RootsChat.Com

General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 11:36 GMT (UK)

Title: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 11:36 GMT (UK)
Please answer this and leave a message.  I will try to answer some of the possible concerns, and will give my reasons for testing in the first response.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 11:43 GMT (UK)
1) Autosomal DNA testing has come way down in price, and we really need people outside of the US to get this testing done.  Autosomal DNA tests ALL the genealogically important parts of your genome.  23andMe has tested over 100,000 people in just 3 or 4 years, and now that FTDNA has started offering it... price wars!  23andMe $99 and $9/month subscription for a year;  FTDNA $199 and no subscription.  Latter is a sale price through end of month.  They both use the same technology, so tests are compatible.  23andMe also gives you your Y (paternal) and mitochondrial (maternal) haplogroups which are important.

2)  Both the lead companies have excellent forums (fora?) where helpful individuals will aid you in whatever questions you have.  You can freely register with them and view what people have to say on the forums.  I did this for a month while I was making my decision.

3)  The genealogical important bits that are identified are only a tiny part of the complete human genome.   23andMe also does a health analysis based on real, technically proven science, for people who are eager to learn how to "enhance their lifestyles" (sorry, I'm cringing now) and perhaps increase their lifetimes.  They have also done som fairly important work in Parkinson's.  Your data is completely private.

4)  Good for you!  The more people that do this, the better it will be for all of us doing genealogy.  There are also "outside" projects that you can choose to share your data with that include such areas as Viking ancestry, Roma Ancestry, and a large number of others.  My results have strongly indicated that my staunchly Northern European ancestry as shown by a 350-400 year paper trail is 94.5% correct... but 5.5% may well be from an early Roma influence.  How exciting!

5)  It's late her so I am sure I've left out some possibilities.  I hope other DNA proponents will help me in answering any concerns. 

Thanks,

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Elwyn Soutter on Friday 02 December 11 11:46 GMT (UK)
Personally I am not really interested in it.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Friday 02 December 11 11:48 GMT (UK)
Simply not interested!

What would the results show me?
That a Brit is an amalgam of Celtic, Viking, Roman, European and other influences?

Think I can work that out for myself!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Friday 02 December 11 12:02 GMT (UK)
Well, I've treated myself to a test as a Christmas present.  I don't think it will tell me where my g.g. grandfather originated from, but nothing ventured.... 

One of the reasons that I went for it was because there is a huge name study on my particular surname.

I've ordered both Autosomal and Y-DNA tests.  All I have to do now is wait for them to arrive from the US. 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 12:20 GMT (UK)
KGarrad,

I just posted a long answer that was eaten by the ethernet monster.

Giving you links to 2nd to more distant cousins based upon comparisons of exact matches on specific chromosomes is the important result of these tests.   You could find a 4th or 5th cousin (say the descendant of your 5 or 6th grt grandfather's brother or sister) who has essential family information that will greatly expand your own genealogy.

Please go to the sites and browse the forums.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 12:25 GMT (UK)
Glad to hear it Nick29.  I hope people who voted/posted before I finished my blurb at
  http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,569443.msg4216885.html#msg4216885

will go back and read it.  It may be almost 4:30am here, but I forget it is a reasonable hour in the more civilized parts of the world.

Thanks,

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Friday 02 December 11 12:26 GMT (UK)
Nick,

I only want PROVEN links, backed by documentary evidence, on my tree.
And I am really only interested in historical links - rather than trying to link to people alive today.

Sure, I'm sceptical ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Friday 02 December 11 12:33 GMT (UK)
I don't think DNA will ever replace documentary evidence, but it can be a very good tool for research.  I haven't been a great fan of DNA research in the past, but now that more people are using it as prices drop, the value of it will vastly increase.  It's a bit like fingerprints - they would not be of much use either, were it not for the millions that the police and other agencies now have on file.  My situation is that my g.g. grandfather appears in a small village in what is now Greater London sometime between 1810 and 1820, and I don't have a clue where the family came from.  Because I have a common surname, it's very hard to track down family movements.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Helen D on Friday 02 December 11 12:33 GMT (UK)
I'm not sure what would be gained. We all know that the english are an amalgum of lots of races so.............. :-\

Helen
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Friday 02 December 11 12:49 GMT (UK)
When I told my friend that I'd purchased a test, he got quite agitated, and told me that I was wasting my money. 

Then he opened another £6.95 pack of cigarettes  ::)

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Billyblue on Friday 02 December 11 13:01 GMT (UK)
Well, it was too expensive.

Now, it's just a case of apathy.
A male cousin in Canada had his done a few years ago and it showed deep west of Africa roots which confirmed our negro ancestor Billy Blue, as history says the West Indies slaves came originally from Africa.

Unfortunately, they didn't pinpoint where in western Africa we might have come from.

So I voted 'other'

Dawn M
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Friday 02 December 11 13:14 GMT (UK)
Some people seem to have a misundertanding of what current DNA testing may provide the genealogist so I am pasting in a PM that I sent to KGarrad.   There was nothing private about it so it shouldn't be a problem.

"If a person has the same DNA markers as you (1 million locations are tested), you ARE related.  3rd to 5th cousins are almost guaranteed to be found (IF they test), and it falls off from there.  But even a 6th to tenth cousin (that's a lot of years) might have some names of your relatives in their profile.  It just gives you another option when your own paper search runs dry.

It is more of a proven link, in many ways, than a paper trail (non-paternal events for example).   Not all the people who test have excellent genealogies, but in my case I am desperate to find ancestors of a second and 3rd grandfather where no paper trail I have found pans out.  If I find a person who matches my DNA to x degree who has a 5th great grandfather with my 3rd great grandfather's surname, and the time he lived is right and the location/ancestry is likely, then I am a lot closer to breaking down those walls.

If I made a dollar for every hour I've tried to find the predecessors I could buy this DNA test many times over.  I have my own tree well documented in US to mid 1600s (many paternal lines), and equally well documented in Scotland and England to mid 1700s for maternal lines.  The blanks drive me crazy!"

The science of DNA is well developed, and only getting better.  The companies do a computerized comparison and give you ONLY links to people who are related to you in a genealogical timeframe; this can be from dozens to hundreds of people, but there is an empirically true link.  People from historically "inbred" populations, e.g. Ashkenazim Jews, French Canadians, Colonial Americans, etc. get a lot of "hits".  There is then real work involved (he, we're all used to that!) to determine where the actual genealogical connection is.  It is not a magic bullet, just another tool in the family researcher's toolkit.

Off to bed for real now.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Friday 02 December 11 13:31 GMT (UK)
It does my head in! Too many numbers, too many statistics, too many percentages, too vague, too expensive, too many weird scientific names, too complicated, too many possibilities, too American, too many different tests and I wouldn't understand the results anyway.   :-X

I have a very unusual surname, and I reckon they'd take one look at that and tell me what I already know. They could take my money and sling any stats and percentages at me and I'd be none the wiser.

Having said all of that, I would be curious to try a test but I would like to do so using a false name.  ;)

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: walkerpete on Friday 02 December 11 13:49 GMT (UK)
I've been thinking of paying for a test for several years now but always considered it too expensive. However prices do seem to be coming down steadily and when I receive a small cash inheritance, probably in the new year I plan to go ahead.

I'm fairly happy with the paper trail for my surname back to the early 1700s but then it seems likely there was an illegitimate birth and I could be descended from a man with another common name! It will be interesting to see if testing would support this suggestion.

Pete
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Friday 02 December 11 14:02 GMT (UK)
As Nick said earlier, FamilyTreeDNA are doing some 'specials' until 31st December  8)

http://www.familytreedna.com/
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: msallen on Friday 02 December 11 14:48 GMT (UK)
I did the Y DNA test a couple of years ago (thirty some markers, I can't remember exactly how many off the top of my head). I also had a 12 marker mitochondrial done at the same time because FTDNA had a special offer on. I don't expect to ever gain anything useful from the mitochondrial test, but I do hope to someday get something out of the Y one.

The great disappointment though is that despite there being quite a sizeable number of people with my surname registered on the various Y databases, I've never yet had a single match - to anyone, of any surname, and I'm not at all "exotic" in ancestry so far discovered via conventional means - just standard English, with nothing else other than Welsh or French in me, and you have to go back the best part of a millennium for them.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Friday 02 December 11 19:46 GMT (UK)
I had a Y chromosome test done last February in an attempt to get around a likely illegitimacy problem in the late 18th century. A man with the same surname as mine has also had the test, and we compare 33/37 markers, unfortunately we are of very different haplotypes. I think this might well be an error as the surname is rare(ish) 1200 male mearers approx worldwide, and I intend to follow this up withj FTDNA at Olympia next February. Another man in western Canada compares 36/37 markers with me and the same haplotype. As we have different surnames and originate from the same part of the country in the timeframe involved it looks as though there is further illegitimacy involved. So my experience has not been entirely happy. However, having said that, science has to be the way forward, and with an estimated illegitimacy rate of around 10% historically, it must be obvious that over a very short timescale, a paper tree is only as good as the morality of the ancestors concerned.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Shropshire Lass on Friday 02 December 11 22:56 GMT (UK)
I, too, have done it - well, got Dad to have his done - to try to break through an illegitimacy brick wall.  Nothing has come from it yet but, as more people have the tests done, we may get a result.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Saturday 03 December 11 00:08 GMT (UK)
Helen: I won't reply to your post directly but I'll refer you to books by Bryan Sykes that should answer the question as to the value of DNA testing.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Saturday 03 December 11 17:43 GMT (UK)
I would love to have it done and have been thinking of it for the past year.  I have posted before on my indecision.  The reason(s) I haven't done it yet is mainly cost.  But also when researching the various DNA tests, and the name I am most interested in (Begley), I find hardly any Begleys have done it, and they are mostly in US.  I'd be worried I'd have the same lack of response as msallen.  I haven't given up the idea though.  ps Ruskie you made me laugh!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: corinne on Saturday 03 December 11 17:59 GMT (UK)
I wouldn't be bothering just for myself, but at some point I will be initiating a DNA study as part of a one name study.  I think that is really where the huge benefits can come in.  I think I'd encourage anyone interested in the whole DNA thing to see if there is a surname society for their name, or a one-name study, and see what they are doing first.  The benefits there are that you can make a lot more headway in linking larger groups of people together, or proving some of those connections from quite some generations back that you had to just guess at before. 

I really don't see the benefits of just getting tested as an individual and finding someone else with a common ancestor 6 generations back, if you are just researching your own immediate family.  If you are looking at cost as well, most of the surname societies or one-name studies can get test kits cheaper one way or another - either by funding them from donations from members of the group or buying in bulk, so thats another reason to go with an already recognised study group. 

Having said all that, are there any male Sennett's out there (from any line) who would be interested in getting their DNA recorded?  As the administrator of the Sennett one-name study, I have a hunch that DNA testing will find that several of the (at the moment) separate lines of Sennetts in the UK will end up having the same common ancestor in Ireland.   
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Saturday 03 December 11 18:43 GMT (UK)
Helen: I won't reply to your post directly but I'll refer you to books by Bryan Sykes that should answer the question as to the value of DNA testing.

They are well worth reading, as is "The origin of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer, lengthy though.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Saturday 03 December 11 23:04 GMT (UK)
Polly88,

The benefit of the newer autosomal DNA testing is that it doesn't just test your surname line.  That is only done by a Y DNA test, and can only be done by males.  Look at this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CousinTree.svg

All of these people share a significant portion of your DNA.  Note that some of them may well have been born Begleys, such as a daughter of your grt gpa B's brother who later married.  Her descendants would be closely related to you and not share your name.  Names mean nothing in this context unless you are only interested (as in a one name study) of pursuing a very narrow part of your genealogy.

You obtain ~50% of your DNA from each parent; 25% from each grandparent; 12.5% from each great grandparent, and so forth.  Consequently that means you share ~12.5% with 1st cousins, 6.25% with 2nd cousins, 3.125% with 3rd cousins, >1.5% with 4th cousins.  This is what makes these tests worthwhile:  they can give you pretty darn good results, with a high degree of certainty, back to 5th cousins (descendants of your 4x grands).

I'm not really trying to convince anyone to do DNA testing, although I would like to see the base of those tested expand greatly.   I am interested in seeing why people don't want to do it. 

I rather facetiously put the choice of "fear of cloning" into the poll because I have seen people on this site imply that they had fears like that in the past 3 years.  Happy to see no one has chosen it so far!

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Saturday 03 December 11 23:19 GMT (UK)
I mispoke in some of the percentages above, so here is a picture that shows the percentages of DNA a relative is likely to share with you.  No wonder they say a picture is worth a thousand words...

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Saturday 03 December 11 23:45 GMT (UK)
That there:

You obtain ~50% of your DNA from each parent; 25% from each grandparent; 12.5% from each great grandparent, and so forth.  Consequently that means you share ~12.5% with 1st cousins, 6.25% with 2nd cousins, 3.125% with 3rd cousins, >1.5% with 4th cousins.  This is what makes these tests worthwhile:  they can give you pretty darn good results, with a high degree of certainty, back to 5th cousins (descendants of your 4x grands).


and that diagram there:

Here is a better picture that shows the percentages of DNA a relative is likely to share with you.



That is confusing and puts me off. I cannot get my head around it (though I think I may be a bit numerically dyslexic  ;)).

You are also surveying people here who are interested in genealogy and DNA testing can be part of that, but I think the broader population really don't care. Did I dream that there was talk of DNA testing all newborns? If so, eventually someone may find some use for the information though it could be classed as invasion of privacy etc etc.

I agree with corinne's comments re the usefulness of the test, but if it was free you'd get a lot more takers...  :)

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 04 December 11 00:01 GMT (UK)
Hi Ruskie,

Right you are on the free bit:  1 1/2 years ago (or maybe it was on DNA Day this year, 23andMe had a one day free test with a $5/month subscription for a year.  I kick myself for missing it.  I probably spend more than that on gasoline driving to the library a few times a month... and its pretty close.

People in the know hint that they will be able to do a "whole genome test" for under $500 in 4-5 years.  Currently it is very expensive ($10K?).  But since I became a grandfather a couple of years ago, I didn't want to wait that long.  A cheap full genome test will be a huge boost for medical science, but will also have wide impacts on genetic genealogy.

If you have specific questions about how the numbers work, send me a PM and I will try to respond.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Sunday 04 December 11 00:32 GMT (UK)
Did I dream that there was talk of DNA testing all newborns? If so, eventually someone may find some use for the information though it could be classed as invasion of privacy etc etc.

There was an Icelandic proposal and it looks like it is being done on a non identifiable basis

http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0%2C2340%2Cen_2649_37437_2430484_1_1_1_37437%2C00.html

Invasion of privacy was raised against the UAE's propsals in this sphere

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/blog/post/Plan-to-DNA-test-whole-population-of-United-Arab-Emirates-rights-groups-call-for-UK-forensic-contract-to-be-scrapped.aspx
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Alexander. on Sunday 04 December 11 03:18 GMT (UK)
Thanks for starting this thread, Nick. I too am put off by the cost - knowing that each year the tests get more accurate and informative, and less expensive. But I guess I could keep saying that forever!

I would particularly like my maternal grandfather (who is fortunately still with us) to have a Y-DNA test. It would help progress my one name study of his surname, particularly due to an illegitimacy in the first half of the nineteenth century. However, it's kind of awkward to ask him to take a test (even if I pay for it) as he has no direct interest - not to mention understanding - of what the test would accomplish. But I'm worried that if I don't ask him soon this opportunity will be gone forever...

Alexander
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 04 December 11 04:47 GMT (UK)
Alexander,

for the 23andme test all you have to do is get him to spit into a tube (requires about a cc of fluid).  Their test will give you your paternal haplogroup which I presume is what you want from the Y DNA test.  I am confused whether the FTDNA autosomal test also gives Y results, but some people indicate it doesn't because they also offer a separate ($119+) Y DNA test.  Note that autosomal uses SNPs (see Wiki) and Y DNA tests use STRs (see Wiki), but if all you want to know is whether Grandpa is haplogroup I1a1 or R1b2, etc. either is sufficient.  I suspect comparisons to suspected  relatives would be difficult with a SNP test if they all had an STR test.

