Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Native DNA

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by NCroots View Post
    I have to disagree. On 23andMe I show .1% Subsaharan African. On GEDmatch I show between 1% to 1.95% Subsaharan African, depending on the tool being used. On 23andMe and GEDmatch, these pieces of DNA identified as African consistently show up, via chromosome painting, on the same chromosomes on the exact same spot. Also, on GEDmatch, my son consistently shows half the percentage of Subsaharan African I do using the various tools.

    It would be easy to dismiss this as noise, however, I have genealogically proof that I am descended from a mix raced family from colonial tidewater Virginia. Male cousins in this line have tested with the y-haplogroup E1b1a8a, which is Subsaharan African. Although a tiny amount, there is no doubt the Subsaharan African in my DNA results is real.
    Exactly...this is the point I was trying to make before. Even though I do not have written documentation about any Amerindian ancestry in my family, I show consistency in Gedmatch across the various calculators (individual chromosome breakdown, chromosome paintings, etc.)

    Since some people say less than 1% is "noise," that's why I did not include anything less than 1% in my calculations. Nor, did I include anything that was Siberian or East Asian (which would have made my average even higher than 2+%).

    I also received an email from somebody on here that received an email from FTDNA, admitting that they are not the best when it comes to finding Amerindian DNA. All the more reason I find my Gedmatch results to be real, and definitely not noise...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Armando View Post
      That's exactly what I have been saying and Dr. Doug McDonald is a scientist.
      does he still analyze people's results? and can he pinpoint possible tribes one's amerindian ancestors came from or at least language families/regions etc.?

      at least four different tribes in the past lived in the area where my mom's parents came from: huichol, zacatecs, tepehuanos, and caxcans. i wonder if genecists are able to determine specifics like that nowadays

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
        Can you really be so sure?

        As long as we have had vessels that sailed the seven seas, sailors have been spreading their DNA around the world. I have no doubt that some people that were at least part Native American served on sailing ships during the 18th Century. From a time of a much smaller world population than we have now, I would be surprised if traces of this did not show up today. By the period of the American Revolution, surely some Loyalist families had Native American in them. We had a big migration of Loyalist out of the American Colonies/United States as a result of the outcome. These people may have migrated to just about anywhere in the world. Native American showing up in "unlikely" places is not so implausible.
        There isn't any evidence of that. Especially not for the dataset being used for myOrigins, 23andme, AncestryDNA, and most of the Gedmatch calculators. Look up the datasets or reference populations for each then watch the following video created by scientists at http://video.pbs.org/video/2365515976/ then read the academic study published by scientists at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14625.html

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by NCroots View Post
          I have to disagree. On 23andMe I show .1% Subsaharan African. On GEDmatch I show between 1% to 1.95% Subsaharan African, depending on the tool being used. On 23andMe and GEDmatch, these pieces of DNA identified as African consistently show up, via chromosome painting, on the same chromosomes on the exact same spot. Also, on GEDmatch, my son consistently shows half the percentage of Subsaharan African I do using the various tools.

          It would be easy to dismiss this as noise, however, I have genealogically proof that I am descended from a mix raced family from colonial tidewater Virginia. Male cousins in this line have tested with the y-haplogroup E1b1a8a, which is Subsaharan African. Although a tiny amount, there is no doubt the Subsaharan African in my DNA results is real.
          If an amount can't be proven to not be noise it should be set aside until proven otherwise. A person shouldn't be convinced that the small amounts are definitely real without scientific proof. One way to do that is to get older generations tested and if certain components increase with the older generations there is a higher possibility it's real.

          If something can't be shown to not be found in a certain group consistently and found to be in another group consistently then there is a problem with the calculator. That is what happens with the Gedmatch calculators. That specific problem is not found as much with myOrigins, 23andme and Ancestry.com.

          Something else that you have to consider is that there are hundreds unmixed Africans that have been tested by 23andme and other companies and less than one hundred unmixed Native Americans that have been tested.

          Your situation with the African DNA is very different from the Native American DNA problem.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
            Exactly...this is the point I was trying to make before. Even though I do not have written documentation about any Amerindian ancestry in my family, I show consistency in Gedmatch across the various calculators (individual chromosome breakdown, chromosome paintings, etc.)

            Since some people say less than 1% is "noise," that's why I did not include anything less than 1% in my calculations. Nor, did I include anything that was Siberian or East Asian (which would have made my average even higher than 2+%).

            I also received an email from somebody on here that received an email from FTDNA, admitting that they are not the best when it comes to finding Amerindian DNA. All the more reason I find my Gedmatch results to be real, and definitely not noise...
            Gedmatch is consistently wrong because they aren't able to filter out false positives.

