population finder

[B52]

long long time since i post.

i have old dna print that shows 98% european 2% east asian

i think east asian is actually native american as one ancestor is supposed to be cherokee and the correct timeframe would be 1800. that is my great great grandmother's grandparent should be 100% indian then, making her a quarter and me a thirty-second or roughly 2-3% mongoloid as the dna print showed.

if that is not true my mother's mtdna is h and for some reason match more finns in the mtdna.org db than probable and that's where the 2% east asian could be coming from.

will population finder clear this ambiguity up or not?


finally in 1997 a guy sent me a email when i just started genealogy and told me out of nowhere that the grogans first came to roscommon co ireland from norway around a thousand years ago via longford. dumb me didn't ask for sources. so i looked at a map of norway and guessed if true the fjord above stavanger looks reasonable around tau. i also did some searching for grogans in roscommon and found the family was first known as a caretaker of church property about 900 years ago and those grounds where near the end of longford.

well i knew i'm not going to find a paper trail tothat so i forgot about it. few years later ftdna comes along after i've finished my reseach and i go what the heck i'll prove that indian story with that. that i have irish ancestry is obvious. well the test kind of proved that and i forget about it until this m222+ and ui naill clan by ftdna comes up. so great i go i'll to that as a paper trail don't exist but if i match it makes that story of the grogans being originally church caretakers in roscommon co much more likely. so i do match and that's good enough for me that's it again for a couple of years.

hearing about the new pop finder thing i come back and now there is an snp or is it stp map for m222+ and the my sursprise is one loci about 25 kilometers north or tau, norway. so i'm like maybe that guy kevin in 1997 was right.

but ultimately i could not find proof; not that i search more than 3 times 10 years ago.

anyway my question regarding kevin's story is it possible to know if that m222+ loci near tau, norway precedes the huge number of m222+ in the british isles or follows it?

anyway for my gedcom the paper trail has mostly run out though i got much further back on more branches than i thought i would (particularly if the branch were english). i now trying to 'close' out the 'unprovable 2 claims' with ftdna.

anyway it's been interesting to see how some inpropable stories i was told 15 years ago are being heavily implied if not proved by some improbable dna test results. of course if it's true than it's not improbable.

thanks vey much

best regards

[T E Peterman]

I don't recommend relying on Population Finder until they get a wider variety of samples to match against.

Timothy Peterman

[mixedkid]

I don't recommend relying on Population Finder until they get a wider variety of samples to match against.

Timothy Peterman

I agree with Timothy. At this stage of the game, I would not rely on PopulationFinder.

Keep open the possibility that your family tradition is true -- as far as partial Native American ancestry goes. GEDmatch opened my own eyes to those same family traditions in both my mother and father's families, not PopulationFinder. Self-reports of family traditions of Native American ancestry among my various FamilyFinder cousins also gave credence to those traditions held by my parents' families.

[B52]

thanks

Thanks.

It seems FTDNA's PF is not favoured over Ancestry. Who is this Dr. McDonald I keep reading about? Does he 'refine' FTDNA's PF or something? Does he do it for native american too?

I've also heard about this particular branch of my tree having a native american source from too many independent families, some not recently related, to not believe it. My grandmother didn't make up stories like that about her grandmother.

I'd go with Ancestry to do this test but since all my other tests are with FTDNA and I plan to one day to pay for a 'full sequencing', I may just stay with FTDNA for this.

The part about the Grogan's originating from County Roscommon and being care takers of Church Property is also true. Both in historical documents and now supported by DNA (to a degree).

The part about the coming from Norway to Ireland via Longford a 1000 years ago is doubtful. No claims of them being 'vikings' were made by Kevin. He's wasn't trying to sensationalist. Obviously long enough back they came from the east or the south (despite their concentration in the northwest they didn't come from America).

Given that they are in the far NW corner and they are at such a high rate there maybe they are the first 'big' wave of people that came to Europe and been there the longest since the last ice sheets melted back with fewer successive waves of migration. Maybe their mutations combined with studies of populations like the Australian Aboriginies and Amazonian Indians can be used to estimate mutation rates and mutation probabilities much more accurately then the current estimates for these things.

[Javelin]

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in AncestryByDNA, they were notorious for generating some absurd results:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2010/02/larry-david-less-caucasoid-than-jessica.html

[B52]

ancestry

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in AncestryByDNA, they were notorious for generating some absurd results:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2010/02/...n-jessica.html

Well alot of the fuss on that link is because this Larry David is apparently very 'white' looking, while Jessica Alba appears to be mixed ancestry.

I've never seen his show but that it is a TV show and it's called 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' tells me he is seeking to create controversy and perhaps is hiding information he knows about his family in order to create that controversy.

I would not have expected Jessica Alba or Larry David to have done enough research into their family trees or even be that interested in visiting a library to lend much credence to any 'ethnicity admixture' statements from them. It's not a very common hobby. So someone has done the family tree research for them.

I don't like how that link implies 'whiter' or to extend that concept, 'purer ethnicity of any type' is a virtue or the converse, being 'only caucasoid' or 'only negroid' is somehow a poor reflection on the person with those characteristics.

