Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

population finder

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

  • ToddH
    replied
    Additional thoughts on my post above. I wonder if my known British heritage, mixed with the small amount of African, is why PopulationFinder gives me 65% Spanish/French even though I don't seem to have any Spanish at all. It estimates that my Western European ancestors must have come from someplace closer to Africa than Britain, so why not Spain. Except any African genes filtering down to me came from the US, not Spain.

    Is it literally like mixing ice cream flavors? So if you have mostly vanilla, with a trace of chocolate, they call it beige so say your ancestors are Spanish? This is not very sophisticated.

    Leave a comment:


  • ToddH
    replied
    I have Eurogenes K9 giving me 1.16% West African (East African not included in K9 populations). Eurogenes K12b gives 0% West African and 2.09% East African. Why the discrepancy?

    And a second question, if PopulationFinder gives me 65% Spanish/French, yet most of my 208 FF matches are obviously of British ancestry, does it mean most of these matches also test "Spanish/French", or should I think that I have more recent Spanish/French ancestry? With 65% it must mean I'm getting it from both maternal and paternal sides. Being adopted I have no clues. Could one parent have been 100% Spanish or French, say, a tourist that came from France and would not have relatives showing up in my matches?

    It would be helpful to know the contemporary geographic distribution and known ancestry of participants who have a large "Spanish/French" ethnic component. I may be trying to read too much into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    Originally posted by slwr View Post
    Thanks B52,
    Yes the Roach Ancestor we can't document any further back was born about 1740 prob VA. died 1792 in NC. we have no documentation on what his wife's maiden name or ethnic group was ...one of their son's md: a McDaniel they moved to Smokey Mts of TN in the spring of 1819, what I meant to say is: the "Roach line" in TN & NC is where the rumor started, there were Roach's and McDaniel's that did marry into Cherokee lines....but have not been able to connect directly to those lines...if there is indeed Indian Blood, it may not be Cherokee, me thinks

    Thanks...
    You can ask for a professional geneticist's opinion directly whether or not the north amerindian and siberian in those test means your husband has Indian blood. I'm just a lay person hobbyist. I think I would because all these differing web sites giving quite differing results is making me about leary about the state of autosomal research.

    The Y and mitocondrial research I have alot more confidence in, particularly from FTDNA.

    I'm just using common sense of historical fact, geography, and this 'rumour' in your husband's family that has persisted, what, 200 or 300 years now?

    It's so unlikely you're going to find documents that just save yourself the research for those documents and accept the rumour. Well, I'd do a new search, maybe 4 - 8 hours, every year or two because new documents come on line daily (they're still not likely to exist though).

    Other than that, wait for further refinements in autosomal testing or, and you may have done this already, have your husband's mitocondrial haplotype tested. If native American it will be haplogroup A, B, C, D, or X.

    I understand your interest in trying to trace back to the 'full-blooded' Native American just like we want to trace back to the person in England, Ireland, or whatever country a branch might have originated in that came to America.
    Last edited by B52; 27 June 2012, 08:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • slwr
    replied
    Originally posted by B52 View Post
    No, it's unlikely the Siberian link is from Europe. It's much more likely to be from Native Americans. Especially if branches of his family were already in eastern North America 200 to 300 years ago. You mention Roach as one line that was in North America and North Caroline where the Cherokee were.

    When the say Siberian in these results the almost always mean northeastern Siberian and not northwestern Siberian.

    They should have a map for you that indicates the geographic range of the people they are calling Siberian.
    Thanks B52,
    Yes the Roach Ancestor we can't document any further back was born about 1740 prob VA. died 1792 in NC. we have no documentation on what his wife's maiden name or ethnic group was ...one of their son's md: a McDaniel they moved to Smokey Mts of TN in the spring of 1819, what I meant to say is: the "Roach line" in TN & NC is where the rumor started, there were Roach's and McDaniel's that did marry into Cherokee lines....but have not been able to connect directly to those lines...if there is indeed Indian Blood, it may not be Cherokee, me thinks

    Thanks...

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    Originally posted by slwr View Post
    B52, Yes you are right ,I had forgotten that, but have no idea about the era of the Siberian link must have been originally from Europe,his surnames are mostly English/some German and possibly Irish, Roach is supposed to be either Irish or English...but we can only document back to a man b:1740-d:1792 NC on that line,that is where the Cherokee rumor is from
    No, it's unlikely the Siberian link is from Europe. It's much more likely to be from Native Americans. Especially if branches of his family were already in eastern North America 200 to 300 years ago. You mention Roach as one line that was in North America and North Caroline where the Cherokee were.

    When the say Siberian in these results the almost always mean northeastern Siberian and not northwestern Siberian.

    They should have a map for you that indicates the geographic range of the people they are calling Siberian.

    Leave a comment:


  • slwr
    replied
    Originally posted by B52 View Post
    You know better based on you husband's family tree whether the Siberian could have come via Europe or was it after arrival in America?

    In case you don't know Native Americans are most closely related to Siberians because of the Bering Strait land bridge and the Siberian people living in the area were naturally the most likely to use that bridge.
    B52, Yes you are right ,I had forgotten that, but have no idea about the era of the Siberian link must have been originally from Europe,his surnames are mostly English/some German and possibly Irish, Roach is supposed to be either Irish or English...but we can only document back to a man b:1740-d:1792 NC on that line,that is where the Cherokee rumor is from

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    You know better based on you husband's family tree whether the Siberian could have come via Europe or was it after arrival in America?

    In case you don't know Native Americans are most closely related to Siberians because of the Bering Strait land bridge and the Siberian people living in the area were naturally the most likely to use that bridge.

    Leave a comment:


  • slwr
    replied
    Originally posted by B52 View Post
    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.
    Thanks B52...Today I tried the Gedmatch admix eurogenes K12b which I think its closer to reality based on my husbands family tree+ his surnames, it shows no amerindian but shows more asian which still could be an indicator (I'm told) of possible native Amer blood , maybe? I'll post below

    Population
    Western European 45.20%
    Siberian 1.01%
    East African -
    West Central Asian 4.28%
    South Asian -
    West African -
    Caucasus 3.75%
    Finnish 8.24%
    Mediterranean 15.04%
    Southwest Asian -
    North European 22.48%
    East Asian -

    Leave a comment:


  • slwr
    replied
    Originally posted by mixedkid View Post
    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.
    I used the admix tools and ran several of the eurogene tests, plus the chromosome admix but have not tried the chromosome Painting yet ,have more to try, and understand, ya right !? most of it goes right over me head

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    Originally posted by slwr View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slwr
    replied
    Indian is there

    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • mixedkid
    replied
    Originally posted by slwr View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
    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
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Javelin
    replied
    Originally posted by B52 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B52
    replied
    Originally posted by Javelin View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X