RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Guy Etchells on Tuesday 30 January 18 08:41 GMT (UK)
-
Many people seem to think I am against the concept of using DNA for family history research, I am not.
I am however concerned the DNA is promoted as the panacea that will solve all the researchers’ stumbling blocks and provide the answers, it won't.
As it stands now DNA testing is improving but it is still flawed.
That is why I am pleased to see this latest blog by My Heritage announcing major updates and improvements to their DNA Matching.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lfq/
It shows they have recognised the failings in the systems in use and how they are attempting to produce more accurate results.
As the years go by and the various companies’ knowledge and DNA banks grow the science will grow and mature.
We may even reach a stage where some or even many of the claims of some companies will be valid, until that time comes please understand DNA testing does not provide the answers. As with any record set it may provide clues to the answers but as the above blog shows more work has still to be done.
Cheers
Guy
-
It is best used I find as a guide to possible connections and helps whittle down the long list of possible matches provided by your dna service. Surely most people interested in their genealogy are aware of the pitfalls - I think it is those interested only in their ethnicity that are likely to trip up.
Pheno
-
It may not provide absolutely certain answers, but in my case it showed an almost certain connection that revealed an answer I had been searching for almost 10 years, and would have had difficulty finding, let alone being confident of, using paper alone. This is often the case where there have ben undocumented adoptions, irregular parentage or deliberate name changes (this latter being my case). For me, DNA was the answer, though of course I had to have the documented information as well.
-
Like Eric, DNA was the answer for me. I'm an adoptee, and autosomal DNA testing is the only way I would have discovered who my birthfather was. It also helped to verify my research on my and my husband's tree.
-
To a certain extent I agree with you Guy ... DNA analysis is simply one tool in your search and should be regarded as such (I know several adoptees who have had great success with DNA results) - My own use of analysis was to try and corroborate or refute a result thrown up in an Uncles DNA results and while it answered that particular question it threw up a lot more some of which can be answered with a reasonable knowledge of UK history.
Unfortunately the claims made by some of the service providers in the Genealogy market don't stand up to scrutiny in many areas DNA related or not.
-
I like to use DNA matches to verify relationships on my tree. On my mother’s side, I have many DNA matches that link to common ancestors dating back to the early 1600’s. I feel pretty confident about those branches.
On my father’s side (maternal), it took a while to get further back than my great grandparents. Then, I thought I had broken through that wall - on one line I got back to the 1600’s. It has been months, and no DNA matches to common ancestors. Now, I interpret that as meaning that I went off track somewhere. So, I’m going back to the certain ones and lookin for more documentation.
-
Many people seem to think I am against the concept of using DNA for family history research, I am not.
I am however concerned the DNA is promoted as the panacea that will solve all the researchers’ stumbling blocks and provide the answers, it won't.
As it stands now DNA testing is improving but it is still flawed.
That is why I am pleased to see this latest blog by My Heritage announcing major updates and improvements to their DNA Matching.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lfq/
It shows they have recognised the failings in the systems in use and how they are attempting to produce more accurate results.
As the years go by and the various companies’ knowledge and DNA banks grow the science will grow and mature.
We may even reach a stage where some or even many of the claims of some companies will be valid, until that time comes please understand DNA testing does not provide the answers. As with any record set it may provide clues to the answers but as the above blog shows more work has still to be done.
Cheers
Guy
I don't quite understand your argument - in what way is DNA testing flawed when used to trace ancestry?
-
I've not done it. Maybe one day, but it's still a tad pricey for me :)
As I see it - it's a chance to have your name in the hat....
If others who have their name in the hat have a connection, it'll flag up a "clue" as to how you could change your thinking and change what you're researching to find the elusive link.
I see it as something you can pay for today if you want ... and expect 10-15 years of waiting/researching to be able to nail it .... and even then some will be unnailable.
-
I would certainly urge taking your time and gaining some confidence and understanding before launching into the more involved aspects of DNA matching.
As soon as you (well me) upload a kit onto Gedmatch you may well find a very enthusiastic and far more experienced user who wants to get in touch.
In my case a possible DNA match to my husband that falls into the realms of 5th to 8th cousin and doesn't match any of the contactees maternal or paternal matches simply scared me off. I've had to politely point out that I'm simply too inexperienced to be of any help at present.
And to be honest, I haven't got back as far as gt gt gt grandparents in my husband's tree yet.
The urge to rush ahead and skip proper research is indeed very temping when faced with a possible DNA match but I'm personally not prepared to fall into what feels like a very easy trap.
Also, not every one who makes the contact is aware of the possible pitfalls and I'm concerned that they will keep pushing and trying to make connections where none actually exist.
DNA research is simply another tool to help in the search but I don't believe it should replace good, slow, sometimes rather tedious, research.
-
For me, my DNA test via Ancestry solved a long standing stumbling block in my maternal line. I am so thankful for an unknown 2nd Cousin on that side having already tested - and uploaded their tree.
However, I know of someone whose Mother had recently died, and her father greatly interested in family history took his DNA test and eagerly spoke to his daughter about all the cousins it had revealed. She said she'd like to do her own DNA test, and as her birthday was just around the corner, her father bought her the AncestryDNA kit for her birthday gift.
Roll on two months and the results were back! But shockingly for both of them, they revealed her father was not in fact her father! It has ruined their relationship and was the worst Birthday present she could ever have received.
So please proceed with caution and be prepared for a little too much being revealed.
-
The other day I got a message from a lady on Ancestry saying I showed up as a DNA match and continued to go into detail about a certain surname I wasn't so familiar with.
My first concern was that I had not done a DNA test with that profile she contacted me on.
Secondly when I looked through the reams of trees I'm researching with that profile, I found the name of an "non-blood relative" who had married into the tree and it just so happened I'd gone as far back as her grandmother (she was living with on census). This grandmother was the sister of the man she was looking for, that I didn't have on my tree.
I'm finding the whole thing very confusing, especially when on my DNA profile my "matches" cannot find any common ancestor in their trees, the only possible link is a coincidental surname (in a total different area to mine sometimes) with no solid foundation to prove the link.
I have only had one successful match, with the daughter of my Nan's cousin and we know each other exist, even though the suggested "relationship" on their wasn't so accurate.
It also asks me to create a free family tree to join in with the family circles. BUT I already have my DNA results connected to a tree I created "for free".
I'm feeling as if it was all a bit of a scam to make money to be honest.
Very disappointed and have lost confidence in the process.
NB:
My friend sent away his sample to ancestry DNA late last year and got another kit returned to him in the post. The letter accompanying the kit said they had problems producing a result and he would have to do the sample yet again. It took months for the results to return. His British percentage came back low and as a weak percentage. Yet his father's heritage featured in the same area of central England for over 250 years, using the paper trail system. It was if his mother's DNA had over thrown his father's contribution!
Now we have these results about ourselves, what are we suppose to do with them, apart from, it seems, to encourage other family members to take the test, in order to get better results?
hmm!
-
your tree needs to be public for DNA circles. I keep mine private and it doesn't stop me getting DNA matches, although as plimmerian has found the estimated distance is sometimes a bit "out" (Ancestry generally more cautious than paper trail suggests).
Jane :-)
-
But shockingly for both of them, they revealed her father was not in fact her father! It has ruined their relationship and was the worst Birthday present she could ever have received.
That is a really sad story, Carol. I hope they are able to recover from that setback, after all, he still raised her as his daughter.
I read recently of another case (https://dna-explained.com/2018/02/18/unexpected-discoveries-through-dna-testing/) where someone thought to be a brother turned out not to be, but they didn't allow that to stop the relationship they had built up.
It shows we all react differently, and we each need to be sure we are ready for surprises, as that blog points out.
-
There's that old saying "One in ten don't know their real father"
Malky
-
There's that old saying "One in ten don't know their real father"
Malky
When I was carrying out research on birth data in Scotland in the 1970s, I was told it was more like 30%
Gadget
-
I would think it depends on when, where, age and family circumstances. DNA testing is on the increase, and it seems that this will change the previously percieved ideas as to parentage as and when futher data is obtained.
Malky
-
Many people seem to think I am against the concept of using DNA for family history research, I am not.
I am however concerned the DNA is promoted as the panacea that will solve all the researchers’ stumbling blocks and provide the answers, it won't.
As it stands now DNA testing is improving but it is still flawed.
