what one would expect for X. The fact that msc44's X is numerically superior to the mother's X indicates that the divergent attribution is not based on 'quantity.'

    Leave a comment:


  • tomcat
    replied
    [QUOTE=msc_44]All results are not 100% accurate i got 85% european 13% east asian and 2% Sub-Saharan African & guess what my father got 85% european and 15% native american so there doing something wrong

    my mother is 85% european 11% native american and 4% Sub-Saharan African. what does my mother have to do with those results they just mislabeled my results [QUOTE=msc_44]

    1) AbDNA agrees on the 85% Euro across all 3 tested.
    2) The 2% SSAF for msc44 accords with the 4% SSAF of the mother (1/2).
    3) Although AbDNA differs on EA and NA attributions, msc44's 11% is exactly what one would expect given a 15% father and an 11% mother. So, the mis-attribution does not seem to derive from 'quantity' (of markers, e.g.) but possibly from the absence of one or more specific markers in msc44 results that are deemed determinative to parse the difference between EA and NA.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc_44
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    Did they acknowledge that they'd made a mistake with your East Asian score then? Looking on blogs and stuff there are many people with known Native ancestry who get East Asian scores even when their parents or siblings get Native American. I think it's hard for the test to distinguish.
    But I will get tested. If Mum knew her US father, we wouldn't have bothered with all this testing! Her Mum's 100% English back to 1700.
    No I emailed Genetree several times and posted on there forum but they still haven't responded back and I asked them awhile back about mine and they said the where 100% positive and i just ask them about my dads and they said they where 100% positive so apparently they mest up and are to stubborn to admit it so I might be waiting awhile for a response.

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Did they acknowledge that they'd made a mistake with your East Asian score then? Looking on blogs and stuff there are many people with known Native ancestry who get East Asian scores even when their parents or siblings get Native American. I think it's hard for the test to distinguish.
    But I will get tested. If Mum knew her US father, we wouldn't have bothered with all this testing! Her Mum's 100% English back to 1700.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc_44
    replied
    my known ancestry is Native American, European, & Sub-Saharan African and it showed up as Native American on my parents test so you had your mom tested and she got east asian so testing you will probably say the same, but you never know you should test anyway and you should also test someone closer to the source like her parents.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X