The Y test is certainly easier for older people since it simply requires you to scrape the inside of your cheek a couple of times; no more trouble than brushing your teeth and only takes a few seconds.  I think even FTDNA's autosomal test uses this method.

Tell him what it entails and ask if he'll do it, before ordering.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Alexander. on Sunday 04 December 11 05:30 GMT (UK)
Thanks Nick...I'll be visiting him at Christmas, so I'll ask about it then.

Alexander
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 04 December 11 07:00 GMT (UK)
I am confused whether the FTDNA autosomal test also gives Y results, but some people indicate it doesn't because they also offer a separate ($119+) Y DNA test. 

Nick,

And that's part of the problem!  ;D

You are an advocate, an enthusiast even, of DNA testing, and even you are confused about what it is and does! ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 04 December 11 10:25 GMT (UK)
Autosomal DNA does not use X or Y-chromosomes.  A human cell carries 22 pairs of autosomes, and 1 pair of sex (X/Y) chromosomes.  There have been disputes over the usefulness of autosomal DNA, and FTDNA stress that autosomal DNA is not very effective in determining ancestry outside of about 5 generations, but it is claimed that it is effective in geographically placing family groups.  Y-DNA, on the other hand, is carried in the male line, and can be tracked back 1000's of generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 04 December 11 11:06 GMT (UK)
FTDNA stress that autosomal DNA is not very effective in determining ancestry outside of about 5 generations, but it is claimed that it is effective in geographically placing family groups.

That's another thing I don't understand!
My paternal line has been in Somerset for only 2 generations, and before that were in Suffolk and Essex. Dorset, Devon and Wiltshire are mixed in there as well - and all within 5 generations.
My maternal line is a little more steady, but has Somerset, Monmouthshire, Kent,and Wiltshire all within those 5 generations.

I simply not convinced!  ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 04 December 11 11:20 GMT (UK)
I wasn't convinced before, either, but now that the prices are dropping, there will hopefully be more people in the databases.

Of course, the effectiveness of any research tool will vary from individual to individual, and (just like all the other things that we genealogists spend our money on) we don't know how effective any research tool will be until we've bought it.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who has signed up to a paysite, only to find there's little of interest on it ?

My own genealogy wall concerns people with my family name in (what was) a small village on the outskirts of London.  I know that one of these namesakes was my g.g. grandfather, but I have found no way of telling whether any of the others with the same name were related or not, and I don't know where the family originated.  Since I have made contact with the descendent of one of these other people, I'm hoping to persuade them to take a DNA test, to be able to establish family relationships (if any), and maybe even an origin for the family.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Sunday 04 December 11 11:27 GMT (UK)
"All of these people share a significant portion of your DNA.  Note that some of them may well have been born Begleys, such as a daughter of your grt gpa B's brother who later married.  Her descendants would be closely related to you and not share your name.  Names mean nothing in this context unless you are only interested (as in a one name study) of pursuing a very narrow part of your genealogy."

Nick - of course I realise that it is not just Begleys I'd be looking for, but what I was clumsily trying to say is that I am mostly interested in my father's paternal line, as that is where my brickwall is.  I've gone quite far back on my mum's side, and my father's maternal line, but because my dad's paternal line comes from Ireland I am completely stuck at just my grandfather!  It is of course entirely feasible that my grandfather's siblings (if he had any) went to America but when I look at the dna project for the Begley family, all they are interested in is the "Kentucky Begleys", who they believe went to America in the 1700s.  I need info about the family from 1850s.  

I do find it confusing.  The only reason I am considering having it done is to break down my brick wall, and find where my grandfather's lot came from in Ireland.  Will it potentially help me do this?

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 04 December 11 11:37 GMT (UK)
The only way it can work is if there are descendents alive now carrying the same DNA who have taken a test.  Ideally, if they tested every male in Ireland, there would be clusters of people carrying the same Y-DNA as your grandfather.  When you pay to have tests done on sites like Family Tree DNA, when your DNA has been processed, you may receive matches with others who have matching DNA who have submitted a test.  To my mind, where it becomes important is whether the company you use charges for matches which may occur from samples analysed in the future.  Family Tree DNA only charges for the tests, and their fee includes notifying you of matches that could occur in the future.  As I understand it, some companies charge a monthly/yearly fee for your DNA profile to remain on their database.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 04 December 11 11:42 GMT (UK)
Hi Just want to tell my sucess story ( or almost).

My grandfather was illigitimate with the middle name of Lynch. We suspected his father could be an Irish shoemaker James Lynch. This is in Edinburgh in the 1860`s. A couple of years ago my brother did a DNA test and we discovered we were connected to a man in the US within 6 generations. This man `s last name is Lynch and he can trace back to Ireland to the beginning of 1800 about the same time as our suspected gr grandfather was born.

In spite of a lot of searching, even hired a professional for help, we have been unable to find our common denominator.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Sunday 04 December 11 11:43 GMT (UK)
That's useful to know Nick.  I'll bear that in mind when deciding which company to use.  I wish more people would do it, then I'd have a sporting chance of finding some cousin or other!  I wonder how many people in Ireland have had it done?  Given that so many Irish emigrated and scattered throughout the world, the dna test ought to be done free in Ireland, on the nhs, as a gift to all frustrated genealogists!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Sunday 04 December 11 11:47 GMT (UK)
Gosh Mary, how frustrating.  To know that there is a link, and to still not get any further!  I have just paid an Irish professional company to look for any clues to my family.  They are due to report back this week, and I am so excited, whilst at the same time not really expecting anything of substance. 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 04 December 11 11:54 GMT (UK)
Hi polly88.

Will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Yes it was a bit disapointing not to have come any further, but that, I guess is Ireland. No body cared much about recording the births of all those poor people.

Maybe someday we will get an answer.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Sunday 04 December 11 18:26 GMT (UK)
In case it's of any help I've got a brief article on DNA testing I wrote for the Berkshire Family History Society explaining how the tests work:

www.irishtype3dna.org/DebbieKennett.php

The most useful test is the Y-chromosome DNA test which can only be taken by men, so females need to get a male relative to test. To get the best out of the test you need to be in a surname project. Some people get lots of matches straight away; others have to wait.

The newer autosomal DNA tests can be used to find relatives across all your family lines. The big problem is that the databases are dominated by Americans and it's impossible to find the paper trail connection when all your lines are in two different countries. As more people in the UK get tested we should eventually get more meaningful matches. These tests are currently best used to prove a hypothesis (eg, do two people share the same great-grandmother?). It is however best to get people tested while they are still here to have the tests done. You can't change your mind in ten years' time when the databases have grown in size and the people you want to test are no longer around.

I've done blog posts which explain how the 23andMe and Family Finder tests work:

http://cruwys.blogspot.com/2010/07/exploring-my-genome-with-23andme.html

http://cruwys.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-family-finder-test-from-ftdna.html

The 23andMe test also gives you Y-chromosome and mtDNA results but these results are only useful from a deep ancestry perspective. You cannot use the 23and Me Y-DNA and mtDNA results for genealogical matching. Family Tree DNA's Family Finder does not give you Y-DNA and mtDNA results and you need to buy the two tests separately, but you get more out of these tests as you go into a large matching database and you can join all the geographical and haplogroup projects.

There is a large DNA project for Ireland. I've put links to all the geographical projects for the British Isles on my blog:

http://cruwys.blogspot.com/2009/08/dna-projects-for-british-isles.html

Debbie Kennett
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: heywood on Sunday 04 December 11 19:29 GMT (UK)
Hi polly88.

Will keep my fingers crossed for you.

Yes it was a bit disapointing not to have come any further, but that, I guess is Ireland. No body cared much about recording the births of all those poor people.

Maybe someday we will get an answer.

Mary

That's not entirely true. The problems occur because birthplaces in the censuses were just recorded as 'Ireland' in many, many cases. That is the  frustrating part.  ::)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 04 December 11 19:52 GMT (UK)
In my case, I do have the name of the county, but from the info I have rec. that only limited number of parishes have records which extend back beyond pre Famine times. And for the big majority of the poor, almost nonexistent.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: aghadowey on Sunday 04 December 11 19:59 GMT (UK)
It really has nothing to do with your ancestors being poor. To find Irish ancestors you need to know both their religion and where they lived and then see if any church records exist. There are several helpful topics on finding Irish ancestors on Ireland Resources board.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 04 December 11 20:41 GMT (UK)


18century Irish vital records tend to only exist for ancestors from the larger towns and/or families who posessed considerable wealth. This elimates the vast majority of the Irish population 200 years ago.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: aghadowey on Sunday 04 December 11 20:59 GMT (UK)
Actually there are no Irish vital records (births, deaths, marriages) before 1845/1864.

It depends on the religion and the particular church where your ancestors attended. Church records such as baptisms would record all children baptised not just the wealthier of the congregation. Not many churches (of any religion) in Ireland have records pre-1800 (many before mid-1850s do not exist) so the real problem is lack of surviving church records rather than economic status of individual families.

Now back on topic.... DNA Testing - Why Not
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 04 December 11 21:06 GMT (UK)

As I said, I was most satisfied with the DNA test.

Have a nice evening.

Mary.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: walkerpete on Sunday 04 December 11 22:19 GMT (UK)
Spurred on by these discussions I exercised my plastic friend this afternoon.

Looking forward to the results whenever they turn up!

Pete
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Sunday 04 December 11 22:31 GMT (UK)
Debbie, I found your explanation very helpful and easy to understand. I will have a look at your links.
Thank you.  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 04 December 11 23:29 GMT (UK)
DevonCruwys,

Yes, thanks very much for your helpful post.  I will look at your blog posts later today.  I am happy that this poll is getting some attention and that possibly a wider audience will understand how helpful it can be for all populations to be tested.  If anyone has looked at the National Geographic Genographic project site

//genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

you will understand that much of what we know about the geographic spread and population "splits" of our ancestors would still be unknown without wide testing.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Mesrne on Monday 05 December 11 00:54 GMT (UK)
I got a test done by Ancestry approximately a year and a half ago. Had quite a few matches but didn't receive any replies  :'(

I'm still interested in the subject and I'll probably end up purchasing another test from a different organization with more users.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Monday 05 December 11 12:35 GMT (UK)
I got a test done by Ancestry approximately a year and a half ago. Had quite a few matches but didn't receive any replies  :'(

I'm still interested in the subject and I'll probably end up purchasing another test from a different organization with more users.

If you had your test done by Ancestry can't you manually enter your test results on the other sites like ftDNA to see if you have matches on that site, and if you do initiate contact there ?  (I know Ancestry has the facility to enter your results manually if your test was done by another provider so assume the other firms would have this facility too)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 05 December 11 21:04 GMT (UK)
In the case of FTDNA who did my test I believe to gain access you have to be a client.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Monday 05 December 11 22:20 GMT (UK)
In the case of FTDNA who did my test I believe to gain access you have to be a client.


Yes it looks like you can "transfer in" from recognised companies, including Ancestry, for a small additional fee - which I would think is worth it if they are the market leader, and certainly a lot cheaper than a whole new test

http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=41#1613
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Monday 05 December 11 23:26 GMT (UK)
Hello -

I'm not sure if I or anyone else has brought this up before.

After you get your results from most (possibly any) companies you are not necessarily limited to comparing with the individuals who also tested with them.

You really should take advantage of these additional opportunities, rather than just rely on the database of the company you test with.

1) Y DNA testers can also load their results into YSearch www.ysearch.org   It allows comparison of cross-company STR results.  Currently has 103K records.

2)  Mitochodrial DNA has a comparable 3rd party database called at www.mitosearch.org

3)  Autosomal DNA testers have myriad options for getting analyses and connecting to groups of interest.  These include Eurogenes, Dodecad, the BGA Project, GEDMatch, and many others.  GEDMatch also has a sister site that allows individuals or groups to set up smaller comparison groups for people who suspect (and their DNA confirms) specific ancestry such as Viking or Romany.  The analyses my Eurogenes, etc. all use differing "population mixes" for their comparisons, so it is interesting to compare results.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Mesrne on Tuesday 06 December 11 00:23 GMT (UK)
Interesting...thanks for the links all
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: johnxyz on Tuesday 06 December 11 12:04 GMT (UK)
I 've voted "other".

My 3g paternal grandfather born 1814 is recorded as "natural son of" and took his mother's surname. I assume a Y test might give me some clues to the father, but I think I'd need to be lucky for there to be any matches.

And I am not convinced I would find anything useful from the mtDNA.   

So for me it's a variant of "too expensive" - not so much absolute cost, more a judgement that my perceived value of the results is less than the cost.   
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Cell on Tuesday 06 December 11 14:13 GMT (UK)
I have my own tree well documented in US to mid 1600s (many paternal lines), and equally well documented in Scotland and England to mid 1700s for maternal lines Quote nickgc

I answered other

Kind regards ;)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: youngtug on Tuesday 06 December 11 14:14 GMT (UK)
I voted too expensive but I do plan to take part in all the tests, just out of curiosity.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: canuckscot on Tuesday 06 December 11 23:41 GMT (UK)
I have tested with FTDNA and have found relatives through the databases. I think of it as a tool, much like microfiche  files or online records. By itself it may not help some people but combined with other documentation it has proven valuable.

It can be used to prove or disprove family lore. DNA doesn't lie. In my case I found a distant cousin who was able to provide me with info on family members I never knew or would have known. Often the eldest gets the family bible and decendents of siblings may not know it existed.

It also helps knowing where to look. All the records I can find on my gg-grandfather say that he was born in Scotland. Where in Scotland??? Through DNA testing I was able to match people that had a paper trail to a particular region. That narrows my search.

There's nothing hocus pocus about it and it's a different test than what police forces use so there is really nothing to be afraid of. I don't know about the rest of you but in my quest to find my ancestors I'll use every tool available.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Wednesday 07 December 11 08:53 GMT (UK)
Canuckspot, I'm pleased to see your comments on your FTDNA experiences, because my kit arrived this morning.  I really didn't expect to see it until after Christmas, because I only ordered it on 24th November  8)

As you say, DNA is just one research tool, and there's no single place that you can ever go to find out all the secrets, but that's half the fun, isn't it ?
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Wednesday 07 December 11 18:12 GMT (UK)
I agree that DNA cannot lie, but how likely is this senario, which has actually happened? I have an uncommon surname, shared so far as I can calculate from a variety of sources with approx 1200 males in the world. I took a Y chromosome DNA test 37 marker from FTDNA last February. So far I have found the following, I share 36/37 markers,together with haplotype, with a person in western Canada, whose ancestors were in the same general area of Lincolnshire as mine between 100 and 215 years ago, so a liason between the two families is quite feasible, however I and he have so far been unable to find it.

More pertinently I share 33/37 markers and a surname, but a different haplotype with a man in Worcestershire. We have separately produced possible trees which suggest a common ancestor in Wiltshire pre 1600AD, the haplotype difference suggests we have been separated for over 20,000 years, long before surnames. In view of the scarcity of the surname I think an error by the company is more likely than a co-incidence.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Thursday 08 December 11 08:43 GMT (UK)
Illegitimate children rarely inherit their father's surname.  DNA doesn't lie, but unfortunately people do.  I remember reading somewhere that as many as 60% of children do not know their biological father.  However, on a subject like this, it's difficult to collect reliable data.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Thursday 08 December 11 16:52 GMT (UK)
Illegitimate children rarely inherit their father's surname. 

The Victorian and later practice of giving the biological father's surname as a last baptismal name was an effort to overcome this. If the parents later married then all he had to do was drop his mother's surname.
Strangely there is such a case in my family where the parents married; however, their son was not brought up by his parents, but retained his mother's surname and was brought up by his uncle and aunt, my grandfather and his first wife.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Billyblue on Friday 09 December 11 03:47 GMT (UK)
Not so strange, Red - my Dad's youngest sister turned out to be my cousin, when I started delving into birth certs etc.   :o
Her parents married but never 'claimed' her so she was  brought up with her mother's surname and didn't even know who her true mother was until quite late in life.