That is why I am pleased to see this latest blog by My Heritage announcing major updates and improvements to their DNA Matching.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lfq/
It shows they have recognised the failings in the systems in use and how they are attempting to produce more accurate results.
As the years go by and the various companies’ knowledge and DNA banks grow the science will grow and mature.
We may even reach a stage where some or even many of the claims of some companies will be valid, until that time comes please understand DNA testing does not provide the answers. As with any record set it may provide clues to the answers but as the above blog shows more work has still to be done.
Cheers
Guy
DNA Testing Flawed?
1) Oh No, it isn't.
2) Oh Yes, it can be.
The answer:- 1) or 2) largely depends on how accurate YOUR Tree research is and how thorough the OTHER PERSON's Tree research is?
My Niece (my blood Sister's Daughter) had a DNA Test, the result came back and after comparing, she was in contact with a surname match, who had a list of surnames, from her own research.
I explained to my Niece that surname was in my Mother's lineage (side) AND also a marriage prior to an UNCONFIRMED 1784 - 1787 Birth on my Father's side, might also eventually be that same surname.
I emailed my Niece and when the lady replied (some don't) she fitted in, on my Mother's side and we could see that her research in the Census and GRO Certificates was top-hole (excellent)!
------------
Accuracy of Other Trees and Burden of PROOF
There is a Thread on Rootschat which is questioning the accuracy of Trees.
Rootschatters and myself have been in contact with researchers of online trees WITH THE PROOF confirming they have an error.
But they cannot prove how they made their link AND are NOT prepared to change it.
-----------
Dissenters and Nonconformist
Research indicates two Nonconformist Chapels were already built in one particular town and the Presbyterian BIRTH records for over 100 years are missing before 1797 and about the first 35 years of Wesleyan Births are missing from the 1785 opening.
Early local nonconformist burials there, were generally buried in the Parish Churchyard to start with, but with no clue as to the deceased's religion.
------------
Some Scots had marriage by habit or repute, without formal Marriage, so a marriage might not exist.
-----------
Yes, DNA can be flawed, if one, or both DNA parties research is not thorough enough.
DNA is NOT a golden panacea!
Mark
-
DNA Testing Flawed?
1) Oh No, it isn't.
2) Oh Yes, it can be.
The answer:- 1) or 2) largely depends on how accurate YOUR Tree research is and how thorough the OTHER PERSON's Tree research is?
Yes, DNA can be flawed, if one, or both DNA parties research is not thorough enough.
DNA is NOT a golden panacea!
Mark
I was talking about the assumption made by DNA testing companies nothing to do with researched trees.
There are many assumptions made regarding DNA which have been shown to be inaccurate.
The first being that a person’s DNA is the same in every cell of their body; yes in some that may be true but in others that has been proven to be wrong.
There is no DNA test that can prove the father of a child 100%.
The more generations one goes back the less chance of that ancestors DNA appearing in their descendants.
That’s before we even get into the discussion of what is English/Welsh/Irish or Scottish DNA another error is the assumption there is something called Viking DNA claiming there is Viking DNA is as accurate as claiming they wore horned helmets, but hey why be accurate where money is involved.
Cheers
Guy
-
The paternal direct father son line back ancestry is ?
Extract from link
"Because y-chromosomes are passed from father to son virtually unchanged, males can trace their patrilineal (male-line) ancestry by testing their y-chromosome."
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Y-DNA-mtDNA-and-Autosomal-DNA-Tests
Thus may show up like you mention your ancestor birth 1784 -1784 (G H b 1786 if he had a brother {Mark]) birth if ancestor had a bothers birth lines down descending sons of another branch of a descendant son living today - etc.
-
The paternal direct father son line back ancestry is ?
Extract from link
"Because y-chromosomes are passed from father to son virtually unchanged, males can trace their patrilineal (male-line) ancestry by testing their y-chromosome."
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Y-DNA-mtDNA-and-Autosomal-DNA-Tests
That doesn't nullify what Guy said.
Yes it (yDNA) can be used to follow the patrilineal line but is does not mean that someone you find an exact match with is your father, grandfather, great grandfather etc
-
They might be descended from ggf's identical twin
-
They might be descended from ggf's identical twin
Good point.
-
Hello
My Niece got a DNA match to start with and the two communicated by email. The other DNA Donor had a list of Surnames from her own F.H. research.
Using an original family Death Certificate I have, our known family history and my research, I felt a list of surnames, one of which was an exact family match, was pretty good.
However, the other DNA provider's research was absolutely first class match too, going back 100 years from our shared ancestor.
Sceptical
1) Although I'm a big DNA sceptic, due to the fact, that if the DNA donor's family history research is not first class, a DNA match could be misleading.
2) If there was secret infidelity, but a wife registered the baby as married husband's, that could give DNA results problems.
3) If my family didn't already know its history, one of those surnames, from that list of surnames sent from the other DNA donor, wouldn't have meant anything, which is effectively what I have on another male line from my ancestor awkward George.
4) Each family historian should do their own exhaustive checks, it is not a substitute for laziness, you may also discover other interesting things, they haven't, as you check accuracy.
My Other Line
One of George's Grandsons has named five of his children with surnames, as their middle names and two other middle names, which can be both forenames or surnames.
We can match three of the surnames (from research of the family) including the maiden surname of the wife of George, so there is something in the middle surnames.
But these spare surnames, don't help yet, at all!
We are back at archives and waiting for more copy 18th & 19th Century Deeds, to see if a clue to George's origin can be confirmed, that way.
Mark
-
The paternal direct father son line back ancestry is ?
Extract from link
"Because y-chromosomes are passed from father to son virtually unchanged, males can trace their patrilineal (male-line) ancestry by testing their y-chromosome."
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Y-DNA-mtDNA-and-Autosomal-DNA-Tests
Thus may show up like you mention your ancestor birth 1784 -1784 (G H b 1786 if he had a brother {Mark]) birth if ancestor had a bothers birth lines down descending sons of another branch of a descendant son living today - etc.
Hello
This quote is most interesting, especially as I am interested, primarily only in the Male line backward.
A descendant of a possible unknown Brother, to my mystery George?
Thanks, Mark
-
Hello
I think this DNA testing is a load of buncombe!
Just looked at another site who offer to keep your DNA result confidential and also claim how good the male line testing of DNA is, in line tracing.
However, they cite - the result gave him a sub-regional breakdown of his results and the regions within Britain of where his ancestors lived in the last few hundred years.
So what - that is not what I want from a test.
----------
In my Niece's case, she managed to obtain a list of surnames from a match. The reality is - we have found a descendant, of a close relative I personally knew up until he died, being my Gt. Uncle (who used to come and stay annually with my Gt. Aunt, who we saw several times a week) and who had 13 children. Had we have lived Geographically close to my Gt. Uncle, we may have known or heard of her personally anyway.
----------
But if the other DNA provider wants confidentiality, does not reply, or any match has gone to a competitor for a test, or NOT yet done a test (assuming an unknown family match descendant is still living), then a sub-regional break down is of little more value, than a gimmick?
Sorry, but after sleeping on it, I'm still very DNA sceptical!
Mark
-
However, they cite - the result gave him a sub-regional breakdown of his results and the regions within Britain of where his ancestors lived in the last few hundred years.
I think that is precisely what many people are looking for from a DNA test ........ :)
-
Hello
I think this DNA testing is a load of buncombe!
In started a thread a few years ago (which was deleted!) entitled "DNA - Is It Bunkum?".
I stand by what I wrote back them, which was:
a) The science of DNA is sound,
b) The interpretation of results is more Marketing than Science ;D ;D
-
One thing that I find amusing about the whole gamut of DNA testing is, it takes a court order to get a DNA sample from an individual or a criminal suspect, but here in today's curious world, individuals are wavering their rights to privacy just for a bit of family history conjecture.
It's a funny old world. ::) ::) ::)
Malky
-
Hello
I think this DNA testing is a load of buncombe!
In started a thread a few years ago (which was deleted!) entitled "DNA - Is It Bunkum?".
I stand by what I wrote back them, which was:
a) The science of DNA is sound,
b) The interpretation of results is more Marketing than Science ;D ;D
Hello KGarrad and All
Yes, DNA is a proven Science.