As far as using appearence to judge ethnicity:

1.
There is a famous mexican boxer : http://caneloalvarez.com/

that probably looks 'whiter' than either one of those people.

2.
I've read to many forums about 'black irish', 'black norwegians', melegeons and too many folk seem to assume that Europe in colonial times the peolple in were all blond and blue eyed.

3.
Ashkenazis are supposed to commonly have red hair and my 'ethnic admixture', so maybe I ought to test if I am Ashkenzi. But then Scandinavians commonly have a similar ethnic admixture.

4. Another example is this Nigerian couple that had immigrated to England:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html

There is nothing wrong with using these tests along with your own research using documents of the past to learn things about migration patterns and ethnicity of the past that doesn't mean applies to me today (i.e. I am American today) or that you can tell by looking at me that I am of a certain ethnic admixture.

If you have an interest in your ancestors geographic origins and no interest in researching a family tree the test can be useful, though not ironclad. You can't disregard the test afterwards just because you don't 'look' like someone from that geographic origin.

And if you don't match you're expected ethnicity via the tests how can you argue against those test results based on physical appearance given these examples or a paper trail of documents if you haven't reaserarched a paper trail (and these paper trails, even the really good ones, aren't that long)?

I don't think for a second these tests are definitive 100%, but they are more accurate than looking at someone's skin tone and eye and hair colour, exspecially in 'ethnic admixture cases'. Not that you couldn't make an accurate guess in most cases that I'm almost 100% northern European or the family in that article immigrated from Africa.

[Javelin]

Well alot of the fuss on that link is because this Larry David is apparently very 'white' looking, while Jessica Alba appears to be mixed ancestry.

Whatever else you think, Jessica Alba, being of part Mexican descent, must surely be significantly more Native American than Larry David, an Ashkenazi person whose grandparents were all born in Eastern Europe.

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

[slwr]

PF & Cherokee blood ?

My husbands Family has had this rumor for years that there was Cherokee Blood in His NC & Smokey Mt TN roots....the paper trail has found NONE, and now the PF shows NONE...so I'd guess its not there, our Boys are disappointed, But I uploaded to gedmatch to see what they find ..will see

as far as looks my husband does have some of the markers for Indian blood, I'm told, so do our grandsons but then their mother IS part Cherokee

Now my side of the story is a shock...I have traced my families back to England and Germany...Germany does not show at all on my PF( am told they don't test for Genealogy)...but where did this come from 86.77% French/Orcadian/Spanish (what the?) and 13.23 % Tuscan/Finnish/Romanian/Russian/Sardinian.. Really !??

[Taz85]

My husbands Family has had this rumor for years that there was Cherokee Blood in His NC & Smokey Mt TN roots....the paper trail has found NONE, and now the PF shows NONE...so I'd guess its not there, our Boys are disappointed, But I uploaded to gedmatch to see what they find ..will see

as far as looks my husband does have some of the markers for Indian blood, I'm told, so do our grandsons but then their mother IS part Cherokee

Now my side of the story is a shock...I have traced my families back to England and Germany...Germany does not show at all on my PF( am told they don't test for Genealogy)...but where did this come from 86.77% French/Orcadian/Spanish (what the?) and 13.23 % Tuscan/Finnish/Romanian/Russian/Sardinian.. Really !??

German population would fall under Orcadian. They don't have enough samples yet.

[B52]

Whatever else you think, Jessica Alba, being of part Mexican descent, must surely be significantly more Native American than Larry David, an Ashkenazi person whose grandparents were all born in Eastern Europe.

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

Why is Huffington talking about Cherokee Princesses? Anyone who is informed knows that Cherokee society is matrilineal but that doesn't make a Cherokee Princess. There are also some that claim European Royalty as ancestors but none is claiming they are trying to prove that with a DNA test. Some claim to have traced back to Adam and Eve. I've never met anyone claiming to try and use DNA to prove they have a 'Cherokee Princess' ancestor have you?

The Huffington Post are taking a whole other area of genealogy and trying to use the misunderstanding a matrilineal culture by some folk to discredit scientific reseach, technology, and methods of DNA testing.

It makes the Huffington Post appear more intolerant and ignorant then the folks they are saying are looking for a 'Cherokee Princess'.

It mentions a comedian named George and others and how they don't think the results they got could be right based on what? They've done 0 research into their family trees and are basing their opinions on what the see in their mirrors.

So they have an agenda with that article I believe. Or has the Huffington Post stopped being a news organization? They're kind of like Fox. So completely biased that anyone trying to be objective immediately interprets the Huffington Post's point of view as a type of comedy.

And since Larry David was mentioned I decided to look up his comedy 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'. It says it is a 'mockumentary style'. That is, purposely create a documentary style show filled with banal lies and exagerations for comedic effect. So I believe Larry David results as reported are a lie. That really confuses me then as to why they are being spoken of as if they are factual.

I don't know if that show is funny. I haven't saw it. Seinfield was based on a similar priciple and it was sometimes funny.