            FTDNA admitting that they are not the best when it comes to finding Amerindian DNA is not conclusive proof that you do have it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by crossover View Post
              does he still analyze people's results? and can he pinpoint possible tribes one's amerindian ancestors came from or at least language families/regions etc.?

              at least four different tribes in the past lived in the area where my mom's parents came from: huichol, zacatecs, tepehuanos, and caxcans. i wonder if genecists are able to determine specifics like that nowadays
              I believe he became too busy to do individual analysis. Unless he has the dataset from Carlos Bustamante's lab at Stanford used for the following study http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34.../1280.abstract then he can't pinpoint one of those tribes.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Armando View Post
                Your situation with the African DNA is very different from the Native American DNA problem.
                Ah, I didn't consider the variables which could affect the results of the different ethnicities. I do remember reading that the precision & recall with 23andMe for Subsaharan African was very high.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Armando View Post
                  If an amount can't be proven to not be noise it should be set aside until proven otherwise. A person shouldn't be convinced that the small amounts are definitely real without scientific proof. One way to do that is to get older generations tested and if certain components increase with the older generations there is a higher possibility it's real.

                  If something can't be shown to not be found in a certain group consistently and found to be in another group consistently then there is a problem with the calculator. That is what happens with the Gedmatch calculators. That specific problem is not found as much with myOrigins, 23andme and Ancestry.com.

                  Something else that you have to consider is that there are hundreds unmixed Africans that have been tested by 23andme and other companies and less than one hundred unmixed Native Americans that have been tested.

                  Your situation with the African DNA is very different from the Native American DNA problem.
                  sorry if this is random but how do dna testing companies make sure their samples are 'unmixed'? there's people who think they are 100% ___, but actually aren't like that nutjob white supremacist who wanted to build a white only community in north dakota.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by crossover View Post
                    sorry if this is random but how do dna testing companies make sure their samples are 'unmixed'? there's people who think they are 100% ___, but actually aren't like that nutjob white supremacist who wanted to build a white only community in north dakota.
                    They use programs such as ADMIXTURE, Structure, Beagle, Plink, f3 stats, D-stats, PCA graphs and quite a few more.

                    You can read about the methodologies by FTDNA and 23andme in the following pages.

                    https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-methodology/

                    link removed

                    You can also see which programs were used in the following published academic studies on Native Americans by looking at the figures and downloading the PDFs -

                    Kennewick Man - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14625.html

                    Clovis Anzick - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13025.html

                    Moreno-Estrada - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280

                    You have to create a free account at Science to see the last one.

                    This next one is on Mal'ta boy who was a Siberian from 24,000 years ago - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture12736.html


                    The following study is one done by 23andme on the mixture of ancestry of people in the U.S.

                    http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0...2814%2900476-5
                    Last edited by Darren; 29 June 2015, 11:39 PM. Reason: please no links to outside companies

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Armando View Post
                      Gedmatch is consistently wrong because they aren't able to filter out false positives.

                      FTDNA admitting that they are not the best when it comes to finding Amerindian DNA is not conclusive proof that you do have it.
                      Several of my FF matches have Native haplogroups. I have compared our chromosome paintings on Gedmatch, and we share Native admixture on there.

                      I can tell you don't like people disagreeing with you, but I disagree wholeheartedly...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by crossover View Post
                        at least four different tribes in the past lived in the area where my mom's parents came from: huichol, zacatecs, tepehuanos, and caxcans. i wonder if genecists are able to determine specifics like that nowadays
                        Hi Crossover,

                        I did a chromosome comparison with paint between our mothers (see attachment).

                        Besides what Native American you pick up from Mexico or elsewhere, you have some DNA in you likely from a circa 1700 North Carolina tribe.

                        Jack
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
                          Hi Crossover,

                          I did a chromosome comparison with paint between our mothers (see attachment).

                          Besides what Native American you pick up from Mexico or elsewhere, you have some DNA in you likely from a circa 1700 North Carolina tribe.

                          Jack
                          which north carolinian tribe exactly?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by crossover View Post
                            which north carolinian tribe exactly?
                            I can't say for sure but several NC/VA tribes, especially the Tuscarora, were having members kidnapped and enslaved circa 1700 in the area of North Carolina that I think the ancestry is in (Warren/Granville Counties). Your mother also has X-DNA connections with my mother, so that further corroborates this relationship.

                            Jack

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
                              Several of my FF matches have Native haplogroups. I have compared our chromosome paintings on Gedmatch, and we share Native admixture on there.
                              That doesn't prove the common ancestry is less then 14,000 years old. Modern populations with Native American ancestry also match the 12,500 year old Clovis-Anzick-1. Modern people with European and Asian ancestry also match much older ancient populations such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. There is no way to date when you and your matches have that common ancestry.

                              Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
                              I can tell you don't like people disagreeing with you, but I disagree wholeheartedly...
                              It's not a matter of people disagreeing with me. It's a matter of science and distinguishing truth from coincidence by using objectivity. It's a matter of people reaching conclusions that aren't backed by science. People look for any little thing that they think supports their belief and they run with it even though the the what they are seeing is actually a coincidence.

                              If you can provide scientific facts to support your belief then I will agree with you. So far you have not provided any facts that pass the scientific method.
                              Last edited by Armando; 1 July 2015, 08:31 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Armando,

                                What do you consider to be acceptable parameters for X-DNA matching?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X