Unlike those who are only hoping for a sub-regional match of where their ancestors may have lived, I would want to find an unknown blood family relative who had a link to my male line about (or more than) 232 years ago, the current descendant of whom, has a DNA match to me.
It obviously can work, like the personal experience of my Niece who got a list of surnames from her DNA match, although it didn't give us any new descent ancestry backward. (Although it was interesting to compare our separate research backward and inform my Niece the origin of the female side of a more recent 1901 marriage, which I hope was forwarded).
But ...
But if the other DNA provider wants confidentiality, does not reply, or any match has gone to a competitor for a test, or NOT yet done a test (assuming an unknown family match descendant is still living), then a sub-regional break down is of little more value, than a gimmick?
Mark
Oh, and your Isle of Man is a beautiful place, the Manx are wonderful friendly people and we have enjoyed many holidays there.
-
Unlike those who are only hoping for a sub-regional match of where their ancestors may have lived, I would want to find an unknown blood family relative who had a link to my male line about (or more than) 232 years ago, the current descendant of whom, has a DNA match to me
I belong to a small group that research a particular name and has a dna group on familytreedna. Years ago, one particular member who had researched his tree back to about 1730, the birth of the ancestor to somewhere in Limerick, Ireland who ended up in Canada, took a YDNA test which threw up a result which suggested his research might be flawed as the haplogroup suggested Native American Ancestry. Now strangely, his research strongly matched mine, the right area of Limerick, right social background etc., and I had him down as the only likely family match to mine but we hadn’t done the dna test...Roll forward a couple of years, my husband (who is the descendant) was asked to take the test as there where some strange results coming back for this particular name all located within a five mile area. So he did, I mentioned to our administrator, that the only likely match would be the Canadian guy... “oh no” he said, “he must have a non-paternal match in there somewhere, implying the detailed paper trail was incorrect.”
Roll forward a few months... the only match was indeed the Canadian guy. Both our lines have rock solid research, mine going back to 1660. We have since worked out the connection, our 2 x great grandfather was a first cousin of the man who left for Canada in 1765.
This threw up the question of where my line started! After a few more tests, the haplogroup tree has actually been amended and split to acknowledge a European line separate to the Native American line. I guess that’s part of the evolution of knowledge. ;D 4 years on, its evolved even further.
So it is possible, but you both need to do the research too.
Jenny
Ps. I get where Guy is coming from, urging caution and making sure your research is rock solid first and understanding what you want to gain from the results. Don’t take it just because...
-
Xin is totally dumbed down with you intelligent people ... and needs to give up on the DNA malarky
thing..
enuff
I will continue the old 'hard trodden' path of the paper trail and where it dries up... let it rest.. :( 5th - 8th moderate cousins with 1 marker ... what the heck is all that about...
xin
BRITISH line since 1600's
-
I guess I am living proof that DNA is not bunkum or malaky. I researched for 14 years built a family tree of 13,500 people, went to a number of family reunions traveled thousands of miles to attend. I knew my tree back to front, people contacted from all over the world. I was proud of my Irish Heritage, traces my English heritage back to 1700's. I did an Ancestry DNA test and had an immediate very close match with a woman from an Italian family. After 6 months of trying to find how she fitted into my family I realised that out of all the other DNA matches I had, there were no surnames that I was familiar with in my extensive tree. That woman didn't belong in my extensive family tree at all. I was adopted and she was my sister. I was not Irish at all but half Italian. Yes we shared a father. I went further I divided my DNA matches into Italian and Non-Italian Matches figuring my mothers side was not Italian. I looked amogst the closest Non-Italian matches I had who had provided a public tree and looked for a common Ancestral name. I settled on an Ancestor and built a tree downwards like an umbrella and as I did I found more marriages and new surnames which I also found in my DNA shared matches. I knew I was in the right tree and if I found my mothers name she would belong in it (really didn't take me long to build, a matter of hrs really). At the same time I sent for an adoption certificate (not knowing if one existed or not) which arrived some six weeks after my discovery. A google search of my mothers maiden name and the Ancestral surname I had settled on revealed a brother, who had blogged on a family tree blog the names of his mother (our mother), grandmother and great grandfather. Immediately returning to the tree I built I found the Great Granfather, as I added the names of grandmother and mother under, i got ancestry hints, I realised my brother also had an ancestry account. found I had 3 brothers and 2 sisters on mothers side. I sent the brother a message and was talking to him the next evening and my birth mother for first time. So yes DNA is great tool, which I used along with some sound skills of building family trees for so long. But no I would never have discovered my adoption and the lies that had hid it for nearly 6 decades. I would not have been reunited with my mother, brothers and sisters on both sides 8 in total and numerous cousins. Yes it was a tragic but exiting discovery and I have no regrets about doing my DNA. Unfortunately it is too late to meet my father.
-
Hey, thanks for sharing that great story!
-
Thanks for sharing those stories
Yes I too searched matche's by locathon based on one ggfather tree We knew and one we didn't
Chose the smallest village Bugbrooke in Northamptonshire sure enough DNA matche people who had him on their tree 4th cousins but also 5th cousins came up
Didn't know connections til traced back to his grandfather. ..the descendants from women don't have the GARDENER
Surname but and descendants in USA don't always know ancestor that far back but a distant cousin who my mum founder via paper trail had already told her about a branch who went to Utah and set up Mormon community in 1600s
-
The other known ggfather and his parents were from Jacobstad Russian Latvian . paper trail FELLMAN with help of rootser Justin back 2 more generations
My 3rd &4th cousin matches were in USA no surprise as only 1 of his 11 siblings stayed in GB .. (Scotland)
Again most people didn't know ggfather s birth name
or had followed paternal lines mostly
This time rootser Sandra to srescue found me obituaries which clarified children's names etc
And residential list
The closeSt match from my mother's side didn't match either of these costs he was the legal son Lottie and husband
-
Ooooo
Progressive thinker
what a heck of a discovery.
will have to read it all again later to comprehend.
xin
-
I guess I am living proof that DNA is not bunkum or malarkey.
There are very few people if any on here who think DNA is bunkum or a malarkey. Where criticism is raised about DNA on here it is about the fantastical and unsupported claims made for geographical or ethnicity DNA testing.
Your story is a good one and similar to ones shared by others over the years on here. This very month in The Genealogist magazine (magazine of the Society of Genealogists) there was a very interesting article by John Tittereton who has been researching the Titterton name for 40 years and how autosomal DNA has helped him prove what was previously just theories. There is a very shortened version on his website
http://www.titterton.org.uk/dna-proof-of-john-of-apesfords-family/
So no DNA is not bunkum but the claims made for some aspects of it most definitely are, in my opinion.
-
Hello;
I am new to this DNA thing. I've talked to several people in my sphere of genealogy researchers and we agree that DNA is yet a baby science in the world of research. I do not want to submit my own sample yet, as I believe there are those who will get the data and use it unwisely. I am leary of the consequences: i.e., maybe the result will find it's way into some area of science that will affect me in adverse ways. Maybe not. But it's still too soon to get wrapped up in something so controversial. Those of my friends who have already sent in their samples say it is still very loose in the interpretation--with a 1% Africa or other continent that seems very improbable given the Western Europe heritage most of them have. I will take that caution and wait. I hope that the government stays out of DNA genealogy, and leave our branch of the human family alone!
-
Hi Andrea,
Each of us has to make a decision about how private we want to be. Even sending an email or commenting on a forum is making information about ourselves public. Doing a DNA test is giving out a little more information, and many people feel cautious about it, as you do. I have made a different choice, but each of us will assess things differently.
But it is worth pointing out that, as far as I am aware, most people who have some experience with DNA testing believe that determining our ethnic background (such as the 1% African that you mention) is a very inexact science at this stage, and can only really be trusted at the level of differentiating continental background. So it is not particularly helpful for most people, although it will always be interesting. But it is another way for testing companies (or one of them) to sell tests, so ethnic background testing will be advertised.
But the science of finding DNA matches between two people is much more reliable, and so can be used to give quite definite and useful information about our recent ancestors. It is often the only way for adoptees to find their birth parents and for those interested in family history to resolve an unknown in their family tree. This is a very different use of the DNA information from the much less reliable ethnicity testing.
And so adoptees and family historians are often quite willing to take what we hope is the small extra risk of private information becoming public because DNA is so useful for them.