Dawn M
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Friday 09 December 11 14:00 GMT (UK)
I think my relative knew who his parents were. His mother had been a domestic servant at a farm in the 1861 census, in 1863 he was born, and in 1865 his parents married. I suspect there might have been an element of the father "marrying beneath his station" involved too.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lookin2 on Saturday 10 December 11 13:42 GMT (UK)
Nick

I have tested 3 family members but responses are mostly from Americans.  Do you know of any testing company that has a preponderance of Europeans.  :-\Thank you. Lookin2
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Saturday 10 December 11 14:05 GMT (UK)
Just what I want to know Lookin2!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Saturday 10 December 11 14:22 GMT (UK)
Oxford ancestors probably has more British\European tests done

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/


but is is a lot more expensive that ftDNA or 23andme and does not have any where near as many people testing.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: supermoussi on Saturday 10 December 11 14:35 GMT (UK)
For what it is worth I have tested both my Y-DNA and mtDNA. My Y-DNA result proved beyond doubt links to suspected rellies that the papertrail pointed to but didn't prove by itself.

In terms of pre-surname times I am relatively young European on my paternal side (perhaps entering up the Danube to S. Germany a few thousand years ago before wandering over to Britain more recently) and old European on my maternal side (amongst the first people to repopulate Europe after the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago).

In itself my Y-DNA test has repaid itself beyond doubt in terms of confirming surname links, but the pre-surname info adds a bit more colour to my story.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Saturday 10 December 11 17:08 GMT (UK)
Nick

I have tested 3 family members but responses are mostly from Americans.  Do you know of any testing company that has a preponderance of Europeans.  :-\Thank you. Lookin2

FamilyTreeDNA has the largest database in the world.  Of course, the majority of the people on it will be American because of the proximity and because they are generally wealthier than we are.  However, there are no 'native Americans' - they all came from other countries, and a very large proportion of them came from Europe, and many of them from the UK.

As the price of testing continues to drop, hopefully there will be more people in the UK on the FTDNA database.   

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Saturday 10 December 11 17:25 GMT (UK)
Thanks David.  I have looked at those sites, and arrived at the same conclusion as you.  Maybe it's best to hang on for a bit until it becomes more popular, and more Brits get tested.  It is such a lot of money, if there is a risk of not finding a match.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lookin2 on Saturday 10 December 11 17:29 GMT (UK)
Davidf

I tried Oxford Ancestors years ago (10 markers) and nothing came up then but thank you for your reply.  Lookin2
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Saturday 10 December 11 22:36 GMT (UK)
Thanks David.  I have looked at those sites, and arrived at the same conclusion as you.  Maybe it's best to hang on for a bit until it becomes more popular, and more Brits get tested.  It is such a lot of money, if there is a risk of not finding a match.

And if you all hang on it will never become widespread. Remember a result of a test taken now will still be available in the future.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: polly88 on Saturday 10 December 11 23:19 GMT (UK)
True!  But I am just being cautious because of the cost...
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: supermoussi on Saturday 10 December 11 23:26 GMT (UK)
I tried Oxford Ancestors years ago (10 markers) and nothing came up then but thank you for your reply.  Lookin2

But did you go looking for potential matches though? If you want to discover new things in the near future you need to find potential matches using the papertrail and then confirm them using DNA.

To get results in genealogical research, whether by the traditional papertrail or by DNA, you need to invest a bit of effort. Just sitting there waiting like a lump is not going to get you very far.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lookin2 on Sunday 11 December 11 01:08 GMT (UK)
Supermouse

Tests done for my family:
Oxford Ancestors 10 markers - 1 family member
Tribes of Britain                      -     "           "

Roots for Real:                          2 family members
Y-DNA   10 markers                                 
MtDNA                                            "           "

FamilytreeDNA

Family Finder for 3 family members
YDNA 37 markers   1 family member

National Geographic 1 family member

One female family line pretty much done 1700's to date with the help of two researchers and lots of help from Roots Chatters.

About a dozen certs. obtained.

I can understand that people are hesitant about taking these tests as they are expensive even when on sale and others that are nervous about supplying their DNA.  Hopefully, on reading of others that have jumped in and what fun it is in getting results  their curiosity will get them to participate.

My original question was "does anyone know of a company that has many Europeans taking tests (hopefully over the 12 marker range)as Family Tree DNA has with Americans participating. I know Roots for Real has just started giving autosomonal tests but doubt if they have the numbers (europeans) as Family Tree.

Regards from the "lump" Lookin2


Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 11 December 11 01:31 GMT (UK)
The main reason I started this poll and thread was to try to keep the fact of DNA testing, and the decreasing costs, in the mind of a very active and knowledgeable group of family researchers (that is you, RC denizens).

Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.

It really shouldn't matter whether you have testing done by a company in England, or Scotland, or the US, but ONLY if the data are comparable from one company to an another.  In fact it may be at cross-purposes with the goal of developing as broad a database as possible from people all over the world.  Is it better to test with a company that has 100,000 members who only have tested 3000 from England, or test with a company in the UK who has tested only Europeans, but only has 2000 members total?

Scotland'sDNA is a fairly new company started by a well-known and competent geneticist and an equally admirable historian.  But they offer only Y DNA and mitochondrial testing, and at a very hefty price (170 lbs each).  It may be all you need, but I urge people to find out if any of these smaller companies give you your data in a format you can use to compare it to much larger data sets.

Nick  
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Sunday 11 December 11 02:16 GMT (UK)
A question (which may already have been answered, sorry) from someone who finds this all quite confusing and complicated:

If someone were to take a 'top of the range' DNA test, would the results tell them that there is, for example, a person living in Switzerland, three in Yorkshire, 50 people living in various states of America, and 10 in NSW Australia, who all have close matches? Would they tell you how close the matches are, and would you be able to make contact with these potential matches? (This is just an exaggerated example and I realise it might be beyond reasonable expectations)


Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.
Nick  

Apart from the Americans having more money for DNA testing, I think there may be a cultural difference for them being more interested in taking the tests than other nationalities. I think a lot of them are looking for some kind of identity or heritage, looking for their Irish and Scottish roots, and even hoping for links to royalty  ;). Maybe they see this as a way to trace their origins. The European American culture/heritage is relatively recent compared to the European and British - maybe they are hoping to find where they fit in?  :-\ I also think they may be more trusting of these tests than the Brits.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 11 December 11 03:56 GMT (UK)
Ruskie,

Hi - I'm attaching a non-graphical JPG representation of what you get in your list of DNA related cousins from 23andMe, and I suspect FTDNA's is comparable (I think DevonCruwys has some other screenshots on her site, linked above in this thread).

People set up a profile where they can put in details of their family surnames, dates, and geographic areas.  If you find an individual that seems to have a high degree of relatedness you can do a preliminary look for matching surnames and geo-locations before making contact.   As a wild (but real) example, if you find someone who has 23% of the same DNA as you, and look at the profile and it says, "I was adopted at birth and have absolutely no idea of my family tree", you know you have just found a half-sibling, or a sibling of one of your biological parents.

A more reasonable expectation is to find someone who shares under 1% of your DNA, but that is still relevant in a genealogical framework.  Most people put emphasis on those who share 0.34% or greater as a start.

Let's look at some of my stronger matches.  The 0.73% match at top is quite possibly a descendant of one of my Dad's many, many second cousins (less likely on my mother's side because of relative number of 2nd cousins they each had.  We haven't made contact yet and he has little detail in his profile.

The 55 cM, 2 segments means there is a fairly long length of matching DNA at either 2 places on one chromosome, or one place on each of two chromosomes.  The DNA doesn't lie and we are definitely related.  The I1a1 is his paternal haplogroup that is very close to mine (I1), and the string starting "R1" is his maternal haplogroup (mine is H6a1).

I have just made contact with a person who shares 0.25% of my DNA with a significant 19 cM stretch on a single chromosome.  He is on a business trip, so we haven't been able to compare genealogies, but three of his names match my own, and they were in the same area of Pennsylvania in the same timeframe as one of my 3x great grandmother's family.   I have made a tentative conclusion that his relative might be a sibling or aunt/uncle, but will wait until we can compare details.  If I am right and he has a good genealogy, I might be able to determine which one of the 3 possible couples are the actual parents of my 3x ggma.

Hope this helps,

Nick
 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: supermoussi on Sunday 11 December 11 08:46 GMT (UK)
If someone were to take a 'top of the range' DNA test, would the results tell them that there is, for example, a person living in Switzerland, three in Yorkshire, 50 people living in various states of America, and 10 in NSW Australia, who all have close matches?

That is indeed the sort of thing you can get an idea of. At the moment a small fraction of Europeans have been tested but as time goes by the numbers will increase and we will get a much better picture of how we are all connected.

Would they tell you how close the matches are

Yes. At least with your paternal DNA (known as Y-DNA) anyway.  Y-DNA mutates over time so you can estimate how far back you share a common ancestor with someone else by the number of differences between your results.

would you be able to make contact with these potential matches?

If they have chosen to be contactable, yes, the DNA companies usually provide a means to send messages.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: supermoussi on Sunday 11 December 11 09:32 GMT (UK)
Regards from the "lump" Lookin2

Hi Lookin2, I wasn't specifically meaning you, sorry if you took it personally.

Research shows that on a per capita basis, Europeans and British genealogists are much less likely to have this testing done.  I wanted to know why.

A variety of reasons:-

1) Money - GDP per capita declines across Europe as you head east and south. With recent events even NW countries are feeling the effects of the "Vampire Squid".

2) France has privacy laws relating to their custom of having a spouse and a lover, I think enacted by former President Mitterand. Presumably they are concerned that a lot of family disputes would be started if the French could compare their DNA.

3) the Mormons/Church of LDS have driven the interest in genealogy in America through their beliefs of ancestor research. Their interest has had a trickle down effect on non-Mormon Americans but to a much lesser extent on non-Americans.


One specific point I would make is that most people will find the paternal (Y-DNA) and maternal (mtDNA) DNA tests useful, but the autosomnal ones are much less clear cut.

For example most people who are British as far back as they can trace will often find they are told they are typical European if they take a "Genetic makeup" autosomnal test. "Tell me something I don't already know."

And for the more recent autosomnal tests that claim to link people connected since abt. 1800 the business model of the test only really works for people that can't trace their ancestors on paper to 1800 (who are often Americans and adoptees). i.e. someone pays for the test and in return they are told who they match in the testing company's database so that they can work out how their papertrails link up.

In the case of many Brits who can already trace their ancestors back to 1800 on paper taking this sort of test is a waste of money as they will not find out anything more than they already know. Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else? The economics just don't make any sense. If testing companies want this information they should be paying us Brits for it.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 11 December 11 10:14 GMT (UK)



And for the more recent autosomnal tests that claim to link people connected since abt. 1800 the business model of the test only really works for people that can't trace their ancestors on paper to 1800 (who are often Americans and adoptees). i.e. someone pays for the test and in return they are told who they match in the testing company's database so that they can work out how their papertrails link up.

In the case of many Brits who can already trace their ancestors back to 1800 on paper taking this sort of test is a waste of money as they will not find out anything more than they already know. Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else? The economics just don't make any sense. If testing companies want this information they should be paying us Brits for it.

Well, I can trace my paternal ancestors back to 1800, and I've taken autosomal and Y-DNA tests.  Why would I want to do that ?   Because, when you go back beyond 1841, it is very difficult to establish family relationships.  My g.g. grandfather was born abt 1805, and he lived in (what is now) part of SE London, but what was then a small town in Kent.  The earliest I can place him in the area is in 1833, when he got married, but the town has about 8 or 9 families with the same name who share both the same surname and the same occupation.  These families all seemed very close, but I can't work out whether they were close because of family ties, or if they all shared the same profession.  I'm also fairly sure that the families didn't originate from the town, and I think they originally came from Middlesex, and Middlesex covered just about the whole of the northern part of what we now call Greater London. Hopefully, DNA tests might throw some light on where they originally came from.  This information may not be instantly available, but might come to light as more people in the UK take the tests.

Quote
Why should they give both money and the information they already have (their papertrail and DNA) to someone else?

Well, to me, genealogy is all about sharing information with others.  Without the tireless (and often unpaid) work of people who indexed and digitised the censuses and BMD registers, let's face it, not many of us would have got very far.  It's all very well and good to sit in front of a PC and gain access to 1000's of ancestral records, and then pat yourself on the back and tell yourself what a clever person you've been, when really the only value you've put in is to pay a couple of hundred quid to one or two genealogy web sites, and some BMD certificates which you found via those sites.  Whilst it would be wonderful to be able to do the same thing with a DNA database, with everyone getting tested free, with cheap access, the reality is that DNA testing is time-consuming to perform, and therefore quite expensive, so it's not going to happen, but it is getting steadlily cheaper.  A DNA test is never going to completely unravel anyone's family tree, and it would be foolish to assume otherwise, but it is another useful tool.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Sunday 11 December 11 10:15 GMT (UK)
Firstly I'm sorry to say I'm replying without having read the entire thread (finishing off my Christmas cards can not be delayed much longer  ::)).

Not having a related male about the place YDNA isn't an option but I've had the MtDNA and FF test done. The FF test  has given me 90 matches most of whom seem not only to be in the USA but would seem to have families who've been there for hundreds of years which seems a bit strange for the ones who are estimated to be 3rd - 5th cousins (the closest I have so far).

Unfortnuately, my paper family history has several 'grey' areas :-[ , so I can't provide a full list of names, even in the most recent 150 years I'm at least three lines short, and this is where I think DNA has the most exciting possibilities for many of us.

When the MtDNA test comes back (hopefully in a few days) I hope to be able to at least narrow down some matches down to my maternal line, which is my chief area of interest. Meanwhile, the origin bit of the FF test showed me to be 90 odd percent Orkanian and the rest middle eastern, so maybe I don't have the mishmash of ancestry that I'd always been led to believe ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Sunday 11 December 11 10:29 GMT (UK)
At present I can see no convincing reason for taking a test myself, apart from an altruistic one.

If I had discovered a potential link with someone that could be proved by DNA I would be happy for both of us to take a test . . . provided they had enough well-researched data! However, having seen some of the rubbish that passes for research in some online family trees I have a suspicion that I could finish up none the wiser and a lot poorer.

Just knowing I am related in some way to various people around the world has no meaning for me. I already know that.

Mike.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 11 December 11 10:36 GMT (UK)
Actually, my grandfather's brother emigrated to the US via Canada in 1885, and I'm already in contact with a few of his family in the US.  It will be interesting to see if FTDNA throws up any links to them  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 11 December 11 10:59 GMT (UK)
Good points a couple of posts above Nick29.  And let's hear it for altruism mike175.  I have a fully developed genealogy back to 1800 and several lines past that.  Unfortunately, my direct paternal line is one that ends with a loud bang at about 1800, with several possibilities for predecessors.  High probability of being English, and high probability of being a man who came to America from Yorkshire in the late 1600s.  But I need 2 or 3 generations I don't have to prove this connection.  Lots of work with documents and a little help from DNA has brought me to this point, and a strong DNA connection to descendants of the Yorkshireman's family who stayed in England would solidify the link.  Conversely, finding current descendants with a known paper trail that DON'T share any DNA with me would let me cast aside  this possibility.

So I admit it:  I have a vested interest.  But then, a lot of us do.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Sunday 11 December 11 12:49 GMT (UK)
Not everyone has a solid paper trail, although in the end it's always a personal decision as to what we are prepared to accept as proof anyway.

In the past I've had 'help' from other researchers who've 'given' me details, which, when I've gone to check them, seem to have merit only in that, for example, it's the only possibility on the IGI even though it's miles away from my research area - possible? Yes, but I need more than that to include it in my tree.

As a person who takes a look at online family trees, I was intrigued to find one of my more recent ancestors that featured on other peoples' trees not only to have been given a maternal line different to the one I have (confirmed by BMD certificate) but to have FIVE different alternatives on five different trees - and unless they have information unavailable to me - they're all wrong ::)

I can't say as yet where my FF research will lead me. My suspicion is that I'll need to wait for more UK matches. In the meantime I'm contacting people who share a block of 10cm or more identical segments, to see if between us we can deduce our common ancestor, and in the meantime hoping that somehow, someway I can obtain forensic Y-DNA.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Sunday 11 December 11 13:23 GMT (UK)
That sounds like a good way to do it flipflops re the 10 cM or greater match.  I hope you have also send your raw data (zipped) to GEDMatch so you expand your base to include both FTDNA and 23andMe customers.

On paper trail I steer clear of anyone who says "see my tree on ancestry".  Regardless of their original intent, some can't resist adding suggested relatives.  If you point out they have a great grandfather living 118 years and they might want to double check it, they are as likely to quit communicating with you as thank you.