I recommend a mockumentary called 'People Like Us'. Now that one was very funny but you have to be somewhat knowlegable in the culture that is being made fun of. My brother-in-law is German and he didn't realize the whole premise of the show was a joke because his english wasn't good enough.


But on the very small chance the results are true: Larry David could very much look like he does if just one grandparent were Native American or one of them from northeast Siberia. The examples I site above prove that. Then simple math says that's 25%. I honestly don't think Jessica Alba looks very 'latina' but I'm basing that judgement on stereotypes and often bleached blonde hair. Have you ever watched Mexican soap operas?

FTDNA carefully has said autosomal DNA doesn't inherit by strict percentages. They also were very careful in their Population Finder not to be too specific with regards to 'ethnic groupings'.

Well you can guess why. It would be a pain to have to constantly defend FTDNA against those with 'cultural' and 'ethnic' agendas that complain when results don't conform to their prejudices.

[Javelin]

Why is Huffington talking about Cherokee Princesses?

Because an absurd proportion of Americans have this legend without any evidence, and this usually does not hold up after DNA testing.

[B52]

Because an absurd proportion of Americans have this legend without any evidence, and this usually does not hold up after DNA testing.

Really who are they these people asking that question about 'Cherokee Princesses'? Who conducted the survey?

A bit more helpful but not scientific or proof:

I just did a google search on "Cherokee Princess" and it returned ' About 55,600 results (0.26 seconds)' on June 25, 2012.

That would be 55,600 results out of, for simplicity's sake 310,000,000 Americans for an 'absurdly high proportion' of 0.0179% of the population of about 2/100ths of 1 percent of the US population had asked that question.

It's claimed that the Cherokee population is about 310,000 today. So I suppose if you are assigned by the tribe to answer those 'Cherokee Princess' questions then being asked that 55,600 is a lot.

Just for grins, look at the daddy's little princess on the bottom left in the attached picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee

[mixedkid]

My husbands Family has had this rumor for years that there was Cherokee Blood in His NC & Smokey Mt TN roots....the paper trail has found NONE, and now the PF shows NONE...so I'd guess its not there, our Boys are disappointed, But I uploaded to gedmatch to see what they find ..will see

as far as looks my husband does have some of the markers for Indian blood, I'm told, so do our grandsons but then their mother IS part Cherokee

Now my side of the story is a shock...I have traced my families back to England and Germany...Germany does not show at all on my PF( am told they don't test for Genealogy)...but where did this come from 86.77% French/Orcadian/Spanish (what the?) and 13.23 % Tuscan/Finnish/Romanian/Russian/Sardinian.. Really !??

Keep open the possibility of Native American blood. I try not to be too negative in these forums but I can tell you this: Results from the current edition of PopulationFinder are essentially bogus. One thing FTDNA is not doing: It's not telling you what these very small indicators of ancestry are -- it's sticking to the large percentages. Most Americans and Canadians know they are not a large percentage Native American; mostly what they want is some indication that it exist or does not exist in their gene records.

About German ancestry: GEDmatch was the first time I ever saw any indication through DNA testing that my family had some German ancestry. I believe the term Celto Germanic was used with one tool's results. Be sure to use chromosome paintings on that site.

[slwr]

Indian is there

Because an absurd proportion of Americans have this legend without any evidence, and this usually does not hold up after DNA testing.

well I did a gedmatch search for our kit #'s
and my husbands results will be below, the Indian blood is too low to count but its there ,barely

Eurogenes k9 test
Population
South Asian 0.80%
Caucasus 4.91%
Southwest Asian -
North Amerindian + Arctic 0.86%
Siberian 0.73%
Mediterranean 27.42%
East Asian -
West African -
North European 65.28%

why do the different tests show different numbers, and more diversity?

[B52]

well I did a gedmatch search for our kit #'s
and my husbands results will be below, the Indian blood is too low to count but its there ,barely

Eurogenes k9 test
Population
South Asian 0.80%
Caucasus 4.91%
Southwest Asian -
North Amerindian + Arctic 0.86%
Siberian 0.73%
Mediterranean 27.42%
East Asian -
West African -
North European 65.28%

why do the different tests show different numbers, and more diversity?

If you are fortunate and have or had a paper trail research in your family tree then I would match this diversity liguistically with the names in your family tree for further validation.

If that liguistic diversity is not present in the names of your family tree and it says strictly northern European or strictly Mediterrean then you could say that those results to mean your family has an origin that is more recently centered in southern or southeastern Europe and with a more recent and higher contribution of folk from South Asia and the Middle East than is typical in northern Europe but that contribution was made before people had surnames with is less than a 1000 years now anyway. Given that, it is possible they migrated to northern Europe before surnames but those percentages are less common. Or north to south, vice versa as that often occured as well.

With adoption what is the typical ethnic diversity of the location adopted from?

The Siberian + Norh Amerindian together is 1.59% is typical of someone with a 'fairy tale' native american branch from about 200 to 300 years ago in eastern North America. Are you going to find a paper trail? Of course not. Can any layperson that doesn't agree with the science used to obtain this result prove there is no 'native american' ancestry in your husband's tree? Of course not.