So it is really up to each of us to assess our needs and concerns and make the appropriate decision. For me, I couldn't have identified my grandfather and found additional relatives without DNA, so I am well pleased.
-
Dear bridigmac; your mums' cousin told her about some ancestors who went to America to set up a Mormon colony (from England?) in 1600. We had no such colony in 1600. The church was restored in 1830 by Joseph Smith. No one came to America to join the Mormons until 1837; because no Missionaries were in England until then to make the church known and to start an immigration. I understand there is much misinformation about many things that happened in the past, but if you are looking for ancestors in America who came from the British Isles to join the Mormons, please look in the correct time period. On the other hand, perhaps you are referring to Quakers. They were interested in immigration to America starting in the 1600's because there was no freedom to practice their beliefs. Or also the Huguenots, who came from France and areas nearby to gain freedom of religion as well. They came to America beginning from what I can remember in the
1600's. Please feel free to correct me.
Thank you.
-
Dear bridigmac; your mums' cousin told her about some ancestors who went to America to set up a Mormon colony (from England?) in 1600. We had no such colony in 1600. ...
They came to America beginning from what I can remember in the 1600's.
Hello
If brigidmac has been told this, it would be interesting to track down the passenger list * of the Mayflower which sailed from England in 1620. Just a thought for research.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayflower_passengers
ADDED: * See also 'The Mayflower Compact' signed by the male passengers after landing.
Those who sailed on the Mayflower (sometimes called the Mayflower Pilgrims) in 1620 were made up of Dissenters (Nonconformists) and Puritans, those opposing some of the beliefs of the State Church of England and Adventurers. I am told some of them were Quakers.
ADDED: We are only two years away from the 400th Anniversary in 2020, so watch out for news stories and accounts in the news.
The later Act of Toleration (1689) granted limited freedom for Nonconformists (although not absolute freedom). I say limited because further Acts very late in the 18th Century / early 19th Century gave Catholics and Nonconformists more freedoms, including being able to marry in their own places of worship and transfer property easily.
Some Nonconformist Registers were either not maintained (no records kept), or possibly destroyed because they were not totally free of restriction and this is why some of us are having terrible difficulty confirming our family history before the England and Wales Census and pre- Registrar General BMD Registers.
----------
A possible Father, John Hood, Mariner of Selby, late of Scarborough, Yorkshire (of my Ancestor George Hood of Selby, born about 1785 to 1787, died 1845) was living in a property owned by a John Turner who was connected with the local Presbyterian Chapel. For all I know John Turner the Landlord may had dissuaded John Hood from having George baptised C of E, hence no local C of E baptism. Another possible Father suggestion can't be proven either.
The Presbyterian Chapel at Selby had been built by 1690, but no baptisms survive until 1697.
The Wesleyans were established at Selby, built their Chapel 1785-1786, but no Registers until the next Century.
Mark
-
Thanks Andrea I may have misremembered but it wasn't quakers it may have been.later church
Of latter day a saints sorry wi ad to. no list of.things of check
-
NHS England is to routinely introduce patient DNA tests this back-end so eventually it will be universal & no big deal.
Skoosh.
-
The Presbyterian Chapel at Selby had been built by 1690, but no baptisms survive until 1697.
The Wesleyans were established at Selby, built their Chapel 1785-1786, but no Registers until the next Century.
Mark
Hello
Sorry, I made a mistake - **correction** ...
The Presbyterian Chapel at Selby had been built by 1690, but no Baptisms survive until 1797.
So in some cases a 100 years or more, of Baptisms are missing.
Mark
-
I have spent 15 years of my life, not to mention the amounts of money I have thrown at my "roots" using all sorts of information available and at times even getting it wrong - just to find out that like the hints in the tree others are using DNA because it's easier.
But then, after reading some of the social media, I take heart from those that have uncovered missing chapters from their life, the adoptees, the estranged, the brick walls - and I hope that I too can uncover one or two of my brick walls -
My fence sitting days are over - come Christmas in my stocking will be a DNA testing kit.
-
Excellent! You won't know if you don't try!
When you get your results, you'll find this forum to be a good way to get ideas and get the most out of your test.
-
I have spent 15 years of my life, not to mention the amounts of money I have thrown at my "roots" using all sorts of information available and at times even getting it wrong - just to find out that like the hints in the tree others are using DNA because it's easier.
But then, after reading some of the social media, I take heart from those that have uncovered missing chapters from their life, the adoptees, the estranged, the brick walls - and I hope that I too can uncover one or two of my brick walls -
My fence sitting days are over - come Christmas in my stocking will be a DNA testing kit.
Not easier in my opinion - I find it harder, more confusing and a whole lot more complex. :) Traditional trees and DNA results work hand in hand. If you are looking for your roots and don't have a tree, the DNA won't necessarily be of much use to you. :)
-
I personally would not give my DNA for ancestry, basically because I don't trust the security of the data base from hackers and USA laws on the like of the FBI accessing it. OK !! - - if your an honest law biding citizen, it could be said you have nothing to worry about, yet ! but say your DNA was a near match to some unworthy character or of an unknown direct cousin living in the USA ( like if your were brought up an adopted child), who was unworthy and brings unwanted headache interest in your DNA enquires or hassle at your front door.
-
I personally would not give my DNA for ancestry, ... brings unwanted headache interest in your DNA enquires or hassle at your front door.
One has to be so careful, we've had someone spurious make contact earlier saying they are the Engineering Dept., our internet will be off for 24 hours, but if we press certain number/s, we will keep a line during the interruption. IT IS A SCAM !
Identity theft; obtaining information about you to set up a scam and electronic crime is growing, sadly.
Mark
-
My personal view is the DNA test is not the be all and end all, but is a great additional tool in your toolbox for Family Tree research.
I did the Ancestry DNA test last year and the DNA Matches is the main useful bit. Really helpful in confirming my own research cross checking against near and distant cousins family trees. The "where you come from in the last 1000 years" bit has been improved and I think will be improved further as more people do the test, but thats not really useful for Family Tree research.
Alan
-
I personally would not give my DNA for ancestry, basically because I don't trust the security of the data base from hackers and USA laws on the like of the FBI accessing it. OK !! - - if your an honest law biding citizen, it could be said you have nothing to worry about, yet ! but say your DNA was a near match to some unworthy character or of an unknown direct cousin living in the USA ( like if your were brought up an adopted child), who was unworthy and brings unwanted headache interest in your DNA enquires or hassle at your front door.
There is a definite issue that DNA testing will continually expand the reach of law enforcement to track down criminals. Also, it will eventually be YDNA that really narrows it down as we are now routinely assigning mutations (combination of YSTR and YSNP) to proven ancestors on our pedigree charts. Your lack of participation is really not going to protect you as the testing databases continue to grow at 30 to 40 % per year for YDNA and more than 50 % per year for atDNA testing.
But family histories are also being used by law enforcement as well. DNA by itself does nothing unless you have the person testing made available. Law enforcement has the right to access this kind of data via court order. It is very rare most law abiding citizens to get caught up in this usage but it could happen. But on the plus side, a lot of serial killers are being put away at the same time. So I think the good far outweighs the bad.
Just under my haplogroup R-L226 (very Irish), we now have nineteen surname clusters defined by YSNP and YSTR combinations. So if you belong to these clusters, there is a 60 to 90 % chance of having a particular surname. There are also 84 well defined branches under these surname clusters and another 192 testers with unique YSTR marker values. The descendants of King Brian Boru lead the way with 22 branches defined underneath this surname cluster and another 38 testers with unique YSTR markers. I am now able to chart 90 % of the 700 testers at 67 markers on how they are related to each other with 60 to 95 % accuracy.
We even now know that King Brian Boru was part of DC33. We know that all of Y5610 and DC291 are actual descendants of King Brian Boru and that the large branch DC36 may later be proven to be added to this list. In ten years, we will have four thousand testers and will identify 100 to 200 surname clusters with over 80 % of the testers having unique markers for each tester. In ten years, we will have dozens of YDNA mutations assigned to actual proven ancestors on pedigree charts.
Avoiding testing yourself will not help any as your cousins will test anyways - except the criminal types who are unlikely to test (but their DNA is usually on file already with previous offenses).
-
It has done me no good sending for mine AT ALL
NOT one apart from MY lovely nephew who I loved and knew about previous to DNA test...