After 20+ years I have fewer than 1000 people in all lines for my children; about 700 for my line and 300 for their mom's.  I seriously question how well done a tree with 85,000 can be documented.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Sunday 11 December 11 14:31 GMT (UK)
Quote
I hope you have also send your raw data (zipped) to GEDMatch so you expand your base to include both FTDNA and 23andMe customers.

No - I looked at it and put it in the 'too difficult box ' until after Christmas

Quote
If you point out they have a great grandfather living 118 years and they might want to double check it, they are as likely to quit communicating with you as thank you.
LOL
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Sunday 11 December 11 14:47 GMT (UK)
Thank you Nickgc and Supermoussi for the explanations - that was very helpful. I think it is becoming clearer at last.  :)

I can see a DNA test being very useful to trace my paternal family. Although I know a little of their recent history, beyond that I will never be able to find out more.

If I were to purchase a test for my father in order to find out more about both of his parents ancestries (and find matches to any descendants), which would be the best test for this?

At this point I am not interested in their origins 100,000 years ago, but more like 100 or 200 or 300 or 400 plus years ago. If spending more on an "all the bells and whistles" test would give more useful results, then I would consider doing so.

Also, when taking the test, are you required to give family details or say what you are looking to discover? The reason I ask is that, as I mentioned previously, with a distinctive name whose origins are obvious, I would rather not give any clues ( ;)), and would even prefer to have the test done without using this surname. Would I still be able to add the real surname to the DNA companies contact database if I decided I would like to be contactable?

I will go back and re read the thread to see what has been recommended, but as I am still a bit confused by it all, I thought that if I mentioned what I would like from a test, one of you might have a recommendation.

Lastly, I suppose that these tests are going to improve, give more accurate results, and eventually more matches? If someone took the test today would they need to retest in X amount of years time (whenever the tests have improved) or would their results be reinterpreted? I take it that all samples are destroyed after testing and the results are sent out?

Thank you everyone.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 11 December 11 16:04 GMT (UK)
There are three types of test......

1. Y-DNA - the Y-chromosome is only passed in the paternal line, so it won't find a match in your mother's ancestry.

2. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) - is passed via the female line and used to trace maternal lineage.

3. Autosomal DNA - as well as a pair of Y or X chromosomes - each person also carries 22 pairs of autosomes.  These are gender-independent, and it is claimed that short-duration DNA tracing (within 5 or 6 generations) can be done from both male and female lines.  FTDNA calls the autosomal test the 'Family Finder' test.

It's almost impossible to get a DNA test without divulging your name - how are you going to pay for it and have it delivered ?  And I'm not sure why you would want to ?  The whole point of a DNA test is to find people with the same or similar DNA - how are you going to do this without having a database with people's names on it ?   With FTDNA, you can opt out of having your name on the database if you wish.

The accuracy of the results is not a problem.  You can already pay for 67-marker DNA tests.  What's lacking and is hoped to be improved upon is the number of people in the database.  It's a bit like fingerprints - you could employ someone who is a master at finding fingerprint matches, but if you only have 10,000 fingerprint samples, then you're still very unlikely to get any matches with a random sample taken in a pub somewhere.  With DNA, it's slightly less complicated, because they are looking for DNA sequences, not a match in the whole sample.

DNA samples, being biological, will decay with time, but your DNA profile is stored numerically, so it can't decay - most labs will destroy the samples, but you should clarify this with them if it bothers you.  You might need to take another test if (say) you originally paid for a 37-marker test, and you later wanted a 67-marker test.  You have to bear in mind that the DNA profiling that these labs do is not as sensitive or as detailed as the DNA testing done in a crime lab, so it's quite important to make sure you harvest a good number of cells when you do a swab of the inside of your cheeks, because the bigger the sample, the quicker it is to process.

With FTDNA, in addition to sending in your samples, it's also a good idea to send in your ancestry data, and FTDNA can accept this in the form of a GEDCOM file.  This is quite important, because if you are matched with another person on the database, you will of course want to know who your common ancestor was.  When you first register, you can enter just your 'earliest ancestor' on both your paternal and maternal side, and add to it when you want to.  On the FTDNA site, you have your own account pages, and on one page there is a map, where you can show people with the same DNA profiles, and people with the same surnames (if you have joined a name-study group).
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Sunday 11 December 11 21:56 GMT (UK)
Nick. Many thanks for your excellent and detailed reply. I will digest the information and get back to you later if I may (probably with some more questions I'm afraid).
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Monday 12 December 11 11:36 GMT (UK)
Hi Nick.

Re not revealing the surname - This may defeat the object of the test, or maybe I'm overly cynical, but I would just be interested to know what they would come up with without knowing the surname, because the surname makes the origin of the family very obvious. They must be able do the test without knowing the surname/s and it's origin? (It must also happen with testing women who have taken their husband's name.) I would not want the surname to influence their results, and I see it maybe as a way to test the accuracy I suppose. I would be able to get the test ordered and paid for by someone else and I would want the surname on the database after the test.

I did a bit of reading earlier today and think I would probably want the most comprehensive test just to make sure that I cover all bases while I'm at it, however the costs were very high on the site I looked at. At the very least I would want the 'family finder' plus Y DNA, as the paternal line is the one we know the least about. My father is getting on a bit, so there may not be an opportunity to take further tests too far into the future.

I expect that there will be no matches for my surname. There are only 6 living males in the world with this surname and they're all my rellies. There is the additional complication of the surname being anglicised, and the original spelling being in another language and alphabet. Does anyone know how this would work? On the database would 'foreign' surnames appear in their original language as well as in 'English'?

Thanks again.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 12 December 11 11:50 GMT (UK)
Ruskie, Lack of a surname won't defeat the object of the test! I tested under my own (uncommon) surname, and so far haven't had a confirmed match with it, the only confirmed match being with a man whose ancestors were in the same area as mine at the same time!

Regarding the transition of the surname from one alphabet to another, all this can do is to provide a series of other possible transliterations, a recent example being the attempted freezing of the Gadaffi family bank accounts. There were over 100 possibilities, but a small sample is Gadaffi, Qadaffi, Kadaffi, etc.etc. It depends largely on which Latin consonant is used to provide the appropriate sound in the language the word is being translated into.

No doubt, there is an expert in this subject somewhere on Rootschat.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Monday 12 December 11 11:57 GMT (UK)
Ruskie, sorry, but I think you are being overly cynical.  You have also seemed to overlook that surname studies are an integral part of DNA genealogy.  I'm lucky, because my (very common) surname has a huge name study group on FTDNA.  Now my surname (Martin) is of Norman origin, so if I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that there would be a huge number of matches in France, where it is the most common surname.  So when I looked at the Y-DNA distribution map for the name, I was quite surprised to find more people on the map in England than there was in France, and a whole lot more in America.

Of course, this really only shows where the highest number of DNA tests have been performed.  Surname tests are really also very good at screening out illegitimate ancestors, which may be a vital part of research, but they can also be quite confusing to those new to the technology.  FTDNA will also show a map giving the locations of all Y-DNA close matches, irrespective of surname.

I think you should bear in mind that FTDNA is based in the land where legal actions are commonplace, so I don't think anyone offering DNA tests would want to cheat, and expose themselves to legal action from their customers.  
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Monday 12 December 11 12:07 GMT (UK)
Ruskie,

You can see what Y DNA results look like by going to FTDNA and looking at their "project" pages.  Yes, various spellings of names often show up, but not in the alphabet of the original country as far as I have seen.  Since you are "Ruskie", I presume you might be implying Cyrillic.

I hope this link works as an example.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Idrissi%20tribes/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

The only Russian one I found does not have the results open to casual viewers (a silly decision in my opinion).

You can view any number of these (some projects are haplogroup related, e.g. I belong to the I1 project as well as a couple of surname projects).

I do suggest strongly that you get minimum 37 markers tested for Y, and 67 or more if you can afford it.  In your case, with few known names in paternal ancestry it might be necessary.
FTDNA's project sites are pretty easy to navigate.  Scan throught their alpha lists, select on, click on link to project page if they have one.  Then click button at top of page for Y-DNA Results and "colorized" version if available.

Nick


Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Monday 12 December 11 12:44 GMT (UK)
Thank you very much Roger, Nick and Nick. I am very grateful for the help and advice.

PS. Yes, I am talking about Cyrillic  ;). And yes I am cynical, probably wrongly so in this case.  :)
PPS. Your link did work nickgc, and I'm pretty certain I'd never be able to understand anything as complicated as that.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Monday 12 December 11 13:07 GMT (UK)
Oops!  I should have explained better that I chose that one as an example of how a non-Latin alphabet set of surnames would appear, and only if you were looking at a project level.

Initially FTDNA will give you links based on the number of STR markers you match with other people, e.g. 12 markers exact, 12 markers with genetic distance of 1, 25 markers, 37 markers, etc.  Each match will have a name and email address.  Some of them have brief trees linked.  All of my top matches have the same common surname as I do, but if it was a name that changed because of a foreign sibling of one of your father's ancestors moving from Russia to England, then you might recognize that as a probable relative.

It really isn't that difficult... and if you have it done contact me at anytime for help.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Monday 12 December 11 13:25 GMT (UK)
Oops!  I should have explained better that I chose that one as an example of how a non-Latin alphabet set of surnames would appear, and only if you were looking at a project level.


Phew.... :)

Thanks for making it sound 'fairly' simple.  ;) If/when I get the test done I may very well take up your kind offer of assistance.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Monday 12 December 11 14:14 GMT (UK)
A question on Y DNA tests.

I know there are several tests that vary in their degree of sophistication ie

Y-DNA 12 – 12 marker test not much good for genealogical research

Y-DNA 25 – 25 marker test may be of limited use

Y-DNA 37 – 37 marker test and usually recommended as the minimum for genealogical research

Y-DNA67 – 67 marker test. Offers a higher degree of sophistication and shorter timespan in which results may occur (ie matches within a smaller time frame)

Y-DNA111 – 111 marker test, the rolls Royce of tests gives as much accuracy as presently possible.

So my question is how much more statistically useful is a 67 test or a 111 test against a standard 37 test ? (I have looked at the time to most common ancestor table in the FAQs on ftDNA but not really telling me what I want - or if thats possible)

Thanks
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Monday 12 December 11 17:52 GMT (UK)
Ruski - Relative Roots http://relativeroots.net/webinars/ are having a webinar on Y- DNA tomorrow. Maybe it would be worth signing up for it? I think it's $5.

You can ask questions during the webinar, and I think there's a fairly extensive Q&A session at the end. I also think they'll give you a discount on Family Tree DNA. Hopefully you'll find he answers you're looking for.

Meanwhile the way I understand it is that the more markers you have tested the more likely it is that you can pin a match down to a more recent generation. I believe the Difference between 67 and 111 markers on a complete match is 1 generation.

AS far as cost goes, it works out cheaper to order the top range straight off, than ordering a lesser test and then upgrading.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Monday 12 December 11 21:51 GMT (UK)
Ruski - Relative Roots http://relativeroots.net/webinars/ are having a webinar on Y- DNA tomorrow. Maybe it would be worth signing up for it? I think it's $5.

You can ask questions during the webinar, and I think there's a fairly extensive Q&A session at the end. I also think they'll give you a discount on Family Tree DNA. Hopefully you'll find he answers you're looking for.

Meanwhile the way I understand it is that the more markers you have tested the more likely it is that you can pin a match down to a more recent generation. I believe the Difference between 67 and 111 markers on a complete match is 1 generation.

AS far as cost goes, it works out cheaper to order the top range straight off, than ordering a lesser test and then upgrading.

Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look at that. I've never heard of a webinar - you learn something new every day.  ;)

It makes sense to get the test with more markers - those I was looking at yesterday cost many hundreds of dollars .... I am hoping for a windfall ... from somewhere.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Tuesday 13 December 11 09:43 GMT (UK)
Of course, unless some of your relatives have been tested and are on the database, it doesn't matter what level of test you get ???
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Tuesday 13 December 11 19:32 GMT (UK)
Ruskie, I believe FTDNA have a sale on right now until 31st December
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Tuesday 13 December 11 21:21 GMT (UK)
Thanks RR - I will have a look.  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Wednesday 14 December 11 08:51 GMT (UK)
FTDNA do indeed have a sale on until 31/12/2011.

And, despite what they say on their website, their kits are despatched to Europe via Air Mail, so the kit should arrive within 14 days (maybe a little longer during the Christmas rush).
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Wednesday 14 December 11 10:15 GMT (UK)
As I remember my kit took about 10 days to arrive, but of course, you pay on ordering.

It was another month before they confirmed receipt. Said something about special customs procedures. The FF result came in about 3 weeks after that, but the MtDNA was 7-8 weeks making a total of  around 3 months.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Wednesday 14 December 11 12:40 GMT (UK)
I'm yet to be convinced; altruism, in this case, don't come cheap!

It would be interesting to know just how many people have had a successful outcome from DNA testing.

It seems to be a classic case of, until enough people do it, it isn't worth doing :-\

Mike.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Wednesday 14 December 11 14:56 GMT (UK)

It seems to be a classic case of, until enough people do it, it isn't worth doing :-\


Well, if we all did that, the telephone certainly wouldn't have caught on  :D

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Wednesday 14 December 11 16:04 GMT (UK)

It seems to be a classic case of, until enough people do it, it isn't worth doing :-\

Not so much a case of 'enough people' as more of 'the right people'.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Wednesday 14 December 11 16:10 GMT (UK)
A note of caution, in some families it might lead to considerable problems if believed siblings each took the test.i.e. I've taken it, that should do for my son, my brother and his sons etc.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Friday 16 December 11 12:49 GMT (UK)
A note of caution, in some families it might lead to considerable problems if believed siblings each took the test.i.e. I've taken it, that should do for my son, my brother and his sons etc.

I'm having a problem with this :-\ do you mean as in #your daddy's not your daddy but your daddy don't know# :-X?* Or something technical

*http://www.lyricsg.com/67851/trini-lopez/shame-and-scandal-in-the-family-lyrics
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Friday 16 December 11 20:49 GMT (UK)
A note of caution, in some families it might lead to considerable problems if believed siblings each took the test.i.e. I've taken it, that should do for my son, my brother and his sons etc.

I'm having a problem with this :-\ do you mean as in #your daddy's not your daddy but your daddy don't know# :-X?* Or something technical

*http://www.lyricsg.com/67851/trini-lopez/shame-and-scandal-in-the-family-lyrics

I wasn't sure I understood Roger's reply either, but that's also how I read it. If that's the case, they'd be none the wiser anyway and assume that your results will also be the same for them ....   ;)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Friday 16 December 11 22:58 GMT (UK)
It's a risk to be considered, I suppose, like offering to pay for a test on a relative you don't actually know who just might think it'd be amusing to mess it up in someway on your dollar :o 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Saturday 17 December 11 09:32 GMT (UK)
I think with the prices charged, it would be unlikely that anyone would volunteer to pay unless it was a very deserving relative !  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Saturday 17 December 11 11:46 GMT (UK)
I think with the prices charged, it would be unlikely that anyone would volunteer to pay unless it was a very deserving relative !  :)

At the prices they charge I'd not only have to be exceptionally keen, I'd have to see photo ID and take and post the sample myself :D :D :D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Saturday 17 December 11 18:05 GMT (UK)

I'm having a problem with this :-\ do you mean as in #your daddy's not your daddy but your daddy don't know#

That summarises a situation which has either arisen in my family or in a "parallel" family sometime between 1795 and 1900. You put it much more succinctly than I did thanks!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Saturday 17 December 11 23:06 GMT (UK)
I'd like to take credit for being succinct but it's a song lyric that should take any credit  ;)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Billyblue on Sunday 18 December 11 01:16 GMT (UK)
[
Quote
That summarises a situation which has either arisen in my family or in a "parallel" family sometime between 1795 and 1900. You put it much more succinctly than I did thanks!
Quote

And you don't always need DNA to prove that either   :)   :)   :), for people alive or recently so.

