GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-01 > 1042737883
From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] AncestrybyDNA test. Who's it for?
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Hi Ernie: I wouldn't give up on AncestrybyDNA yet. They are engaged in a pioneering venture, and it is expected that there will be a few wrinkles to iron out. I suspect that within a year or so they will have found more "classic" markers for each geographical region, and will remove from their testing those markers that are giving what I see as false positives for East Asian - Pacific Islander DNA.
They need to separate out the chaff from the grain because as it stands now, someone with a Korean or Hawaiian grandfather, and a person of German descent with high levels of undocumented "mysterious" Saami or Hun genes from 50 generations ago would both receive results of 20% or so East Asian. This simply confuses the matter. What I find astounding is that many people seem content to assert that they are 15 or whatever percent East Asian based on the new testing, but seem unconcerned that there is not a shred of evidence in the documentary record to support the finding. I see this testing as "cross validation", a way to find confirmation of what the paper trail says. I have said this before, but it bears repeating, adoptees better think twice about accepting the DNA results of "biogeographical" testing uncritically. Think I will stick with the documentary record for the moment in terms of reliability.
Hope you can find a distant cousin who is willing to submit a DNA sample - preferaby one who is two generations closer to the NNA and African source. I have given up on getting anyone in my extended family to even help me pay for these tests. Apparently my role is as "deep pockets" or "cash cow" for the funding of all this work, despite having an abundant supply of kin folk. Don't mind really, the tests are costly, and not everyone is all that keen on discovering their heritage. I don't play golf - suspect I would be spending more on this pastime.
Good luck. David.
Ernest Hurst <> wrote:David
I was reading about your experience with "AncestrybyDNA" test. From what
little I understand about their "system", the percentage of minority DNA
that would be seen is directly proportional to the contribution from each
ancestor - in other words 50% from a parent, 25% from a grandparent, 12.5%
from a great grandparent, etc. I am reasonably certain of European ancestry
on all but two of my third great grandparents. One was "said to be" full or
half Cherokee and another was documented as the son of a man who was listed
on 2 tax rolls as "mulatto". Based on doing this "by the numbers", I should
up as about 96 to 97% European, about 3% or less Native American & possibly
<1% African. The 3% & the <1% both fall within their stated 5% error rate,
so I did not see either & came back as 100% European. Now it really seems
strange to me that yours showed a high percent East Asian, with
documentation of ALL European & Native American. Appears to me that they
(AncestrybyDNA) are "dancing" to cover up inadequacies in their testing
process. If the process could not detect Native American or African between
5 & 7 generations back, how could it detect East Asian that might go back 10
or 20 or more generations?
Unfortunately, I have no living parents, aunts, uncles, siblings or first
cousins and haven't been able to generate any interest in spending the bucks
with other "cousins", so I'm pretty much stuck where I am unless/until I can
find some other cousins. A future version of the test might be more
accurate, but I'm sure not going to pay for it again. As I understand it,
some early testees are eligible for free "retest" with version 3, but I did
not get mine in until last of October, so I don't think I qualify. Seems
like they really need to get their act together, since they're getting a lot
of bad press (on Rootsweb lists, anyhow) because of weird results that come
nowhere close to documented genealogies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Faux"
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:30 PM
Subject: [DNA] AncestrybyDNA test. Who's it for?
> Ernie and Larry:
> Just checking some of the 2002 archives. Concerning your disappointment
with the negative findings of Ancestry by DNA in relation to Native North
American testing, there are good reasons (based on known genetic principles)
why siblings, cousins and sundry other relatives would have a very different
assortment of genes than you. I was fortunate in that despite a heritage
similar to your own, the Native North American genes (along with a few East
Asian) showed in my results from the above company. I suspect that (by
chance) many of my full first cousins would not have received enough NNA DNA
to register on the tests used presently by the company. The simplest way
around all this would seem to be obtaining samples from parents, or great
aunts or uncles even better since all are closer (DNA wise) to the Native
North American ancestor than you. It is of course a gamble since by chance
or other circumstances they may also not have inherited the NNA DNA. Is it
worth the cost?!
> Only you can decide. With myself, I am having both parents tested to
see how the results compare to my own. Gets to be a costly venture - and
sometimes I wonder whether I should wait until they have "refined" the test.
> Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|Re: [DNA] AncestrybyDNA test. Who's it for? by David Faux <>|