NOT ONE connection at all..
xin
King Brian Boru what who
-
It has done me no good sending for mine AT ALL
NOT one apart from MY lovely nephew who I loved and knew about previous to DNA test...
NOT ONE connection at all..
Are you referring to Family Finder type tests (atDNA) or YDNA tests ? If you are getting no matches via atDNA testing, there are two reasons: 1) your have few cousins to test and you line is not as prolific; 2) your relatives just have not tested to date. I received 100s of matches via Family Finder which is pretty common for Americans (due to free land which allowed descendants to increase at a dramatic rate). If you cousins remain in Ireland where population is flat due to stretches of bad weather, crop failures and limited land to allow population expansion, your number of matches will be many times fewer.
atDNA can yield a lot of matches very quick but YDNA shows the best long term promise. However, most testers have too high expectations thinking DNA testing will "always" add a lot of new information. YDNA is about connecting the whole world for male connections. I work on a very Irish haplogroup R-L226 which originated in County Clare area around 1,500 years ago (a time frame that is a turn off for many genealogists). However, I can now chart 90 % of the 707 testers at 67 or more markers. The last ten percent have not been YSNP tested to date or do not match somebody that has YSNP tested to date. We are already have fifteen well defined surname clusters averaging around ten testers each - however even these connections are still between 200 and 1000 years ago. Even with the technology available today, given a large enough sample size, we will be able to assign YDNA mutations to people on your pedigree charts - already have a dozen or so of these.
-
King Brian Boru what who
High King of Ireland, defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Clontarf 1014 (Dublin) among other things. All round interesting guy.
-
There you go.. Robert and thank you for trying to explain however....
This brain 'no comprende'
so will never get to grips with it... old dog and new tricks etc.
But at least I now know who King Brian Boru is.. :) cheers Sinann
xin
-
This brain 'no comprende'
This brain didn't either
-
;D ;D
xin
-
I personally would not give my DNA for ancestry, basically because I don't trust the security of the data base from hackers and USA laws on the like of the FBI accessing it. OK !! - - if your an honest law biding citizen, it could be said you have nothing to worry about, yet ! but say your DNA was a near match to some unworthy character or of an unknown direct cousin living in the USA ( like if your were brought up an adopted child), who was unworthy and brings unwanted headache interest in your DNA enquires or hassle at your front door.
Other law enforcement agencies started using GEDmatch, making it "the de facto DNA and genealogy database for all of law enforcement," according to The Atlantic's Sarah Zhang.[2]
[2] Zhang, Sarah (May 19, 2018) . The Coming Wave of Murders Solved by Genealogy The Atlantic
-
Dear bridigmac; your mums' cousin told her about some ancestors who went to America to set up a Mormon colony (from England?) in 1600. We had no such colony in 1600. The church was restored in 1830 by Joseph Smith. No one came to America to join the Mormons until 1837; because no Missionaries were in England until then to make the church known and to start an immigration. I understand there is much misinformation about many things that happened in the past, but if you are looking for ancestors in America who came from the British Isles to join the Mormons, please look in the correct time period. On the other hand, perhaps you are referring to Quakers. They were interested in immigration to America starting in the 1600's because there was no freedom to practice their beliefs. Or also the Huguenots, who came from France and areas nearby to gain freedom of religion as well. They came to America beginning from what I can remember in the
1600's. Please feel free to correct me.
Thank you.
You forgot the Puritans who came here to hang witches.
I believe in science and DNA even though it's fairly new it's good enough to hang criminals with or free them from prison. Without DNA I would have no chance of finding my family, with DNA I now have a tool with which to find them. What if DNA says your paper daddy isn't your daddy? Daddy can be whoever your mother let hang his hat. You can have all the pedigree paper trails you want to create but if your mother wants it to stay secret the person writing the paper trail will never be told. Now we have a science that can unmask momma's tales!
-
Picture in your mind, a well to do snobby senior aged lady, a member in the village church flower arranging coffee morning club, who use to brag about her paternal ancestry went back to royalty, and to prove the aforesaid she did ancestry DNA. The lady got a result, a taxi driver in New York, who was her half brother and his father was one of the USA WW2 G I's in England and the posh snob lady very quietly left the flower arranging club after she found her true paternal ancestral history. ;D ;D ;D
-
I haven't had a good laugh in days, thank you.
-
I am extremely wary about taking one of these DNA tests. Here in Canada especially, and also to some extent in the US, some companies doing these tests allow insurance companies & others to access the data to use it. Now I don't mind it being used to find a serial killer as recently happened in the Golden State Killer case however I'd be extremely uneasy if my supplemental health insurance company accessed my data & then used it against myself or my children. For instance, Alzheimer disease is rampant in my family (mother, father, only aunt & now my older sister) & I wouldn't want to pay higher rates or even be denied coverage because of the chance of possible diseases developing. It HAS happened in North America. Until privacy / access laws are made much, much tighter, I'm going to pass.
-
The current genetic genealogy tests have no medical data of any value: atDNA (Family Finder) just reads junk DNA that has no meaning for health; YSTRs are random variations of YDNA that have no medical value; YSNP testing (SNP packs and individual YSNP testing) no medical information; NGS testing (Big Y) - no medical data. The only test that could be used for medical purposes is the Whole Genome Sequencing - but the very small read length being used now is not enough to read medical data. However, sometime in the future, WGS testing will have much longer read lengths where medical data could be extracted. But testing companies are not going destroy their own business by selling this data to insurance companies. Also, the GINA law in USA prohibits usage of DNA for screening data and fines for violations would put most insurance companies out of business as well as the genetic genealogy company providing this information. So medical concerns are not an issue.
However, identification of individuals by law enforcement is a valid concern for some but it will not make any difference as your cousins will test - over 10,000,000 atDNA tests in the last few years with 40 to 60 % annual growth rare currently. The number of documented cases in the US is at least 50 to 100 where convictions have been obtained and there are dozens of law enforcement agencies creating departments for this kind of research which save significant amounts of costs as cold case files are extremely expensive to run and rarely produce results like atDNA does.
Here a some the brick walls that I have cracked: 1) my Pace line was traced back to early Jamestown but two different lines claimed to a son of one Jamestown descendant - YDNA clearly solved this issue. 2) my Brooks ancestor (b. 1765) and his brother were not included in extensive probates even though they lived in the same household, had marriage bonds connected them. DNA now suggests that these were adopted sons; 3) My Casey line arrived in South Carolina in the 1750s. Links to the VA Casey lines (rampant in Ancestry.com) were proved false by YDNA; out of the 20 lines tested to date - all but one line are closely related in the last 200 to 400 years; testing positive for FGC5639 means that you belong to this South Carolina line and testing positive for FGC5647 means that are related to the South Carolina line earlier than settlement of America; the YSTR mutation 460 (12 to 13) means you belong to the younger branch of FGC5639; 4) My John Tucker spouse revealed her parents with atDNA matches - revealing another two direct ancestors on my pedigree chart (have around 120 ancestors - this was the weakest part of my pedigree chart. I could write ten more pages of these kinds of discoveries that I have helped others with.
-
Without DNA I would never have known that my dad was not my real father. Something I never suspected for a moment. My real grandmother's birth certificate does not have the correct names on it, and my probable great grandparents did not marry until 7 years after my grandmother was born. I can find no birth record/baptism for my great grandfather and no marriage for his possible parents. I do not trust anything that I cannot find DNA proof for.
-
Reply #61, You have the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, a bill signed into United States law in 2008 designed to prohibit the improper use of genetic information in health insurance and employment.
Martin
-
Without DNA I would never have known that my dad was not my real father. Something I never suspected for a moment. My real grandmother's birth certificate does not have the correct names on it, and my probable great grandparents did not marry until 7 years after my grandmother was born. I can find no birth record/baptism for my great grandfather and no marriage for his possible parents. I do not trust anything that I cannot find DNA proof for.
SO are you glad you now know !? or where you better off in ignorance..!!
what do you think
xin
-
Without DNA I would never have known that my dad was not my real father. Something I never suspected for a moment. My real grandmother's birth certificate does not have the correct names on it, and my probable great grandparents did not marry until 7 years after my grandmother was born. I can find no birth record/baptism for my great grandfather and no marriage for his possible parents. I do not trust anything that I cannot find DNA proof for.
SO are you glad you now know !? or where you better off in ignorance..!!
what do you think
xin
Although it has been an overwhelming shock and I cry almost every day for my lost father, I am very glad I know the truth. It explains so much about my unhappy childhood. My mother was always the problem though, my dad (stepdad) did his best to be a good father too me and we loved each other. But he was always a very angry man. I am so much like my lost father in looks and personality. I always did wonder why none of the family appeared to resemble each other.
-
TG94, remember that he was an angry man by his nature, not that he was angry at you.
Martin
-
TG94, remember that he was an angry man by his nature, not that he was angry at you.
Martin
I believe that it was my mother's behaviour that caused his anger. With what I know now, I am not at all surprised that he had a lot of anger.
-
Well that is something to have on your shoulders -- xxxxxxx
Its funny isnt it how somedays we look around and see what we consider to be people that are living a 'normal' life and they look reasonably well dressed, fed and educated.. and almost happy...
NONE of us know do we ... what it really is like in their world..
the sweet innocent looking people that are creating mayhem behind closed doors.. as is in the news this week.. and the ANGRY hard looking people that are actually facing all kinds of 'hell' when entering the front door.
My sister and I we knew what it was like to worry --- only worry about going through the front door, We had a parent that would now be classed as Bi-polar and oh my .. one day you would enter paradise and the next hell..
anyway .. off that subject and hope against hope that you can be strong and cope with the .... stuff that you are discovering and live with good memories of someone that really did their best for u xxxx
xin
-
In his original post Guy Etchells suggested that there may come a day when DNA testing, after much scientific progress, would be really useful to us all and inevitably many posts then followed with stories of knocking down brick walls as the result of a DNA test.
I was probably a very early adopter of the possibilities of knocking down my main paternal brick wall and I took what was then the standard DNA Y chromosome test way back in 2004. My test was actually paid for by the DNA research project into my surname and its derivations hosted by the DNA company. It was by today's standards a fairly limited test and all it succeeded in showing was that I was unrelated within any reasonable timescale to anyone else with the same surname in that project. The project has grown since then and now numbers several hundred people but I am still unrelated to any of them (sadly the original sponsor died many years ago too).
That was a huge disappointment, partly because it failed to knock a single brick out of my wall (which remains standing today 15 years later) but it also meant that I was unable to grab hold of the coat tails of the person who started the project and who had progressed impressively far back along his ancestors. Would that they had been mine too!
The company I used was Family Tree DNA based in the USA and of course their database is dominated by Americans but as far as I know, none of my ancestors ever emigrated to the USA so it is perhaps unsurprising that their database, even today, doesn't include anyone who shares my DNA with the same surname. After several years when I got no 'matches' I corresponded with the company and all of a sudden I started to get 'matches' again and I still get one or two a month, but still no-one who shares my surname. Most such 'matches' seem originally to have come from Ireland, or still live there, but my ancestors are solidly East Midlands, England going back to the mid 1700s. That's where my brick wall stands.
So in summary, DNA testing has been a complete waste of time for me, but I remain open to possibility that at some stage Guy will tell me that the science has now progressed sufficiently for me to have another go. I should be so lucky to still be around by then of course :)
Tony
-
Several different companies and sites have given me varying percentages of certain ethnicities but that's normal. The per cent can only be what we in America call "a ballpark figure"--no such thing as absolute accuracy there. It depends on the criteria the testing companies use. If you get a small amount of a certain ethnicity on one site or with one company and another fails to assign it to you--that is normal, too. Somebody just didn't detect that small amount. The weird thing is that I have actually lost [and gained] ethnicities with a small percent--1% or less with 23andMe.
Regardless, all my sites now seem to agree [pretty much] on my ethnities but the percentages they assign me do vary. Nothing to worry about.
-
I am still very new to researching my family history but I can see how DNA matches could possibly help provide some useful information to confirming some family lines.
-
People who have been able to compare their DNA to other close family members on a site like Ancestry know just how accurate that is. Parents share about 50% of their DNA with their children and, likewise, full siblings share roughly 50% as well. That comes out to about 3, 500 centimorgans, give or take. Almost needless to say, the more distant the relationship, the fewer cMs. This is a good checking source, if in doubt.
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089 (https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089)
Worrying about whether an identical twin brother of someone might have been your father is rather pointless, IMO, as it is so unlikely to have been the case, It is only identical twins that have the same DNA. Fraternal twins are like any other full siblings when it comes to DNA. 50% of it will be different.
The gray area involves ethnicity. While one company will identify you as 30% British, say, another will assign you perhaps 38%. All you can deduce from that is that you have a significant amount of British ancestry. Another company--not Ancestry--at one time assigned me some small bits of interesting ethnicity--and ended up taking that away for a reason I have yet to understand. But, if one can acknowledge a lack of complete accuracy in that aspect of ones DNA results, one can live with it. It is not to be confused with the accuracy of relationships between people, that's all. The reliable testing companies look at hundreds of thousands of markers, not just a few. You can bank on the results.
-
You can bank on the results.
That's a "brave" thing to assert. Not even the genealogical DNA companies themselves claim that.
-
People who have been able to compare their DNA to other close family members on a site like Ancestry know just how accurate that is. Parents share about 50% of their DNA with their children and, likewise, full siblings share roughly 50% as well. That comes out to about 3, 500 centimorgans, give or take. Almost needless to say, the more distant the relationship, the fewer cMs. This is a good checking source, if in doubt.
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089 (https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089)
Worrying about whether an identical twin brother of someone might have been your father is rather pointless, IMO, as it is so unlikely to have been the case, It is only identical twins that have the same DNA. Fraternal twins are like any other full siblings when it comes to DNA. 50% of it will be different.
It may be pointless to you but I can assure you that when a mother just before she dies of cancer tells one of her daughter’s her father is really her grandfather that daughter does not think it pointless. In the above case the mother and her three elder daughters were living in the grandfather’s home while her husband was serving a prison sentence. There is very little chance the mother did not tell the truth, unless the daughter was born very premature or late but there was no hint of that.
Every DNA expert I have spoken to agrees it would be very difficult to discover the birth father via DNA.
The gray area involves ethnicity. While one company will identify you as 30% British, say, another will assign you perhaps 38%. All you can deduce from that is that you have a significant amount of British ancestry. Another company--not Ancestry--at one time assigned me some small bits of interesting ethnicity--and ended up taking that away for a reason I have yet to understand. But, if one can acknowledge a lack of complete accuracy in that aspect of ones DNA results, one can live with it. It is not to be confused with the accuracy of relationships between people, that's all. The reliable testing companies look at hundreds of thousands of markers, not just a few. You can bank on the results.
I think my views on ethnicity results are well known.
With regards to the accuracy of DNA
The population of London in 2018 was 8,787,892 the largest worldwide DNA database is estimated at 12,777,778 in other words half as much again as 1 city or if you compare this to the world population of 7.6 billion (in 2018) in other words a small proportion.
A lot of claims are made about DNA but at present it is still very much a tool in the genealogists toolbox that relies heavily on other tools to produce results.
Cheers
Guy
PS All the daughters (5) have had their DNA tested, the older generations are all deceased, mother, father & grandparents.
-
You can bank on the results.
That's a "brave" thing to assert. Not even the genealogical DNA companies themselves claim that.
Actually, they do. Even paternity tests, involving fewer markers, claim close to 100% accuracy. The thing is, if brothers may be involved, one ought to notify the tester. Trust me, if they test enough markers, they will distinguish between two brothers or their father. Have you ever seen a DNA testing company advertise "We may not be all that accurate"?
-
People who have been able to compare their DNA to other close family members on a site like Ancestry know just how accurate that is. Parents share about 50% of their DNA with their children and, likewise, full siblings share roughly 50% as well. That comes out to about 3, 500 centimorgans, give or take. Almost needless to say, the more distant the relationship, the fewer cMs. This is a good checking source, if in doubt.
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089 (https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/1089)
Worrying about whether an identical twin brother of someone might have been your father is rather pointless, IMO, as it is so unlikely to have been the case, It is only identical twins that have the same DNA. Fraternal twins are like any other full siblings when it comes to DNA. 50% of it will be different.
"It may be pointless to you but I can assure you that when a mother just before she dies of cancer tells one of her daughter’s her father is really her grandfather that daughter does not think it pointless. "
Hold on--what does this have to do with what I said about identical twins? In fact, I fail to see your point at all.
"In the above case the mother and her three elder daughters were living in the grandfather’s home while her husband was serving a prison sentence. There is very little chance the mother did not tell the truth, unless the daughter was born very premature or late but there was no hint of that.
Every DNA expert I have spoken to agrees it would be very difficult to discover the birth father via DNA."
I have no idea what experts you have spoken to--but difficult doesn't mean impossible. A man's autosomal DNA is not a clone of that of his father. In autosomal DNA, everyone has two alleles at every marker or locus, one donated by the father and one by the mother. Obviously a father and his son do not have the same mothers. Their DNA will look different, even though the son received an allele from the father at every marker. What will look the same is their y-DNA, which is a different story. Let's say Dad has these alleles, shown as numbers at a marker----12/23. His female partner has 8/10. Son will receive a number from each parent out of a possibility of four combinations. Let's say he receives 10/23. That illustrates why his DNA is not the same as that of his father. Now Son can pass down nothing but 10/23 at that marker to his own children. But Dad can only pass down 12/23 no matter what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Offspring has a 10 at the same marker, combined with another number from his or her Mom, it will not have come from Dad--but Son.
The gray area involves ethnicity. While one company will identify you as 30% British, say, another will assign you perhaps 38%. All you can deduce from that is that you have a significant amount of British ancestry. Another company--not Ancestry--at one time assigned me some small bits of interesting ethnicity--and ended up taking that away for a reason I have yet to understand. But, if one can acknowledge a lack of complete accuracy in that aspect of ones DNA results, one can live with it. It is not to be confused with the accuracy of relationships between people, that's all. The reliable testing companies look at hundreds of thousands of markers, not just a few. You can bank on the results.
I think my views on ethnicity results are well known.
With regards to the accuracy of DNA
The population of London in 2018 was 8,787,892 the largest worldwide DNA database is estimated at 12,777,778 in other words half as much again as 1 city or if you compare this to the world population of 7.6 billion (in 2018) in other words a small proportion.
A lot of claims are made about DNA but at present it is still very much a tool in the genealogists toolbox that relies heavily on other tools to produce results.
Your views on DNA may be well known [but not to me] so forgive me if I question *their* acciracy. The population of London now or at any other time has nothing to do with the accuracy of DNA testing.
-
Actually, they do.
OK prove it. As I said not even the companies themselves make the claim you did.
Have you ever seen a DNA testing company advertise "We may not be all that accurate"?
Now that is just being silly in my opinion. That said I think its a good time for me to leave this conversation as I have a feeling no good will come of it.
-
The gray
I have no idea what experts you have spoken to--but difficult doesn't mean impossible. A man's autosomal DNA is not a clone of that of his father. In autosomal DNA, everyone has two alleles at every marker or locus, one donated by the father and one by the mother. Obviously a father and his son do not have the same mothers. Their DNA will look different, even though the son received an allele from the father at every marker. What will look the same is their y-DNA, which is a different story. Let's say Dad has these alleles, shown as numbers at a marker----12/23. His female partner has 8/10. Son will receive a number from each parent out of a possibility of four combinations. Let's say he receives 10/23. That illustrates why his DNA is not the same as that of his father. Now Son can pass down nothing but 10/23 at that marker to his own children. But Dad can only pass down 12/23 no matter what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Offspring has a 10 at the same marker, combined with another number from his or her Mom, it will not have come from Dad--but Son.
It would certainly make things easier if it was possible to test the husband and his father, but both of these people had died before DNA testing became generally available as was the mother but perhaps you missed that small point.
The gray area involves ethnicity. While one company will identify you as 30% British, say, another will assign you perhaps 38%. All you can deduce from that is that you have a significant amount of British ancestry. Another company--not Ancestry--at one time assigned me some small bits of interesting ethnicity--and ended up taking that away for a reason I have yet to understand. But, if one can acknowledge a lack of complete accuracy in that aspect of ones DNA results, one can live with it. It is not to be confused with the accuracy of relationships between people, that's all. The reliable testing companies look at hundreds of thousands of markers, not just a few. You can bank on the results.
So what do you imagine British ethnicity is, Norman, Viking, Gaelic, Germanic or one more of the other ethnic groups that have interbred with those living on the British Isles over the last couple of thousand years. There is no such thing as British ethnicity. But as you mention if you ignore the fact that the tests are not 100% (Which even the DNA companies admit) accurate you can bank on the results.
Your views on DNA may be well known [but not to me] so forgive me if I question *their* acciracy. The population of London now or at any other time has nothing to do with the accuracy of DNA testing.
The reason I mention population is at present DNA databases have only just scraped the surface of the population of the world. You may assume everything is determined and indisputable but even the DNA companies themselves realise they are still learning and still developing theories.
An example of this is shown by their changing ethnicity estimates.
Cheers
Guy
-
The gray
I have no idea what experts you have spoken to--but difficult doesn't mean impossible. A man's autosomal DNA is not a clone of that of his father. In autosomal DNA, everyone has two alleles at every marker or locus, one donated by the father and one by the mother. Obviously a father and his son do not have the same mothers. Their DNA will look different, even though the son received an allele from the father at every marker. What will look the same is their y-DNA, which is a different story. Let's say Dad has these alleles, shown as numbers at a marker----12/23. His female partner has 8/10. Son will receive a number from each parent out of a possibility of four combinations. Let's say he receives 10/23. That illustrates why his DNA is not the same as that of his father. Now Son can pass down nothing but 10/23 at that marker to his own children. But Dad can only pass down 12/23 no matter what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Offspring has a 10 at the same marker, combined with another number from his or her Mom, it will not have come from Dad--but Son.
"It would certainly make things easier if it was possible to test the husband and his father, but both of these people had died before DNA testing became generally available as was the mother but perhaps you missed that small point."
You never mentioned that all were deceased, so what was there to miss? And how is all that the fault of some testing company? Wasn't that your original point--their so-called lack of accuracy? If the possible fathers are deceased, then there can't be a paternity test. There is the possibility of autosomal testing and receiving some DNA relatives, the distance of relativity being calculated. Let's say the deceased possible father, old Dad, had some other children. What relationship of Offspring to them? Or old Dad had some siblings with their own offspring--same question. In that case, none of the potential fathers need to be alive. All that's required is luck.
[snip of irrelevant stuff about ethnicity from Guy Etchells]
-
May I please urge some consideration to the numbet of quotes within quotes within quotes. Just look at the following quote - how busy is it now ::) , what message is actually being received by the readers now, and in the future .... a) about the Actual DNA question being discussed b) the RChatters who have responded online in this very public forum.
Readers do not need to log in to RChat to read these posts
I think the actual message that is intended to be delivered is being lost, by several factors .... the actual lines showing which post is which within the quote and so the intended message is becoming lost.
JM
The gray
I have no idea what experts you have spoken to--but difficult doesn't mean impossible. A man's autosomal DNA is not a clone of that of his father. In autosomal DNA, everyone has two alleles at every marker or locus, one donated by the father and one by the mother. Obviously a father and his son do not have the same mothers. Their DNA will look different, even though the son received an allele from the father at every marker. What will look the same is their y-DNA, which is a different story. Let's say Dad has these alleles, shown as numbers at a marker----12/23. His female partner has 8/10. Son will receive a number from each parent out of a possibility of four combinations. Let's say he receives 10/23. That illustrates why his DNA is not the same as that of his father. Now Son can pass down nothing but 10/23 at that marker to his own children. But Dad can only pass down 12/23 no matter what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Offspring has a 10 at the same marker, combined with another number from his or her Mom, it will not have come from Dad--but Son.
"It would certainly make things easier if it was possible to test the husband and his father, but both of these people had died before DNA testing became generally available as was the mother but perhaps you missed that small point."
You never mentioned that all were deceased, so what was there to miss? And how is all that the fault of some testing company? Wasn't that your original point--their so-called lack of accuracy? If the possible fathers are deceased, then there can't be a paternity test. There is the possibility of autosomal testing and receiving some DNA relatives, the distance of relativity being calculated. Let's say the deceased possible father, old Dad, had some other children. What relationship of Offspring to them? Or old Dad had some siblings with their own offspring--same question. In that case, none of the potential fathers need to be alive. All that's required is luck.