A friend of mine discovered, when he took up pathology as a profession, that his dad wasn't his dad - I didn't ask how he knew but presume their two blood groups were incompatible!
He was never game to ask his mother about it, or even mention it to them    ::)  ::)  :P  :P

Dawn M
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 18 December 11 09:54 GMT (UK)
I read somewhere that as many as 60% of the people in the western world have fathers whose name does not appear on their birth certificate.  Of course, nobody knows the actual number.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Sunday 18 December 11 11:52 GMT (UK)
Of course it doesn't have to be infidelity.

The story of how when James II's wife was giving  birth a substitute was smuggled into the Royal Bedchamber in a warming pan because the genuine baby was still born.  False rumour or not, it's hard to imagine that the idea of substituting one baby for another if the circumstances demanded it should be confined to works of fiction.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Sunday 18 December 11 12:54 GMT (UK)
Of course it doesn't have to be infidelity.

The story of how when James II's wife was giving  birth a substitute was smuggled into the Royal Bedchamber in a warming pan because the genuine baby was still born.  False rumour or not, it's hard to imagine that the idea of substituting one baby for another if the circumstances demanded it should be confined to works of fiction.



This was taken seriously enough for two things to have happened, 1) Up to recently the Home Secretary was required to be present at the birth of an heir to the throne; and 2) Royalty do not usually take DNA tests, the only exception I know of being Prince Phillip to determine the identity of the Romanov remains.

If royalty did take DNA tests, the entire hereditary edifice might collapse.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Monday 19 December 11 10:30 GMT (UK)
I've heard that some members of the royal family go out of their way to avoid DNA tests  ;)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Monday 19 December 11 11:16 GMT (UK)
The story of how when James II's wife was giving  birth a substitute was smuggled into the Royal Bedchamber in a warming pan because the genuine baby was still born. 

I guess not too many people would be in a position to 'acquire' a substitute newborn baby to order . . .  :-\

I doubt if many of us are going to find that situation in our ancestry . . . apart from those descended from royalty, obviously  8)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Monday 19 December 11 12:40 GMT (UK)
The story of how when James II's wife was giving  birth a substitute was smuggled into the Royal Bedchamber in a warming pan because the genuine baby was still born. 

I guess not too many people would be in a position to 'acquire' a substitute newborn baby to order . . .  :-\


If it was me and I was desperate, I'd probably have one lined up from a baby farm. :(
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 19 December 11 19:20 GMT (UK)
I've heard that some members of the royal family go out of their way to avoid DNA tests  ;)

I can think of at least 2 reasons for this.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: sillgen on Monday 19 December 11 19:32 GMT (UK)
This was a serious thread.  Please do not go off topic.
Andrea
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Monday 19 December 11 23:04 GMT (UK)
Getting back to the original question, I think my earlier point about hearing some DNA success stories was relevant.

All we seem to hear about is the potential of the new science. If there was more evidence of people actually finding out something useful and making new connections it might encourage others to take the plunge.

Mike.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: flipflops on Tuesday 20 December 11 05:21 GMT (UK)
there are a few here http://www.familytreedna.com/testimonials.aspx

I thnk having a test is a bit like buying into a lottery. Maybe you'll be lucky and get the big one, or maybe just a tiddler or maybe nothing :-\

It looks to me as though the best chance of success comes through the Y-DNA test results which not only identify matches, but how distant. This can be backed up by surname name projects,

My own story is that the family finder test identified fairly distant cousins. I don't think any of us have all our family names, and even the names that matched were pretty common and didn't match on location.

I'd ordered a MtDNA hopefully to distinguish matches to my mother's mother and so on. The trouble is that brought back more than 10,000 matches and (as yet) no filtering system that allows me to compare those to my Family Finder matches.

It IS something of a lottery, I've heard of quite a few people who haven't had a reply from their closest match. I haven't either :( 

So my answer would be yes. It's innovative, exciting and worth doing, but not so much if you're looking for instant results, but usually better chances for someone with a Y-DNA test.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Wednesday 21 December 11 12:31 GMT (UK)
My closest match contacted me, his email was in my in box before the e mail from FTDNA; however, though we are in close collaboration we have no other matches with people carrying either his ore my surname. So far!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: supermoussi on Saturday 24 December 11 15:30 GMT (UK)
Royalty do not usually take DNA tests, the only exception I know of being Prince Phillip to determine the identity of the Romanov remains.

If royalty did take DNA tests, the entire hereditary edifice might collapse.

I think enough aristos (and buried remains) have been tested to provide us with basic Haplogroup info about a lot of Royal Lines, although more detailed tests that can be used in paternity are obviously harder to come by. By and large it would seem a lot of Royals were some form of common old W.European R1b, like most of the rest of us!

Here is an interesting post listing some Royal HGs:- http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25236-Haplogroups-of-European-kings-and-queens

There has also been a rumour doing the rounds this year that King Tutankhamen was also R1b but there has been no offical confirmation as far as I know of this yet. However, this hasn't stopped "news" channels picking up on it:- http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Technology_and_Science/1244504143/ID=2079249107
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Monday 26 December 11 01:12 GMT (UK)
Hi Folks.  For some reason I haven't been getting email notices of updates to this thread.  Consequently haven't checked it for a week or ten days.

I agree that there need to be more success stories, or that those that happen need to be popularized more.  The ones that seem to get the most press are adoptees who happen to find their birth families.  I have been following a particularly poignant one of those at 23andMe that has just been resolved.  One report is here:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/12/adoptee-reunites-with-birth-family-at.html

Most of us either know, or can figure out from records, our 1st cousins, second cousins, and some third cousins, etc.  The gold standard (IMO) is to connect through DNA to a cousin who helps us break through a brickwall  in our ancestry.  It is unlikely in the extreme that will happen until more people get the testing done.

So to essentially say "I'm not going to get my DNA tested until more people get theirs tested", is extremely counterproductive for genealogists.

Here is my success story that happened just recently, although it is really pretty minor.  A third great grandmother born in a certain area in 1818.  I had notes as to her possible father (2 possibilities), but did not include in my tree since I have stringent requirements for doing so.  Three weeks ago I started working with a matching DNA "cousin" on 23andMe.  Comparing surnames, family first names over generations, and geographical locations, we determined that our ancestors had to be related.

We did not find the exact link  It was probably circa 1720-1740, a few years prior to when our records "run out" about 1770.  But what we worked out together gave me the confidence to finally define which of the two possibilities was my 4th great grandfather and finally, after many years, include him in my tree.

Now if only a cousin or two who are related through my direct line 3rd grt gpa and my only missing 3rd great grandparents Dunn would test.

Nick

   



Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Monday 26 December 11 12:00 GMT (UK)
DNA appears to be still very much a minority interest among genealogists, judging by the fact that only 57 out of 172,253 RootsChat members have voted in the poll so far  :-\

I suspect that only those who have particular problems are prepared to invest the several hundred pounds/dollars necessary to pursue this course. The same amount invested in Ancestry, FindMyPast, Origins, etc. would seem to have far greater chance of yielding useful information.

I remain an interested, but detached, observer for now . . .

Mike.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Monday 26 December 11 12:05 GMT (UK)
But if you never take the plunge, you`ll never know what surprises are waiting out there.

And the more that do the test, more DNA info is uncovered. There can be an unknown uncle /brother waiting for an answer.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Monday 26 December 11 13:15 GMT (UK)
Quote
But if you never take the plunge, you`ll never know what surprises are waiting out there

. . . and if you don't buy a ticket you'll never win the lottery   ;)

But you'll probably never win if you do buy one :(
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Monday 26 December 11 16:22 GMT (UK)
Yes, but when we got the DNA results back. it was just like winning the lottery!!

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Monday 26 December 11 18:21 GMT (UK)
Just curious, but since the originator of this thread is American or at least living there, does he know, has anyone traced the DNA of the native American tribes, and if so, what did the results show. Do they have African roots??


Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Monday 26 December 11 20:51 GMT (UK)
Hello Malky.  No on the African roots for native Americans except in the sense that we all have African roots if we go back far enough.  American Indians show up in DNA tests as having an Asian profile, as had been assumed by many.

There is an excellent National Geographic program called "Journey of Man: a Genetic Odyssey on youtube.  It explains quite a bit in 2 hours in nicely digestible 10 minute chunks. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

I recall one thing pointed out in this film was that many native Americans did not want to be tested since they didn't want hear anything that might negate their creation myths.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Tuesday 27 December 11 09:43 GMT (UK)

I suspect that only those who have particular problems are prepared to invest the several hundred pounds/dollars necessary to pursue this course. The same amount invested in Ancestry, FindMyPast, Origins, etc. would seem to have far greater chance of yielding useful information.



Been there, done that (for quite a few years).   No tee-shirt  ::)   

For me it was a choice of paying these sites year after year with no promise of a breakthrough.  Or take a risk that something would turn up with DNA testing.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: california dreamin on Tuesday 27 December 11 09:53 GMT (UK)
Hi all

I view DNA testing as an investment for the future.  Even though what it offers now is so interesting I think the "science" will get better and in the future more avenues & possibilities may open up - and perhaps in my dotage I will find out something further about my family through the test taken today.  My Dad who has done the test for our family will have been long gone but what a legacy to leave your family..clues to your past.

Kind regards
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Tuesday 27 December 11 10:06 GMT (UK)
In my case time is running out. I have just turned 80 on Christmas day. So far only one of my kids is interested but maybe some of the grandkids in time will be interested in what I have found. I paid for my brother to take the test on Ancestry so we at least know who are unknow gr gr grandfather was. We have a match with another man 6 generations down the line. Only hoping some day we will find the common denominater.The paper trail dabbers of somewhere in Ireland at the beginning of the 1800`s.

So any Lynchs out there please take contact with me. I`ll gladly pay for the test!!

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Tuesday 27 December 11 10:34 GMT (UK)
I would never try to dissuade anybody from taking a DNA test, if they can afford it. I just can't see any reason for doing it myself at present, which is my answer to the original question.

Were I to take a test and find a distant cousin, unless he had information that I don't have, I would be no further forward. Even if he did, having seen what passes for research in so many other people's trees, I'm not sure I would be any the wiser anyway.

Mike.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: california dreamin on Tuesday 27 December 11 12:41 GMT (UK)
The following link is to an Irish DNA project - it outlines what I feel is one of the many worthwhile reasons for doing DNA testing (and I personally find very interesting).  I do understand this particular project will only be of interest to those of us with Irish roots.  I would love to participate in a project such as this one except that all 8 of my great-grandparents are not from Ireland

http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=110&a=1966

ps
Here is another link that some of you may find interesting:

http://www.facebook.com/DNAday
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Tuesday 27 December 11 13:03 GMT (UK)
I can understand why some aren`t interested in doing a test, but in my case I had an illigitimate grandfather. We were rather lucky as his middle name was Lynch and there was no reason for this. Just along the street there was an Irish shoemaker James Lynch, and we joked for years that he was the  guilty culpruit. did some searching for this James Lynch and found a bit more info but decided to do the DNA, and since then found a far out cousin in the US with the last name Lynch.  Hope more Lynchs will do the test too.

Some might say it s looking for the needle in the haystack but it`s worth it in the end.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Tuesday 27 December 11 13:15 GMT (UK)
What I read into it is, if the recorded father is not the biological father, or the recorded mother is not the biological mother, then the back-tracking of past generations gets confused. Once data is confused, and results are extrapolated from said data, then the wrong conclusion(s) is/are inevitable. It's like history. It's only the point of view of the person who recorded it. It was thought up until recently that mtDNA is maternally inherited, but the latest research is showing that this may be a wrong conclusion. It could be paternal in some cases.

Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Tuesday 27 December 11 15:36 GMT (UK)
What I read into it is, if the recorded father is not the biological father, or the recorded mother is not the biological mother,

My problem in a nut shell, but so far neither side know in whose line the culprit is.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Tuesday 27 December 11 23:24 GMT (UK)
Malky,

Please provide some scientific journal references for your claim that males can pass on mtDNA.  Unless you are talking about bivalves rather than humans, I don't think you will be able to.

I am aware of a single study, of a single individual, where the researchers claim this happened.  It was done 10 years ago.  One case does not make for a generalizable claim.  As far as I know, nobody claims that that mtDNA can be inherited from the paternal line.  Science requires that claims be backed up with evidence, and that studies can be replicated, before they are accepted as providing valid conclusions.

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Wednesday 28 December 11 08:18 GMT (UK)
"It was thought up until recently that mtDNA is maternally inherited, but the latest research is showing that this may be a wrong conclusion. It could be paternal in some cases.

Here's one, there are others if you look :-

http://biology.ucsd.edu/classes/old.web.classes/bimm100.FA04/lecture/Paternal_mtDNA.pdf

Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Wednesday 28 December 11 10:17 GMT (UK)
One of the inherent problems with DNA is that it is very easily compromised by contamination from other samples.   This becomes even more of a problem when samples are taken at home by non-professionals under less than ideal conditions.  There's an amusing story of Interpol trying to trace a woman whose DNA pattern was found at a number of murders and other crimes across continental Europe.  To their credit, the police eventually traced the woman..... to a factory making swabs for DNA tests  ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Wednesday 28 December 11 11:39 GMT (UK)
Thanks Malky, but the study you cite is the exact same one I am aware of from 10 years ago.  Nothing in it implies that we should distrust current mtDNA testing in its possibility for giving us valid maternal lineage information.

Mitochondria are what provide the necessary chemical energy for cells.  A human (female) egg contains an estimated 100,000 to 1 million mitochondria.  A human (male) sperm cell contains 100 to 1000 of them.  And all of those in the sperm cell are contained in the tail (flagella) to help propel the little bugger on his way to the goal. Once a sperm enters the egg, the tail disconnects, so those mitochondria cannot enter the egg.  If it happens it is a one in a million fluke (I made up that number, but it is definitely rare enough that we don't need to consider it for genealogical purposes.)

I hope you read the paper you cited so you can see how even these researchers declare what an abnormal occurrence it was to find such a thing.  Read especially the second to the last paragraph where they refer to a "pathogenic mutation that gave this one or few mitochondria a selective advantage".

Nick

 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Wednesday 28 December 11 14:16 GMT (UK)
Yes, I did read it, and I also read the 2002, 2004 and 2005 research papers.

Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Wednesday 28 December 11 15:23 GMT (UK)
We transferred our DNA info from Ancestry to ftDNA around the middle of Dec. Any idea how long it takes for them to process the info about a possible match.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Friday 30 December 11 16:03 GMT (UK)
Hello Malky.  No on the African roots for native Americans except in the sense that we all have African roots if we go back far enough.  American Indians show up in DNA tests as having an Asian profile, as had been assumed by many.

There is an excellent National Geographic program called "Journey of Man: a Genetic Odyssey on youtube.  It explains quite a bit in 2 hours in nicely digestible 10 minute chunks. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

I recall one thing pointed out in this film was that many native Americans did not want to be tested since they didn't want hear anything that might negate their creation myths.

Nick

This is interesting as sometime in 2011, or late 2010, there was a TV programme that explored the possibility of some native Americans arriving in the Americas via an Atlantic crosssing.

I can not remember the name of the programme, but by posting this hopefully someone will recall it.

Basically the hypothesis of the programme was that some ancient Europeans crossed the Atlantic by edging across the retreating Ice sheet ie walk a bit, sail a bit sort of thing. They used DNA analysis (mtDNA I think) to prove there were native Americans who had been their a long time but had not come via Asia. They also used archaeological techniques to explain some of the artefact's native Americans had but would not be expected to have had.

OK sorry if that is all a bit vague, but the programme was very good and uses a good bit of scientific fact as opposed to assumption. Hopefully someone will recall its name .....
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Friday 30 December 11 18:43 GMT (UK)
Seems the programme I was thinking of in post 154 may have been
Ice Age Columbus

http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Columbus-Were-First-Americans/dp/B000NNN7TK

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: youngtug on Friday 30 December 11 18:53 GMT (UK)
There was a programme filmed about someone making reed boats in Africa to a native design and sailing to [or nearly, cannot remember] America. Following on from Thor Heyerdal I suppose. In "The Journey of Man" series it was the Australian Aboriginals that would not believe the DNA. The native American tribe embraced the idea. http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Friday 30 December 11 19:08 GMT (UK)
There is also historic evidence of Viking settlement on the costal area of Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows. There are a further two sites of settlement called Straumfjord in the north, and one called Hóp in the south

Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: youngtug on Friday 30 December 11 19:34 GMT (UK)
From the Saga of Greenland and the Saga of Eric the red.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Flattybasher9 on Friday 30 December 11 19:44 GMT (UK)
Not only from the "sagas" but from artifacts found.


