Native American DNA?

[IJDisney]

According to MyHeritage, my DNA break down is;

North/West European 48.9%
Irish/Scottish/Welsh    27.6%
Iberian                        14.5%
Scandinavian               7.8%
Native American           1.2%

I always take these estimates with a pinch of salt, but I'm curious as to how they got Native American in the mix. All my paper trails stay firmly in England and Northern Europe back to the Middle Ages. So what does this 1.2% really mean? Any thoughts?

[IJDisney]

The odd thing is, Ancestry roughly agrees with MyHeritage, giving me a 99% estimate for the combination of Western European, Ireland/Scotland/Wales, Iberian Peninsula and Scandinavian (MyHeritage gives this as 98.8%). However instead of about 1% Native American (on MyHeritage), Ancestry gives me 1% British!

Can I conclude that the MyHeritage site somehow interprets my British DNA as Native American? Or does Ancestry interpret my Native American DNA as British? How can they be so different?

[davidft]

At 1% you can not conclude anything. 1% is well within the margin of error.


And that is of course before we get onto the point that none of these DNA tests tell you your geographical inheritance all that tell you is how you match with the people in their control samples, and who is to say they are correct?

[IJDisney]

At 1% you can not conclude anything. 1% is well within the margin of error.


And that is of course before we get onto the point that none of these DNA tests tell you your geographical inheritance all that tell you is how you match with the people in their control samples, and who is to say they are correct?

A major error in the control samples, then. Or a major error in interpretation. All those people who think they have Native American DNA could actually turn out to be British!

Is there anyway of finding out what source MyHeritage uses for its sample bases?

Unfortunately, of the 1,324 DNA matches that MyHeritage throws up for me, none of them actually match on this 'Native American' (or whatever) estimate, so I have nothing to compare against.

And I strongly believe that 'ethnicity' is a matter of culture, heritage, and social self-identity. It is not something that can be genetically labelled. But I am very curious about this confusion between the two companies.

[davidft]

If I may say so I think you are over fixated with this native American angle. It is only 1% which is well within the margins of error or in other words it could simply be a mistake in interpretation and you have no Native American. Remember it was not so long ago that they could not classify anyone as Native American because they did not have enough people in their control samples. Where have they suddenly got enough people to put in their control samples and how well have they verified that they are actually Native American. And anyway what constitutes a Native American is it the descendants of those that entered the Americas via the land bridge from Asia or is it those that are descended from those that crept along the edges of the receding ice sheets across the Atlantic at the end of the last ice age? Whichever those two groups will have very different DNA.


There have been posts about Native American DNA on here before if you want to do a search.


As to the MyHeritage question, not that I am aware.

[IJDisney]

If I may say so I think you are over fixated with this native American angle. It is only 1% which is well within the margins of error or in other words it could simply be a mistake in interpretation and you have no Native American. Remember it was not so long ago that they could not classify anyone as Native American because they did not have enough people in their control samples. Where have they suddenly got enough people to put in their control samples and how well have they verified that they are actually Native American. And anyway what constitutes a Native American is it the descendants of those that entered the Americas via the land bridge from Asia or is it those that are descended from those that crept along the edges of the receding ice sheets across the Atlantic at the end of the last ice age? Whichever those two groups will have very different DNA.


There have been posts about Native American DNA on here before if you want to do a search.


As to the MyHeritage question, not that I am aware.

I did do a search for previous Rootschat threads that mentioned Native American DNA (and I saw your contributions, hence you know they exist). But they largely addressed the issue of absence, not the query regarding the presence, of such a DNA label in results.

What I'm "fixated" upon is the apparent confusion between 'British' and 'Native American'. I have no fantasies about having 'Native American' DNA. I believe its an error in interpretation, or a flaw in the original sample group. I know I have a predominantly 'British' ancestry, and I am amazed that Ancestry only gives a 1% British ethnicity. Therefore I was amused that MyHeritage replaced it with 'Native American'! All further points of evidence that the ethnic estimates given out by companies can be grossly misleading.

FTDNA claims I have over 99% European DNA, plus a trace of South American! I sometimes get the feeling they just stick a pin in the map and hope no one looks too closely!

[davidft]

FTDNA claims I have over 99% European DNA, plus a trace South American! I sometimes get the feeling they just stick a pin in the map and hope no one looks too closely!

Oh I can agree with that. One company says I am 83% Western and Central Europe, 17% Scandinavian and another says I am 100% Great Britain and Ireland.

How do you explain that other than these DNA tests are not worth the claims they make?

[IJDisney]

FTDNA claims I have over 99% European DNA, plus a trace South American! I sometimes get the feeling they just stick a pin in the map and hope no one looks too closely!

Oh I can agree with that. One company says I am 83% Western and Central Europe, 17% Scandinavian and another says I am 100% Great Britain and Ireland.

How do you explain that other than these DNA tests are not worth the claims they make?

Absolutely - but only on the ethnicity estimates. The matching of people through common DNA has been very useful to me and made me feel more confident that my paper trail back to 1800 (on all lines) was researched pretty well.

But re: ethnicity - How much longer do you think these companies will get away with their misleading results?

[davidft]

Oh yes I absolutely agree with you that autosomal DNA testing can be very helpful for helping people establish links to others with whom they share common ancestors, although it is not always as easy as some people mistakenly believe. It is also scientifically based.


As to the ethnicity predictions they are just a bit of fun and not scientifically based beyond dispute,  but some people take them as incontrovertible truth and get very uppity if you question the reliability of them. So in that respect how long will the companies get away with their "false claims", the answer is probably for as long as sufficient people say they are correct. The reason "false claims" is in quotes is it is a point of contention and if you read the small print of any of the testing companies there will be enough weasel words to ensure they are covered. Its just a pity that so many are taken in by the claims of these companies in their snake oil salesmen advertising. (All my personal opinion).