GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111813720
Subject: Re: Ashkenazi, Native Americans, DNAPrint, Yadda, Yadda (was [DNA] in light o...
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:08:40 +0000
I am sorry Ann, but I entirely agree with Ellen. Logic alone, let alone the weight of evidence (including archaeological) show that there could not have been contact of any sort between the Ashkenazi and Native Americans for at a minimum of 12,000 years. Even speaking of this we are immersed in the realm of speculation. Only a portion, lets say 30% of the Ashkenazi genome can be attributed to the Khazars - the only possible group where there *may* have been an interface with the ancient ancestors of some of the First Nations Americans.
Granted that we are all genetic Africans, the purpose of the DNAprint test is to separate or parse a person into the genetic components which make up his or her recent ancestry. If there is 8% Native American in the Ashkenazi then this is because the test is in desperate need of recalibration or scrapping. I can assure you that there is another biogeographical test which does not find any such overlap between the Ashkenazi (or those from the Middle East) and Native (First Nations) Americans. Using only 100 markers the only false positives are between Native Americans and East Asians due to the genetic similarity. When raising the number of markers to 150 there is a complete separation.
I do not buy, nor do geneticists I know, the arguments offered by DNAPrint to rationalize what I consider to be bizarre findings which reflects the inherent problems with this test. The only reason the Irish show a quantitatively more remote relationship to Native Americans is that the algorithm is adjusted to ensure this finding. Even then there are a number of people of 100% Irish descent who have reported (via Charles' log) substantial Native American.
Don't get me wrong, DNAPrint is on the right track, but I am concerned that the technology (which is still patent pending 5 years later) is just not up to the challenge. I have yet to hear any of the mathematicians come to the defense of the DNAPrint test - they have been the most vociferous critics, and for good reason.
I am preparted to ultimately agree with you Ann if the evidence (not comparing apples to oranges but autosomes to autosomes) were to be anywhere close to what would be termed convincing. I am not about to buy into the caveats used to explain findings that should not be there. I look forward to you providing evidence that the Ashkenazi and Native Americans, or the Greeks and Native Americans, or the Pakistanis and Native Americans have ancestors that are close enough in time that the DNAPrint test can pick this up. Even if it did the point is to have a meansure that can reliably differentiate between Native American and other groups. If it can't do this then what use is this test except to assess *majority* ancestry?
-------------- Original message --------------
> In a message dated 03/25/05 12:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> writes (in response to Malcolm):
> > Some people are particular about titles matching the
> > topics, so I thought I'd change it. This post is not
> > just about the supposed Ashkenazi=Native American link
> > via DNAPrint, but also about Jewish DNA and the almost
> > constant misinterpretation of that data.
> Ellen and Malcolm, I'd have to go back and parse all of your messages to be
> sure, but I'm getting the impression that you are talking at cross-purposes.
> Ellen, there is no "Ashkenazi=Native American link." Neither population is
> ancestral to the other, but they have do have common ancestors somewhere back in
> time. Malcolm is speculating on when and where that might be, based on the
> papers he can access, but I'm sure he'd be glad to study more.
> I'd have to go back to square one to explain the DNAPrint test, which I don't
> have time to do right now, but I think it's important for everyone to
> understand, so I'll put that on my ToDo list. I'm posting another message today
> references to DNAPrint.
> Side note to everyone: the fact of common ancestry is trivially true for any
> two populations. However, "somewhere back in time" may be surpisingly recent.
> Search the archives for the keyword Rohde for some simulations on the MRCA of
> "all" [=most] living people.
> Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
> Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at