Regards

Malky
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: youngtug on Friday 30 December 11 19:54 GMT (UK)
Not disputing the existence of Norse sites or artifacts, I also believe to a great extent the Saga's. The sites they have found may and may not be the ones named in the Saga's. There may well have been several different meetings of peoples from the old world and America, either by accident or design but I think the theory put forward in "the journey of man" is probably correct
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Shropshire Lass on Sunday 01 January 12 17:03 GMT (UK)
Seems the programme I was thinking of in post 154 may have been
Ice Age Columbus

http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Columbus-Were-First-Americans/dp/B000NNN7TK

Is this the same - www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbustrans.shtml

It was a fascinating programme.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Tariana on Wednesday 18 January 12 02:29 GMT (UK)
I tested with 23andme a few years back on their old platform, and I got it on sale, so I only paid around $115 with s&h.
I ordered two V3 platform kits when they were on sale, so with s&h those two only cost me around $15. They're just sitting though in my hopes of 23andme ditching that silly subscription fee.  :P

I'd totally upgrade if they dropped that monthly fee. I understand the reason for it, but I don't make that much and I have bills to pay and groceries and gas to buy.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: corinne on Saturday 17 March 12 13:41 GMT (UK)
I'm in the process of planning for a surname DNA study.  A little more difficult for me to get started as the companies like familytreedna want you to purchase a kit first, and as I am female, and don't have near male relatives with the surname I am interested in (my maternal grandmother) I need to get other people on board with the idea first. 

For me as a GOONS member (Guild of one-name studies), a DNA study will never replace the paper trail, but it should be able to give me some valuable clues to link together  some of the separate family groups I already have a good documented history for.  It can be a way to start breaking down brick walls.  For example I have a number of separate family lines of SENNETTs that go back to Ireland, with immigration to the UK in the mid 1840's, many of whom claim to originate from Co Wicklow.  The chances that they are brothers, or cousins is fairly good, but if I could get DNA evidence that showed  exact matches between descendants of the different lines, then it would give me clearer direction for searching for those common links.  In another example I have someone claiming that a very early ancestor of a cornish line may have come from Cambridgeshire, where I have trees back to about the same point in time.  If DNA matched exactly there it would not only link two of the earliest family groups I have, but would give added weight to the claims that the man who came from Cambridgeshire is the same person as the purported father of the cornish ancestor - this would direct my research to how someone from Cambridgeshire came to be living in Cornwall.  A third useful thing that DNA can do particularly for a one-name study is rule out family groups where the current name of SENNETT has originated from other than the irish SINNOTT/SYNNOTT or the  cambridgeshire SENIGHT and has been the result of someone just taking on SENNETT as a fairly close anglicisation of for example a german or austrian name.

I'm not that keen on the "health benefits" to be obtained from 23andme - while a few of the disorders can be reasonably predicted from their testing, in most cases your family history would have thrown this up already and you be aware of inherited conditions.  Most of the other "probability" of disease is not actually that much different from the general population when you look at the chances properly.  I am also not particularly interested in the DNA testing that gives information on racial backgrounds (mostly mtDNA I think, or female line DNA) because again, for most folk a decent paper trail of genealogy will make that clear. 

The only other thing that is stopping me from starting a surname DNA study right now is that I think a proper one-name project really needs to involve lots of different family groups.   Already I link in with quite a few researchers who have well-documented their own family lines, and it would make sense to get them on board with a DNA study to both share the load of analysing and reporting, as well as identifying appropriate people to test (who will often  be them or someone from their immediate family).   People just doing individual testing won't get anywhere near the benefits and possible matches that people who are doing it as part of a defined surname study will.   A surname study can also set up a fund with some of the DNA companies to allow other family members (eg women) to contribute to the costs of the tests, and also the tests can be bought at a considerably discount if through a formal study group. 

If anyone does have SENNETT/SINNOTT/SENNITT connections and is interested in genealogical DNA, then please contact me - you can pick up my direct email address from the Guild of One Name Studies website, or start my PM'ing me here.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Inicky on Saturday 17 March 12 18:40 GMT (UK)
i know im British born and bred, many generations  ;D
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 18 March 12 11:14 GMT (UK)
Hi.

Can someone explain to me what a 12/12 YDNA match means.

Mary
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 18 March 12 11:32 GMT (UK)
When you send in your DNA sample, you (usually) have the choice of 12, 20, 25, 37 or 67 marker tests.  Since the bigger numbers require more time in the lab, the tests are more expensive as you go up.  Markers are repeat DNA sequences.  A 12/12 marker result can give a reasonably accurate result back to about 7 generations, but for really accurate results, you probably need 37 markers.   Someone with a 12/12 marker could be a close relation - it may just be that they haven't taken a more accurate test.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: grandma on Sunday 18 March 12 11:56 GMT (UK)
Thanks Nick.

My brother has done a DNA test, I believe it was 37 marker and was told there was a 12/12 marker result. Was wondering how close it was.

I`m waiting patiently to hear more from him, but right now he`s 9 hours away from here.

Mary.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Sunday 18 March 12 14:13 GMT (UK)
I had a Y chromsome 37 marker test, personally I tend to discount 12 and 25 marker results as there are very many of them, so far I have only had one result in the 37 range, it was 36/37 and led to discovering that my Dad's uncle was a naughty boy around 1870!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nick29 on Sunday 18 March 12 14:52 GMT (UK)
Some people only pay for 25 marker tests - so it doesn't necessarily rule them out.  They may possibly be 37/37 if they took a 37 marker test.  I've had a 12/12 marker test result with someone in Holland who is pretty adamant that none of his ancestors set foot in the UK on the last 400 years.  Odd though, because his surname is a variant of mine  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lynne EnZed on Sunday 18 March 12 15:38 GMT (UK)
Hello

I am inquiring on behalf of a friend (who has given permission to share some of his details) to ask if the DNA testing will tell him the identity of his Dad? He has someone in mind but this man is not listed on my friend's birth certificate (father's details left blank). His mother told my friend when he was a teenager that this man was indeed his Dad but he would like to have proof. [He had always assumed her second husband was his Dad but he was, in fact, his stepfather.]

While his mother is of Irish descent, his [alleged] Dad (his mother's first husband) is half Chinese. Would a simple 12 marker test confirm this? My friend looks nothing like this man, hence the uncertainty.

There's a bit more to it but we are hoping a DNA test will sort out the confusion and confirm if he has Chinese ancestry?

Sorry if the answer is obvious!  :P  :-[

Thank you!  :D

Kind regards and God bless you,
Lynne x
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Sunday 18 March 12 16:12 GMT (UK)

There's a bit more to it but we are hoping a DNA test will sort out the confusion and confirm if he has Chinese ancestry?

If person A wants to know if person B is his father what he really needs is a paternity DNA test - this requires samples from person A and B

If person A only wants to know if he has some chinese ancestry he could take a family finder DNA test which gives details of a persons ethnic DNA make up. However this could be imprecise as although it may show person A had some chinese inheritance that would not automatically mean person B was his father.

So I guess if there is any chance of testing persons A and B together that would be the best way to go.

Another route could be if person B had a known child, person C then you could do a sibling DNA test to see if persons A and C were siblings / half siblings.

What you can do will depend in large part on who is prepared to be tested - and its not cheap
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lynne EnZed on Sunday 18 March 12 16:51 GMT (UK)
Hi davidft

Thanks for that! Person B has died but there is a known child Person C who is willing to be tested. The cost is prohibitive at the moment so that is why was wondering if person A could just do it and get a satisfactory result?

Given the circumstances, if test for Person A did show some Chinese ancestry then Person B would almost certainly be his Dad but, as you say, it would not be conclusive and a sibling test with Person C would be the best option.

However, if Person A had the test first and there was no sign of Chinese ancestry then Person C would not need to be involved and it would be cheaper?

Thank you very much for your help!

Kind regards and God bless you,
Lynne x
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Pejic on Sunday 18 March 12 20:54 GMT (UK)
I answered other because I do not see how it would work, I had a test once which linked me to one of 9 or so "Eves".

I think the gene pool of my ancestors is so mixed up that I would have many "irrelevant" matches.

However, if someone could offer an explanation of how it would help me find:

1. My wife's illegimate mother's unrecorded father

2. Which William Hissey was my great, great, great grandfather

3. Which William Brooks was my great, great, great grandfather

4. Who were the parents of my great, great, great grandfather Richard Wernham

I am prepared to reconsider
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 19 March 12 18:19 GMT (UK)
I think Pejic your queries come in the catgegory "The impossible we do today. miracles take a little longer. :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: lubok on Monday 04 February 13 05:52 GMT (UK)
Hello, and many thanks to Nick for starting this debate on the topic of DNA testing when it comes to family tree research  ;D

Y-DNA testing definately has its place in genealogy research, and is a very useful tool in the kit of researchers. I admit the cost can be a hindrance. That said, the cost is coming down all the time, and you need to keep an eye open for specials that are announced now and then (I'm a Familytree DNA customer, and they had one last December 2012).

Those people who have been able to explore both their maternal and paternal lines of their families, in great depth, are very fortunate. I haven't been so fortunate, for I've hit an "illegitimacy brick wall", like some other researchers that I've come across, and can sympathise with those people. My paternal grandfather was illegitimate, and there is a big "NR" in capital letters on the part of his birth certificate where his father's information is supposed to be. I've explored my mother's side, and my father's mother's side, but have gotten NOWHERE with my father's father's side. It would be lovely to know what my actual maiden name should have been, and I get a bit annoyed when some people disparage DNA research for genealogy purposes. How lucky they are to not have a big brick wall to try and break down without needing to resort to DNA testing. It means so much to me to solve this mystery, and to find out my paternal roots.

So anyway... back to my paternal grandfather...

He was told, in later years, that his biological father was a BURGESS. Instead of blindly accepting that bit of information, I researched the Burgess family in New Zealand (where I live) and I entertained the possibility of using DNA to test this theory (after all, what use is a paper trail when you cannot prove that paper trail?) At least I had a surname to go on - what was there to lose? So in 2009 I sent my brother's DNA off to the FTDNA company, requesting a Y-67 marker test. My results came back... no close matches at that stage, which was a bit of a disappointment. Still, I was optimistic that in time, as more people got tested, I'd be closer to solving the mystery of my paternal line. A year or so later, I get a Y-67 one step removed result with a DICKSON. Scratching my head, I asked for advice from the Burgess Surname Project administrator (Michael Burgess), and he said the only way forward was to enlist a male from the Burgess family that I could be connected with.

Then I had a serendipitous discovery a couple of years ago. My son's teacher, a Burgess, came from that NZ Burgess family that could possibly be my biological paternal line! It wasn't so straightforward, however, because this teacher is a female (I needed a sample from a male). After while of agonising on exactly how to broach this idea with her ("Hey, how do you feel about getting your Dad to submit his DNA for genealogy purposes?"), she asked her Dad, who then agreed to helping me prove or disprove this Burgess connection. Not only did I have to get my teacher on board, we had to have her Dad on board, too! The cost of it all (which I gladly paid) didn't matter to me. Enlisting a member of the Burgess family to do DNA testing was my only way to find out once and for all if I belonged to the Burgess family.

Ecstatic! I arranged for a swab test (Y-37 markers was recommended to me, and not Y-67 markers), waited for it to arrive, gave it to my teacher (who then gave it to her Dad), and then he speedily did the swabbing before I hurriedly posted it back to the USA. For an agonising amount of time (3 months, I think it was), I waited. I cannot say how disappointed I was to get the results, to find out that my brother's DNA did not match my teacher's father's DNA. I was secretly hoping all along to have proved that I was a Burgess. Still, even after the disappointment, I was able to PROVE that I wasn't a Burgess... which was still significantly important to me. DNA testing made that possible, and that's why DNA testing is so important, and the reason why we need genealogists to swab. If you don't believe in the importance of DNA, please think of your children/grandchildren and so forth and do it for them. After all... once you've gone, it's one less person that they can approach for assistance should they be into researching their tree at some point in their lives. In many instances, it can be too late to test theories that require DNA, because the person that could have provided their DNA has passed away.

Anyway (this is getting to be very long...sorry!)
Michael (the Burgess co-ordinator person, who's been a very helpful man!) recommended that I upgrade to Y-111 markers. So I've done that, and await a match at some point in the future. I know that DNA testing for genealogy purposes is a waiting game, and doesn't give you gratifyingly instant results. But I'm happy to wait, and with more people testing I'll have a better chance of solving my "illegitimacy brick wall". It a very useful tool indeed!

Best of luck to those who those who are awaiting test results, or hoping for a match in the near future!

Rachel
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 04 February 13 13:06 GMT (UK)
Reports have suggested that with an illegitimacy rate of around 10% DNA testing soon becomes a lottery. I had a 37 marker Y test about 2 years ago, so far I have one 36 marker match, descendant of illegitimate offspring of my grandfather's brother; different surname. A man with the same surname as me has a 33 marker correspondence, paper trees suggest convergence around 1600AD; however different haplotype, mine is Viking, his central European. Since the surname has only around 1000 males worldwide I wonder if an error has been made with either of our haplotypes? However, FTDNA aren't having it unless we pay a further fee.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Pejic on Monday 04 February 13 17:07 GMT (UK)
Lubok - Burgess was a title as well as a surname, are you sure he was referring to a surname?

As someone also descended from several love children (see my previous post) I recognise your problems/frustration, but realistically speaking unless some odd document surfaces (like a will or a bastardy order or a notation in a parish register or a letter in a solicitors archive) I accept that it is more profitable to research other lines after a day or two.  Given that 10% of births are not actually related to the recorded father anyway, the search is the fun.

Good luck
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: degenerate on Tuesday 05 February 13 01:38 GMT (UK)
However, if someone could offer an explanation of how it would help me find:

1. My wife's illegimate mother's unrecorded father
2. Which William Hissey was my great, great, great grandfather
3. Which William Brooks was my great, great, great grandfather
4. Who were the parents of my great, great, great grandfather Richard Wernham

I am prepared to reconsider

Genetic testing doesn't offer such information directly or provide any guarantees whatsoever, but it might help put you into contact with genetic relatives that may have the information you need or can help you infer it.  If your distant relatives have not been tested then there'll be nothing for you to match with in any significant way.

You can pick the test that suits your needs (or go for all of them):


If, for example, there are two men with the same surname but with paper trails that do not overlap, then Y-DNA testing can prove beyond reasonable doubt if they are descended from the same man. A negative result would prove no biological connection, but could not rule out adoption, remarriage, illegitimacy etc.

There is a good element of chance involved but you don't know what you will find until you try. It has the potential to save money as it can help rule-in or rule-out avenues of research and save you time and effort on fruitless ventures.

I can say that it has been absolutely invaluable to me in my one-name studies and has proven various hypotheses where documentary evidence was not forthcoming or extant.

I am hoping the Richard III venture will encourage more people to get tested.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 05 February 13 07:49 GMT (UK)
Genetic testing doesn't offer such information directly or provide any guarantees whatsoever, but it might help put you into contact with genetic relatives that may have the information you need or can help you infer it.  If your distant relatives have not been tested then there'll be nothing for you to match with in any significant way.

This is what, to me, is completely mind-boggling!

If someone offered you, say, a birth/baptism certificate at a cost of several hundred pounds or dollars, but with the same guarantee - you would laugh in their faces! ;D

A comparison website (isogg.org) suggests that, at 22nd December 2012 the largest database had about 180000 people.

So, the chances of finding a match (statistically) will be tiny?!

Sorry - still a sceptic! ::)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: degenerate on Tuesday 05 February 13 10:26 GMT (UK)
If someone offered you, say, a birth/baptism certificate at a cost of several hundred pounds or dollars, but with the same guarantee - you would laugh in their faces! ;D

You can get an autosomal test for US $99 (& courier shipping) these days from 23andMe so it isn't that expensive. Some projects might even pay for your testing.
 
Bear in mind a certificate gives you a single shot of information, whereas a genetic test can continue to provide information many years after getting your results as matches come in.  It can also reach further back in time where certificates and paper trails might not exist. It will always be a gamble though.

Quote
A comparison website (isogg.org) suggests that, at 22nd December 2012 the largest database had about 180000 people.

