GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1057034806


From: OrinWells <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ancestry test - a must-read article URL
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:46:46 -0700
References: <7b.14991774.2c32440d@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030701025319.61411.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com>


At 07:53 PM 6/30/2003 -0700, Steve Williamson wrote:
>That is why I maintain that the test results do not match history.
>Frequent, significant amounts of NA ancestry in the US white population,
>yet very little African can, I think, only be explained by 1) a massive,
>sustained cover-up in hundreds of years of records; 2) a problem inherent
>in the test; or 3) the "NA" is not post-Columbian, but something ancient
>in all European populations.
>
>I don't buy the 1st, and I'm trying to keep an open mind about whether
>it's the 2nd or 3rd.

I sort of like the 3rd. Remember that the NA population arrived here
fairly recently as time goes. The fact the DNA is so common they can even
claim it is "NA" and not focus on specific tribes indicates the DNA has not
changed by leaps and bounds over this time.

So they came from a place or places outside North America (how come we
exclude South and Central America from this?) Would it not be reasonable
to assume this DNA might also appear in European and/or Asian populations
as well? I can't help wondering if they were to test a random group of
European subjects whether they would "discover" "frequent, significant
amounts" of NA ancestry present.

If this were shown to be true, then it would place some of these tests in
question. So I would not expect to see such testing done
deliberately. It would be interesting to see the test results for some of
our UK participants on this list. But I don't expect they are going to be
willing to take the test to discover they do or do not have NA ancestry.

I am a bit puzzled by the apparent wide spread occurrence of NA DNA being
reported from these tests. I do not know anything special, but I have a
sense that marriage between whites and indians has not been all that
prevalent over the last 400 years. I know it has happened in a fair
number of cases. The indians have stayed together a lot more so than the
europeans. I just have a hard time believing it is as widespread as it
appears. I suspect a different explanation for it but I don't have a good
one let alone one based on any scientific or anthropological studies.



Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<>
http://www.wells.org
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb


This thread: