Author Topic: Are "Trace" Results Meaningless?  (Read 24202 times)

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are "Trace" Results Meaningless?
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 14 September 16 16:10 BST (UK) »
Hello, you also have to remember that with each passing generation, your dna percentage can/will go down.  This is well seen with the Native American's. I have seen people complain that they KNOW they have NA in their blood but it does not show up.  Here is why:  if a full blooded NA marries a white man: their children will be 50% NA. (in theory). SO if that child marries a white man, their children will be 1/4 NA.  Their children marry white men the children at 1/8th and so on through the generations.  This is why I tell people NOT to get scared about the DNA not showing it.  Traits are what is normally passed on (like dark skinned, dark hair, dark eyes etc) more than the Dna (because that can be so random).  So if you do happen to have a trace, I'd be glad it is there and one day you may figure out where the trace comes from.

There grandchildren would not necessarily be 25% NA DNA wise. Because what you inherit from each parent is random there is a high chance  what dna you inherit will be skewed towards one grandparents or another.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline Jan_A

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Are "Trace" Results Meaningless?
« Reply #10 on: Tuesday 27 September 16 14:37 BST (UK) »
In my case, the ancestry.com test gave the "guess" of 50% G. Britain.  I don't wholly believe in their numbers but it gives me a place to begin.

My ggrandfather's family was BELIEVED to be from Germany because he spoke Dutch, not true - many immigrants learned Dutch on the ship ride over.  He was a school teacher and told people that the family was from Wales - which ties back to my dna being GB (This makes me believe I have more GB than thought while growing up).  In that same family line, we have a link to a woman that had a child out of wedlock to a Duke or Earl from Scotland, that child married into my family.  Again that would lead to more GB dna in my family and supports a higher % of dna from that region.

I would never believe in just the numbers, but the locations like GB.  Unlike my mom's cousin searching Germany because he spoke Dutch.

Hope that clears it up, use the DNA as a tool but all tools have flaws.
Gedmatch kit: A167435

Mum's side: Goss, Stapleton, Dreese, Conner,  Bottenhorn/Bodenhorn, Buterbaugh

Dad's side: Muhl, Junge, Simpson, Keenan, Kirk, Griffin

Offline Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,755
    • View Profile
Re: Are "Trace" Results Meaningless?
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday 27 September 16 15:54 BST (UK) »
I presume that your cousin knows that they don't speak Dutch in Germany. 

Does he/she mean "Pennsylvania Dutch", which is a dialect of German (from Deutsch)?

Offline ReadyDale

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 697
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Are "Trace" Results Meaningless?
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 27 September 16 17:38 BST (UK) »
Hello, you also have to remember that with each passing generation, your dna percentage can/will go down.  This is well seen with the Native American's. I have seen people complain that they KNOW they have NA in their blood but it does not show up.  Here is why:  if a full blooded NA marries a white man: their children will be 50% NA. (in theory). SO if that child marries a white man, their children will be 1/4 NA.  Their children marry white men the children at 1/8th and so on through the generations.  This is why I tell people NOT to get scared about the DNA not showing it.  Traits are what is normally passed on (like dark skinned, dark hair, dark eyes etc) more than the Dna (because that can be so random).  So if you do happen to have a trace, I'd be glad it is there and one day you may figure out where the trace comes from.

There grandchildren would not necessarily be 25% NA DNA wise. Because what you inherit from each parent is random there is a high chance  what dna you inherit will be skewed towards one grandparents or another.
So if the DNA will be skewed to wards one grandparent or another, the figure could be significantly higher than the 25% or significantly lower. And that is just a couple of generations back. Seems that the ethnicity element of DNA testing is just a meaningless sideshow.