The significance of 180,000 database size depends on the nature of the test. People from Ireland or the UK typically have hundreds of autosomal cousins in practice but might have few, if any, good yDNA or mtDNA matches. It is difficult to estimate the chances correctly in advance although if you are male and have a surname that has been tested already, then odds might be calculable. But I can understand the skepticism in the face of having to pay. If there was certainty ahead of time, then you wouldn't need to test!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: mike175 on Tuesday 05 February 13 11:22 GMT (UK)
I still feel that a lot of people are being conned persuaded to spend far too much money with very little chance of a successful outcome.

There are specific circumstances where a test may prove/disprove a potential connection and save much tedious searching in blind alleys, but for the majority of cases I feel sure the money is better spent on proper research.

Mike
yet to be convinced, but still open-minded  ;)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: degenerate on Tuesday 05 February 13 12:05 GMT (UK)
I still feel that a lot of people are being conned persuaded to spend far too much money with very little chance of a successful outcome.

I can't say that I've seen any excessive claims of late, but I would hope that no-one is making firm promises in the face of uncertain odds. We do know that it has worked for a substantial number of people and success stories are easy to find.

Like many, I am happy to pay for limited testing of targeted individuals whose results will be valuable to my one-name studies, so in such cases financial concerns are not relevant.

Quote
There are specific circumstances where a test may prove/disprove a potential connection and save much tedious searching in blind alleys, but for the majority of cases I feel sure the money is better spent on proper research.

I would think that the majority of cases that turn to genetic genealogy are those that have exhausted traditional avenues (if not in actual fact, then in practical terms) and they are using it to complement or confirm their research, or open up new avenues. DNA does not obviate the need for traditional documented research.

There are some situations where I feel that gratuitous testing would be an altrusitic act and that is where, for example, male individuals with rare surnames have no male heirs and no close paternal-line male cousins. Once they die then their yDNA disappears and future genetic genealogists cannot access it to reach back in time. We have seen with the Richard III project that there is a risk if you leave it too late, there might be no suitable mtDNA or yDNA carriers left to test.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Mike in Cumbria on Tuesday 05 February 13 12:06 GMT (UK)
Personally, I'm worried that they might clone me.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: nickgc on Tuesday 05 February 13 12:15 GMT (UK)
Glad to see this thread was picked up again... but sorry I decided to look at it at 4 am).

Quote
...it might help put you into contact with genetic relatives that may have the information you need or can help you infer it.

This is exactly what I find a positive outlook as opposed to a negative.  I was dead in the water on some of my lines and this is exactly what happened to give me additional leads.  I started this thread with the hope that some of my direct line distant cousins in (probably) the Yorkshire area would test so I could get additional verification that that is where my line left from for America in the 1600s.

As to the 180,000 testers with one company:  that is 23andme.com.  As mentioned, they have recently declared a crash program to get at least 1 million testers and to do so have reduced their total cost for testing to $99 (16 months ago I paid $99 and a $9/month subscription for 12 months).  It has been well worth it just for the learning and entertainment experience, without even including the possible genealogical relevance.  Be aware:  23andme use DHL for overseas shipping, so that will add about $80 for you cost if you are in the UK.  But that allows you rapid receipt and a rapid turnaround.

Here is a link that might answer some questions although a lot of the information is somewhat out-of-date.

http://www.singularityweblog.com/23andme-dna-test-review-its-right-for-me-but-is-it-right-for-you/

Nick
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: lubok on Wednesday 06 February 13 06:46 GMT (UK)
Lubok - Burgess was a title as well as a surname, are you sure he was referring to a surname?

As someone also descended from several love children (see my previous post) I recognise your problems/frustration, but realistically speaking unless some odd document surfaces (like a will or a bastardy order or a notation in a parish register or a letter in a solicitors archive) I accept that it is more profitable to research other lines after a day or two.  Given that 10% of births are not actually related to the recorded father anyway, the search is the fun.

Good luck

Hi and thanks Pejic and everyone who addresses my post. Pejic, my Granddad was given the full name of his supposed biological father (now proven not to be), but I only wrote the surname 'Burgess'... so in this case, Burgess is definately the surname, and not a title.

Granddad was born in 1916 in New Zealand, and I don't think there are such things as bastardy orders (could be proved wrong, however!) Hmmm... I shall think some more on this one!

Regards
Lubok
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Storm™ on Thursday 07 February 13 10:26 GMT (UK)
Well I can only speak for myself but I did have the test done and there are pros and cons. I am really glad I did have it done because otherwise I would have traced the wrong family.

So thats the basics the details are:

Got bought a 20 marker test from Genebase. (if you cannot mention companies here please feel free to remove the company names without asking)
The results came back and also where I stemmed from. Western Africa btw. So as side note I found out that you could use the results to compare to living people. Others that had uploaded their DNA results. Now at 20 markers I had thousands of matches. With nearly a different surname for each one. So here is the con. There is no point, in my humble opinion, to use DNA (Y chromosome) to trace your family unless you have the maximum amount of markers done. I did not know this at the time. Later I went with Family Tree DNA and had their 111 marker test. I feel they were more professional. The kit was better but the info was still evasive with regard to matching to living people. Basically what happens is you have a match at say 20 markers.

Thats great. If you have the same surname also brilliant. However just because you match 20 for 20 markers it does not mean you are related. Certainly not in genealogical terms. You could have another 20 markers tested each. But on those you do not match at all. The results are used to create percentage of relatedness. And at this marker match 20 out of the 40 tested you would not be considered to be related at all apart from 1000's of years ago - perhaps. Ok so if you have the maximum and they have the maximum and you match 111 markers for 111 markers it is probable that you are very related and within the last 100 to 200 years. Especially if you have the same surname. But it can also be much closer. So in that respect is it useful for finding your great grandfather ....

well just perhaps

In my case I had my grandfather. He has passed away but before he did he discovered that his surname was not what he thought it was. He found his surname was Peacock. Now I have traced him back from that point and also had the maximum marker test. I discovered that my DNA matches are all Forsters. Which is a surprise because they should be my surname. The surname my grandfather thought he had. Lucky for me my surname has a DNA project. I was able to compare my DNA with people who I know are in my family tree, who have my surname now. And I match them about as much as I do a pencil. Had I not had the test, I would have traced my grandfather back. And hen traced a family tree that is not mine. No I found I was a Forster. I found my grandad may have been given away by his mother, to her sister. I have found he was probably a twin. I have found out so much and it has cleared up so many mysteries that I cannot tell you how amazing I find this.

Had I not done my DNA none of this would have come to light. I would merrily traced the paperwok family and thought it was my bloodline. And they are literally nothing to do with me. And my grandfather was not a product of them at all. They came along a year after he was even born. But the DNA made us look harder and trace more carefully and gave us more information. I cannot imagine how gutted I would have been if I had not had it done.

I would totally encourage anyone to do it. It can also be made cheaper. FTDNA do offers. usually not on the 111 marker test. but you can join a family project and they often offer a discounted test. Usually 10% off. this is what I did. And today after two years I have finally found my bloodline LOL. The answers were there in the paperwork. But I did not know they related to me in any way. I know now ONLY because of the DNA.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Lookin2 on Saturday 09 February 13 15:51 GMT (UK)
Nick

Just a point that I do not think has been mentioned re cost of 23@me which has now been lowered to $99.00 (they are aiming for a million subscribers) with no monthly subscription costs but the mailing cost to UK is around  $75.00.  I really like 23&me though and with Family Tree Family Finder,  a win, win situation.  Lookin2
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Sunday 10 February 13 11:43 GMT (UK)
Nick

Just a point that I do not think has been mentioned re cost of 23@me which has now been lowered to $99.00 (they are aiming for a million subscribers) with no monthly subscription costs but the mailing cost to UK is around  $75.00.  I really like 23&me though and with Family Tree Family Finder,  a win, win situation.  Lookin2

Remember if they get their target number they gross $99,000,000. Not a bad day's work.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: tidybooks on Sunday 10 February 13 17:33 GMT (UK)
snipped.....but the mailing cost to UK is around  $75.00.....snipped

It must be some size of envelope ! $75.00 someone is having a laugh.

Tom
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Tuesday 12 February 13 16:05 GMT (UK)
No they ship by DHL! This company are extremely fast, I once received some model train parts shipped by them in 48 hours from California. Only problem with them is they are prohibitively expensive, its the shipper that charges $75 not the enormous envelope.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Sunday 23 April 17 22:52 BST (UK)
I've done my YDNA testing to 67 markers, my sister has had her atDNA and mtDNA done and my daughter has had her atDNA done. After a great deal of analysis, the only thing that the DNA has established is that my sister is my daughter's Aunt.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DavidG02 on Tuesday 25 April 17 07:35 BST (UK)
Someone asked if there had been any successes using DNA testing to find long gone families. I have detailed my DNA and Brickwall elsewhere.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=732026.msg6168303#msg6168303

What a DNA test did was confirm a link between two people , myself and a lady in Tasmania. Both descended from an Alice Robson. One (myself) from her 1st husband Richard Blackstone (Blacksell) and her from her mothers new lover.

So while we can definitely prove a link to an Alice Robson (1797) we can logically assume a link to Richard through family records and now the DNA.

I have also been able to confirm a link to a few more families. Interestingly enough all along similar family lines to the Blacksell yet separate ie Charles Blacksell , Richards son married a Muirhead. I have a connected DNA link to a descendant of a sister of the married lady. ie we shared her fathers or mothers DNA.

On the same line and in similar circumstances I link to the Vidler line from Kent/Sussex who married into the Munn family , who in Australia linked up with the Blacksells.

Is there a reason why one family would dominate a DNA line?
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: brigidmac on Tuesday 25 April 17 08:09 BST (UK)
I want my mother to be tested but don't know if correct  links would show up on ancestry if it's linked to my tree

Also don't understand which is the best company to go with or the best type of tests

My grandmother was a love child and we think she had cousins in GB
But don't know her mothers married name

and we know who were  her paternal   Fellman aunts and uncles from Russia Emigrated to USa

Which type of DNA test would find their descendants??

Ancestry has an offer this week so i would like to decide soon whether to go ahead and order it
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nova67 on Tuesday 25 April 17 09:40 BST (UK)
I find Ancestry DNA the most helpful. My mother, her first cousin and I have tested. My aunts are testing.
I have worked out about a dozen of our matches.  The shared matches function is particularly useful and I have sometimes been able to work out the links between multiple shared matches. 
I find this form of matching more understandable.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: heywood on Tuesday 25 April 17 09:53 BST (UK)
I am like Nova67. I have enjoyed and can understand Ancestry.
I did Ancestry test last year and find that the matches are generally USA based but I can see where the match would originate from because of my Irish connection. I wasn't looking for relatives, it was and is a more personal 'fun' thing to do. There is one USA match, at the moment to my English side.
At the time, I posted a message on here and was advised to upload my file to Gedmatch which I only got round to in the past couple of days. Already I have received a query but I must confess that the information is a bit overwhelming at the moment - I have no idea how to interpret anything.
However, the match (distant) who has contacted me is a name from the right area in Ireland.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: brigidmac on Tuesday 25 April 17 10:38 BST (UK)
I expect there could be matches which don't seem to fit because many men do not know the child s not their own

My  Scots grandfather was a sailor so i could have second cousins all over the world ....Unless as i suspect my father was not his natural son...."While the mice are away  the cats play too "
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: familydar on Tuesday 25 April 17 11:47 BST (UK)
Heywood, you'll get the hang of the basics of GEDmatch.  There's no need to get involved with all the bells and whistles if you don't want to.

FTDNA is somewhere else you could upload your results to for free, more software to get your head around I'm afraid but you might get some additional matches. 

It always helps other users to understand where a match might be if you upload an ancestor tree also.

Jane :-)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: heywood on Tuesday 25 April 17 11:50 BST (UK)
Thanks Jane. I am sure I will fathom some of it given time.  :)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Nova67 on Tuesday 25 April 17 12:02 BST (UK)
My main motivation in testing and getting multiple family members to test is to discover how long my family has been in Australia, and particularly breaking down the brickwalls of my female ancestors to VDL. I am interested in knowing my earliest convicts and their significance to the history of European settlement here.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: brigidmac on Tuesday 25 April 17 14:00 BST (UK)
I ordered a kit today ...Was tempted by the offer of 2nd kit half price because i want to do both my own and my mother's

it's very expensive so i do hope some matches turn up

My father's sister is now 90 it would be good if we could get her to do it too as my father has passed away .

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Bobby G on Saturday 29 April 17 14:40 BST (UK)
Absolutely love how I can use DNA with my ancestry. I currently have 3 folks connected to my tree through paper and DNA. No close rellies, family have taken a test yet but I'm slowly working on that. I have my DNA in as many databases as possible (4). Have also taken a test with livingDNA, result from this will be exportable some time this year. Best decision that I took a test. Would recommend to anyone.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Liviani on Saturday 29 April 17 18:34 BST (UK)
I haven't done my DNA yet, but I am very interested in getting this done.

Trouble is, I'm female. I am more interested in my paternal line. I have no brothers and I don't have a good relationship with my father for him to get a sample done.

As far as I understand if I was to do a test it would trace through my mother, then her mother, her mother and so on?
I will probably do it out of curiosity at some point. 

If my son (he is still a child so I'm not sure if this is allowed?) had his DNA analysed would this show his father's line only and nothing from me?
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Adrian Stevenson on Saturday 29 April 17 19:10 BST (UK)
Hi Liviani, your basic understanding is correct.

To find out your Dad's Y DNA line, he would need to take a test.

If you tested your Son once is is old enough, this would show his Father's Y DNA line.

Being Female you have two options.

1) Do an MT DNA test. This would show your Mum's line.

2) Do an Autosomal test: this would give you genetic make up inherited from your parents and Grandparents going back about 500 years.

Hope this helps?

Cheers, Ade.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Guy Etchells on Saturday 29 April 17 19:56 BST (UK)
Illegitimate children rarely inherit their father's surname.  DNA doesn't lie, but unfortunately people do.  I remember reading somewhere that as many as 60% of children do not know their biological father.  However, on a subject like this, it's difficult to collect reliable data.



It is assertions like this that makes me laugh.
DNA testing is very much in its infancy and is based on tiny samples.
Nothing has as yet been proven as definitive. Babies have been observed being born but when their DNA has been tested it does not match their mother's DNA.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years things may have changed but now DNA testing is little more than an expensive toy that proves nothing but claims much

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Liviani on Saturday 29 April 17 21:11 BST (UK)
Hi Liviani, your basic understanding is correct.

To find out your Dad's Y DNA line, he would need to take a test.

If you tested your Son once is is old enough, this would show his Father's Y DNA line.

Being Female you have two options.

1) Do an MT DNA test. This would show your Mum's line.

2) Do an Autosomal test: this would give you genetic make up inherited from your parents and Grandparents going back about 500 years.

Hope this helps?

Cheers, Ade.

This is very helpful indeed. Thank you. So the autosomal test is more restrictive in time than say an MT line?
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: shellyesq on Saturday 29 April 17 21:36 BST (UK)
Perhaps in 20 or 30 years things may have changed but now DNA testing is little more than an expensive toy that proves nothing but claims much

I found my birthfather's family through DNA testing, so certainly not an expensive toy for me.  I can provide you with many news stories with a similar result to mine.  I've also tested my husband's DNA, and his matches conform with the paper trail. 

I'd certainly be interested to see a story that supports your claim that a child's DNA doesn't match their mother's without some unusual medical explanation for it.  The law of my country certainly finds that DNA legally proves where a child comes from.  I imagine it's the same in yours.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Saturday 29 April 17 21:50 BST (UK)

It is assertions like this that makes me laugh.
DNA testing is very much in its infancy and is based on tiny samples.
Nothing has as yet been proven as definitive. Babies have been observed being born but when their DNA has been tested it does not match their mother's DNA.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years things may have changed but now DNA testing is little more than an expensive toy that proves nothing but claims much


Your information is very out of date. What is your source for the claim about babies not matching their mother's DNA? Close relationships such as parent/child relationships can be definitely proven with DNA testing.

Family Tree DNA were selling their Family Finder test for just £40 at Who Do You Think You Are? Live and the AncestryDNA test was just £49. That does not seem expensive to me.