[snip of irrelevant stuff about ethnicity from Guy Etchells]
-
IMHO DNA doesn't lie - unlike people. ::)
-
You never mentioned that all were deceased, so what was there to miss? And how is all that the fault of some testing company? Wasn't that your original point--their so-called lack of accuracy? If the possible fathers are deceased, then there can't be a paternity test. There is the possibility of autosomal testing and receiving some DNA relatives, the distance of relativity being calculated. Let's say the deceased possible father, old Dad, had some other children. What relationship of Offspring to them? Or old Dad had some siblings with their own offspring--same question. In that case, none of the potential fathers need to be alive. All that's required is luck.
[snip of irrelevant stuff about ethnicity from Guy Etchells]
Sorry I must correct you.
If you had read the PS at the foot of posting number 76 you will see I did mention they were deceased.
PS All the daughters (5) have had their DNA tested, the older generations are all deceased, mother, father & grandparents.
Threads on forums develop as other people add their views and the discussion develops, that is one of the advantages of a forum it allows discussions to develop.
The thread was started as I felt that many on Rootschat thought because I was an experienced family historian who had developed skills searching archives using original registers, census return etc. I was automatically opposed to the use of DNA for research, nothing is further from the truth.
I do however have reservations on the way DNA is being promoted by many of the popular DNA companies.
The thread has discussed many aspects of the subject since I made that posting in January 2018
Cheers
Guy
-
Database sizes and available tools have moved on a long way since you made the original post, so the opportunities for success are greatly different now.
-
I was pleased to read the blog post regarding the improving of DNA testing. I do think it is a worthwhile science and many people have had amazing results. I haven't had mine done, a hangover from my Mum who believed such things were used to categorise and record groups of people for evil purposes. However, I do know a relative who had theirs tested and the results were, well, odd. Native American showed in their DNA when they lived in and came from a small Scottish village. Anyone else had something like this show up?
-
I was pleased to read the blog post regarding the improving of DNA testing. I do think it is a worthwhile science and many people have had amazing results. I haven't had mine done, a hangover from my Mum who believed such things were used to categorise and record groups of people for evil purposes. However, I do know a relative who had theirs tested and the results were, well, odd. Native American showed in their DNA when they lived in and came from a small Scottish village. Anyone else had something like this show up?
Maybe
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ogv/
I do believe there are particular problems identifying people as native American, not the least that they are not one homogeneous whole. Probably have to do a lot of reading to make sense of it
-
I was pleased to read the blog post regarding the improving of DNA testing. I do think it is a worthwhile science and many people have had amazing results. I haven't had mine done, a hangover from my Mum who believed such things were used to categorise and record groups of people for evil purposes. However, I do know a relative who had theirs tested and the results were, well, odd. Native American showed in their DNA when they lived in and came from a small Scottish village. Anyone else had something like this show up?
Yes, my husband although he did a YDNA test, it showed up Native American. His family have not left uk/Ireland since at least the mid 1600’s. He only did the test at the request of a distant (now known) relative who is living in the USA who was concerned he may have had an interloper into his tree. Both his and my husband’s trees have excellent paper trails. Further tests were done and it has now been confirmed by familytree DNA there are two branches to his haplogroup... Native American and European/Asian decent. So far there are less than 5 people who have been tested within the European group, 2 more in the USA who I suspect are linked to the same family but have different names. All can trace back to the same area of Ireland ;D
I Would be interested in hearing more about your relatives results
-
Without DNA I would never have known that my dad was not my real father. Something I never suspected for a moment.
I do feel really sorry for you having to go through this as it must be agonising but the way I think, if I had something similar I'd be so shocked I'd be wondering if I'd been assigned the proper results.
To the others with more positive stories, I enjoyed them & understand the need/want to find your true roots.
Annie
-
My DNA analysis has confirmed certain suspected "recent family ancestral oddities".
I don't understand how people can be dubious and untrusting about DNA tests, yet happily leave a load of it on every coffee cup, wine glass and beer mug they use.
Martin
-
My DNA analysis has confirmed certain suspected "recent family ancestral oddities".
I don't understand how people can be dubious and untrusting about DNA tests, yet happily leave a load of it on every coffee cup, wine glass and beer mug they use.
Martin
BIB Well I guess it depends on which part of DNA tests you are talking about doesn't it.
If you are looking at counting chromosomes in common and working out the degree of kinship or not there is a lot of good scientific rational behind it and all testing companies will produce broadly similar answers.
However if you are talking about DNA testing to establish ethnicity traits then this is notoriously flaky and testing with different companies can produce widely varying results. Indeed there is a thread on here that illustrates this very well with a number of people giving their differing results from different companies.
-
Thank you and if I find out any more info I will certainly let you know. :)
-
My DNA analysis has confirmed certain suspected "recent family ancestral oddities".
I don't understand how people can be dubious and untrusting about DNA tests, yet happily leave a load of it on every coffee cup, wine glass and beer mug they use.
Martin
Possibly because they do not expect others to try to take a DNA sample for said items and realise despite the impression that TV and Film and books may give extracting uncontaminated DNA from such items is far more difficult than may be imagined and I doubt if they general public would ever have such a sample analysed.
Cheers
Guy
-
My DNA analysis has confirmed certain suspected "recent family ancestral oddities".
I don't understand how people can be dubious and untrusting about DNA tests, yet happily leave a load of it on every coffee cup, wine glass and beer mug they use.
Martin
Possibly because they do not expect others to try to take a DNA sample for said items and realise despite the impression that TV and Film and books may give extracting uncontaminated DNA from such items is far more difficult than may be imagined and I doubt if they general public would ever have such a sample analysed.
Cheers
Guy
I wonder what became of the MyHeritage CEO's plan of extracting long dead celebrity's DNA (i.e. Churchill, Einstein etc.) from envelopes/stamps they may have licked so you could see if you were related, possibly fell into the difficulties you suggest?
-
I was going to send a number of envelopes sent by my mother but when I looked at the charges changed my mind. I think possibly very few people would pay the charges involved
Cheers
Guy
-
I was going to send a number of envelopes sent by my mother but when I looked at the charges changed my mind. I think possibly very few people would pay the charges involved
Cheers
Guy
I didn't realise they were officially offering it yet Guy, is there a link? I see LivingDNA was informally offering such a service for $400-600 (per envelope?!)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/dna-tests-for-envelopes-have-a-price/583636/
-
What if someone else licked the stamp, like a Wife or Secretary? As kids we licked stamps for visitors too!
Possibility of acquired DNA too, due to transplant / transfusion.
Wasn't Great Britain glue made from ground animal bone & boiled animal tissue?
That would throw you :o and give some totally wrong or strange results!
Upon realising the raw materials, I've refused to lick envelopes etc and used tap water for 30 years!
Mark
-
What if someone else licked the stamp, like a Wife or Secretary? As kids we licked stamps for visitors too!
Possibility of acquired DNA too, due to transplant / transfusion.
Wasn't Great Britain glue made from ground animal bone & boiled animal tissue?
That would throw you :o and give some totally wrong or strange results!
Upon realising the raw materials, I've refused to lick envelopes etc and used tap water for 30 years!
Mark
Wrong sort of glue, the glue on postage stamps & on envelopes was made from potato starch, glue on envelopes was sometimes made from gum arabic, i.e. tree sap.
Cheers
Guy
-
I wonder what became of the MyHeritage CEO's plan of extracting long dead celebrity's DNA (i.e. Churchill, Einstein etc.) from envelopes/stamps they may have licked so you could see if you were related, possibly fell into the difficulties you suggest?
I was going to send a number of envelopes sent by my mother but when I looked at the charges changed my mind. I think possibly very few people would pay the charges involved
Cheers
Guy
I didn't realise they were officially offering it yet Guy, is there a link? I see LivingDNA was informally offering such a service for $400-600 (per envelope?!)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/dna-tests-for-envelopes-have-a-price/583636/
What if someone else licked the stamp, like a Wife or Secretary? As kids we licked stamps for visitors too!
... I've refused to lick envelopes etc and used tap water for 30 years!
The DNA route - you can't always have it licked ;D ;D
-
Yes, it is very odd. I wonder about it and my relative was dumbfounded and couldn't understand it. Have you any information regarding blood groups being used to identify?
-
I have been in correspondence with someone who discovered via a DNA test that her father was not her biological father!!! What a dreadful shock that must have been! The person no longer carries out any family research.