AncestryDNA now have four million people in their database:

https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/

Most British people are getting several thousand matches, including 50 or more fourth to sixth cousins or closer.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: KGarrad on Saturday 29 April 17 22:12 BST (UK)

It is assertions like this that makes me laugh.
DNA testing is very much in its infancy and is based on tiny samples.
Nothing has as yet been proven as definitive. Babies have been observed being born but when their DNA has been tested it does not match their mother's DNA.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years things may have changed but now DNA testing is little more than an expensive toy that proves nothing but claims much


Your information is very out of date. What is your source for the claim about babies not matching their mother's DNA? Close relationships such as parent/child relationships can be definitely proven with DNA testing.

Family Tree DNA were selling their Family Finder test for just £40 at Who Do You Think You Are? Live and the AncestryDNA test was just £49. That does not seem expensive to me.

AncestryDNA now have four million people in their database:

https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/

Most British people are getting several thousand matches, including 50 or more fourth to sixth cousins or closer.

False news?!

DNA testing for parents CANNOT prove a positive, but can prove a negative.
That is, it can prove that someone is not related.
But if a match is found it is not conclusive that the two people are, in fact, related.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Saturday 29 April 17 22:27 BST (UK)
DNA testing for parents CANNOT prove a positive, but can prove a negative.
That is, it can prove that someone is not related.
But if a match is found it is not conclusive that the two people are, in fact, related.

Are you confusing Y-chromosome DNA testing with autosomal DNA testing?

Modern autosomal tests using 700,000 autosomal SNPs can verify first to fifth degree relationships with almost 100% certainty:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083094/

With 700,000 SNPs you can definitively confirm parent/child relationships.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: hurworth on Saturday 29 April 17 22:40 BST (UK)

Your information is very out of date. What is your source for the claim about babies not matching their mother's DNA? Close relationships such as parent/child relationships can be definitely proven with DNA testing.


I think Guy is referring to chimerism which is not common.  There has been a couple of instances where a woman's ovaries are from "sister tissue" from the rest of her.  So her baby would be a genetic niece or nephew to the tissue from her mouth swab.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Saturday 29 April 17 22:53 BST (UK)
I think Guy is referring to chimerism which is not common.  There has been a couple of instances where a woman's ovaries are from "sister tissue" from the rest of her.  So her baby would be a genetic niece or nephew to the tissue from her mouth swab.

You may be right. Here's an interesting article I saved about chimerism:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/failed-paternity-test-vanished-twin

Note that in these cases it was recommended that additional testing be done at 23andMe (one of the companies that offers genealogical DNA tests) because the consumer tests cover so many more markers than the standard maternity and paternity tests used for legal testing.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: familydar on Sunday 30 April 17 12:51 BST (UK)
So the autosomal test is more restrictive in time than say an MT line?

yes and no, it depends on what you are hoping to find out.

I believe a mitochondrial test will tell you with more or less 100% certainty if you and someone else are descended from the same female, through the female line.  So you will get a match with your mother and maternal aunts, because their mother was your maternal grandmother.  If you have a daughter she will also match.  But the test won't tell you how many generations you have to work back to find out where the divergence happened (the common ancestor).  Could be a hundred years, could be a thousand or more.

An autosomal test will tell you with a fair degree of certainty if you are related to another person, male or female, and how many generations you might need to work back to find the common ancestor, but because your autosomal DNA is a mix of what you inherited from each of your parents, and they from theirs, it gets less certain the further back you go.  Different companies have different views on the number of generations beyond which it's not a lot of help.

Autosomal tests are currently the least expensive of all tests available for family history purposes and are offered by a range of providers.  I've taken an autosomal test and it has identified distant cousins I had no prior knowledge of.  I've not done a mitochondrial one.

DNA testing isn't a shortcut to researching your family tree by traditional methods.  You'll only get matches with people who have done the same test, and in the grand scheme of things only a tiny proportion of the world's population have.  But in time that will grow.  It's a test that keeps giving.

If you go the autosomal route, whichever provider you choose, please do upload your results AND an ancestor tree (with dates and locations) to GEDMatch.  If you test with a company other than FTDNA you can also upload your results and tree to their database for free.  The more places you have your data, the greater the chance of making contact with distant cousins.

best wishes
Jane :-)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Monday 01 May 17 06:28 BST (UK)
Here is why YDNA testing is now producing very good relevant genealogical information as well as having an unbelievable potential in the future to identify the YDNA signature of everyone on your male pedigree chart.

If you are Irish AND test for the second largest Irish haplogroup L226, we are now getting to the point where we can chart how 80 % are actually connected. Just two years ago, all we had was the YSNP branch itself - L226 which was estimated to be around 1,500 years old. Today, we have 47 branches under L226 with another branch being added every couple of weeks. For its older brother, M222 (the largest haplogroup with Irish orgins), this haplogroup is around four times larger than M222.

Of the L226 branches, 15 of 47 are in the genealogical time frame (under 1,000 years old). The O'Brien line now has six genealogical branches (one branch is down to under 200 years). We now know that if you test Y5610 positive, you are a direct descendant of King Brian Boru (this line has been tested by Sir Conor O'Brien, the official title holder of the O'Brien surname whose title has been been documented for each title holder since around 1,000 AD). Here is a chart showing how 78 % of L226 are related to each other (this was only 35 % charted six months ago):

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L226/Haplotrees/L226_Home.pdf

We are recently making huge strides in certain parts of the tree of mankind. M222 and L226 are much more prolific in Ireland since both are directly linked to the first kings of Ireland that united / conquered all of Ireland. But even the third largest Irish haplogroup, CTS4466, is now growing to a reasonable size and is starting to enter into the major discovery phase of testing. There are dozens of haplogroups that reside in Ireland today that are now at this level or will be by the end of the year.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: CarolA3 on Monday 01 May 17 09:44 BST (UK)
Illegitimate children rarely inherit their father's surname.  DNA doesn't lie, but unfortunately people do.  I remember reading somewhere that as many as 60% of children do not know their biological father.  However, on a subject like this, it's difficult to collect reliable data.
It is assertions like this that makes me laugh.
DNA testing is very much in its infancy and is based on tiny samples.
Nothing has as yet been proven as definitive. Babies have been observed being born but when their DNA has been tested it does not match their mother's DNA.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years things may have changed but now DNA testing is little more than an expensive toy that proves nothing but claims much

Cheers
Guy

I'm only an onlooker here and not qualified to engage in debate on the rapidly evolving technicalities of DNA testing.

It just struck me as odd that Guy has chosen to take issue with a post that is:
(a) over five years old and therefore probably irrelevant now;
(b) written by a poster who is deceased and therefore unable to explain or modify his statement.

Carol

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Billyblue on Monday 01 May 17 10:20 BST (UK)
Carol
Guy probably didn't look at the 2011 date.
Guy may not have known that 'a poster' is now deceased. 
Just because someone is deceased is hardly cause not to comment on something they said.
People do it every day - on Ned Kelly, Freud, you name it  :P :P  :P

Dawn M
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: CarolA3 on Monday 01 May 17 11:16 BST (UK)
Guy probably didn't look at the 2011 date.
Guy may not have known that 'a poster' is now deceased.

 ??? ??? ???
Both facts are clearly displayed on the post in question.  How else would I know?

Yes, obviously we can all comment on anything that's ever been said by anyone anywhere.  I simply noticed that an argument was developing based on Guy's reaction to an old comment by the late Nick29, and to me that seems rather futile.

Carol
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Guy Etchells on Monday 01 May 17 14:55 BST (UK)
Guy probably didn't look at the 2011 date.
Guy may not have known that 'a poster' is now deceased.

 ??? ??? ???
Both facts are clearly displayed on the post in question.  How else would I know?

Yes, obviously we can all comment on anything that's ever been said by anyone anywhere.  I simply noticed that an argument was developing based on Guy's reaction to an old comment by the late Nick29, and to me that seems rather futile.

Carol

No I have not been on the various forums for a little while and was catching up.
I did not look at the date to the post I was responding to, but it was one which repeated the exaggerated claims made by DNA companies and those who think DNA is the best thing since sliced bread.

Let’s get some basic facts straight.
There is no DNA test that can prove the parentage of a child even if the parents and the child are available for DNA testing let alone the claims when only one party is available for testing.

DNA can show a possible parent/child link but cannot prove it, even the most accurate tests are at the most 97% accurate.
That believe it or not opens up the possibility of many different possibilities for parents let alone for grandparents etc. I cannot be bothered to check the exact figure but it is in the hundreds rather than single figures.

We are told that “AncestryDNA now have four million people in their database:”
Wow as many as 4 million, what does that mean, not much when you think that Brimingham here in the UK has a population of just over 1 million people.
That means AncestryDNA’s entire database is the size of four cities, hardly a huge database compared to the world population 7.347 Billion in 2015.
In fact if you look at it statistically any result is within the statistical margin of error, in other words any result could be true or false (virtually worthless, but don’t let that worry you as the paper trail is no more accurate either).

What is more worrying, and many people cannot grasp this, is that science is not based on facts, science is based on theories that stand until shown to be wrong.
The basic principal behind DNA is everyone’s DNA is different, that however is just a theory, it has not been proved it is not a fact and cannot be proven until everybody’s DNA has been tested and compared.

That may or may not be important, if it is proved that there is only a small duplication in DNA then in most cases DNA testing would still be a valid for of identification, if however as DNA testing becomes more commonplace it is shown that a person’s DNA is not unique an new theory will have to be forwarded.

DNA can be used as an additional tool but at present is about as accurate as the old IGI in genealogical terms.

Cheers
Guy
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: CarolA3 on Monday 01 May 17 16:09 BST (UK)
Thank you Guy.

If you're saying that the accuracy of DNA testing, for the purposes of individual family history, ranks somewhere between tarot cards and Pooh sticks, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

My views are of course subject to review as the science develops.

Carol
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: shellyesq on Monday 01 May 17 16:45 BST (UK)
DNA can show a possible parent/child link but cannot prove it, even the most accurate tests are at the most 97% accurate.

Can you please provide a basis for such an exact statistic?  Does this refer specifically to genealogy-related testing or testing in general?  The US Department of State accepts DNA proof of parenthood that is accurate to 99.9% for purposes of citizenship, and I would think they'd be more inclined to want to prevent people from inappropriately becoming citizens than the reverse.  https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dna-testing.html

For those of us with no paper trail to use because of unknown parenthood, DNA is nothing short of miraculous.  I have matched with multiple members of my birth father's family, so it's hard to say that there's an error somewhere.  I find it rather disrespectful for people to compare it to superstitions.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Guy Etchells on Monday 01 May 17 17:53 BST (UK)
DNA can show a possible parent/child link but cannot prove it, even the most accurate tests are at the most 97% accurate.

Can you please provide a basis for such an exact statistic?  Does this refer specifically to genealogy-related testing or testing in general?  The US Department of State accepts DNA proof of parenthood that is accurate to 99.9% for purposes of citizenship, and I would think they'd be more inclined to want to prevent people from inappropriately becoming citizens than the reverse.  https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dna-testing.html

For those of us with no paper trail to use because of unknown parenthood, DNA is nothing short of miraculous.  I have matched with multiple members of my birth father's family, so it's hard to say that there's an error somewhere.  I find it rather disrespectful for people to compare it to superstitions.

There are a number of studies which show that DNA testing is not 100%, in fact I have not seen one study that claims DNA can match 100%.
One study published by US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health looking at ERSA (estimation of recent shared ancestry) states “ERSA is accurate to within one degree of relationship for 97% of first-degree through fifth-degree relatives” (though this was quite an “old” study 2011).

I would not waste time looking at how DNA is accepted by courts or legal circles as the courts have presumed that a persons fingerprints don’t change for years and convicted people on this flawed evidence for years. The truth is two fingerprints of one finger taken after each other will differ in detail. The best that can be said is it is improbable that two people’s fingerprints will be the same, however winning the lottery is improbable but it is done every day.

There is a very basic but good article on some myths of DNA in the US family Tree Magazine online at
www.familytreemagazine.com/Article/DNA-Fact-or-Science-Fiction

It doesn’t use statistics but dispels the myths in laymans terms.
Cheers
Guy


Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: hurworth on Monday 01 May 17 19:21 BST (UK)

There are a number of studies which show that DNA testing is not 100%, in fact I have not seen one study that claims DNA can match 100%.
One study published by US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health looking at ERSA (estimation of recent shared ancestry) states “ERSA is accurate to within one degree of relationship for 97% of first-degree through fifth-degree relatives” (though this was quite an “old” study 2011).


I have not read this study, but I presume the title either accurately reflects what the paper is about or the peer reviewers and the journal editors did not notice the discrepancy.

The statement you quoted says that 97% of the time DNA estimated the relationship between two people to within one degree of the actual relationship and 3% of the time it didn't.  That is not saying that DNA testing is only 97% accurate.  It's saying that the estimated degree of relationship was within the defined parameters of the study 97% of the time.  For example if it estimated someone who was your 4th cousin to be in the range of 3rd to 5th cousin then this was "accurate" according to the terms of this study.

It's not as if the study found that 3% of the time DNA testing thought a person and a banana were 4th cousins.

In my own family we have some third cousins once removed (two pairs of siblings) that do not match.  Had they participated in this study they'd fall in the "inaccurate" 3%.  But the tests do not claim you will be a genetic match to ALL your 3rd cousins once removed as it is possible for cousins of this degree to have not inherited the same segments of DNA from the mutual ancestors.  As great-great or great-great-great grandchildren they would all have DNA from these mutual ancestors - just not the same segments as each other.

I don't expect DNA testing to be able to tell me how two people are related within one degree.  Infact I am surprised it is as high as within one degree 97% of the time.  This does not make the test worthless or hocus pocus.

There is plenty of information available on the ranges of DNA shared by various relatives and I understand that these are RANGES, hence why finding the actual degree of relationship is a multistep process which requires input from the customers.  This multistep process involves traditional genealogy, exchange of information and interpretation of results.  The company can not give you this on a plate. 

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Guy Etchells on Tuesday 02 May 17 07:54 BST (UK)

There are a number of studies which show that DNA testing is not 100%, in fact I have not seen one study that claims DNA can match 100%.
One study published by US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health looking at ERSA (estimation of recent shared ancestry) states “ERSA is accurate to within one degree of relationship for 97% of first-degree through fifth-degree relatives” (though this was quite an “old” study 2011).


I have not read this study, but I presume the title either accurately reflects what the paper is about or the peer reviewers and the journal editors did not notice the discrepancy.

The statement you quoted says that 97% of the time DNA estimated the relationship between two people to within one degree of the actual relationship and 3% of the time it didn't.  That is not saying that DNA testing is only 97% accurate.  It's saying that the estimated degree of relationship was within the defined parameters of the study 97% of the time.  For example if it estimated someone who was your 4th cousin to be in the range of 3rd to 5th cousin then this was "accurate" according to the terms of this study.

It's not as if the study found that 3% of the time DNA testing thought a person and a banana were 4th cousins.

First I did not give the title of the study I used my own words to suggest what the study was looking at and apologise if that confused you, but because of that you cannot presume anything.

That in itself invalidates any further comments you make as you have initially made a false assumption to support an invalid conclusion.

I cannot unfortunately continue this at present but will come back to this at a later date

Cheers
Guy 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: hurworth on Tuesday 02 May 17 08:02 BST (UK)
Alrighty, the world is flat and my 4th cousin is a banana.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Tuesday 02 May 17 09:59 BST (UK)

Let’s get some basic facts straight.
There is no DNA test that can prove the parentage of a child even if the parents and the child are available for DNA testing let alone the claims when only one party is available for testing.

DNA can show a possible parent/child link but cannot prove it, even the most accurate tests are at the most 97% accurate.
That believe it or not opens up the possibility of many different possibilities for parents let alone for grandparents etc. I cannot be bothered to check the exact figure but it is in the hundreds rather than single figures.

We are told that “AncestryDNA now have four million people in their database:”
Wow as many as 4 million, what does that mean, not much when you think that Brimingham here in the UK has a population of just over 1 million people.
That means AncestryDNA’s entire database is the size of four cities, hardly a huge database compared to the world population 7.347 Billion in 2015.
In fact if you look at it statistically any result is within the statistical margin of error, in other words any result could be true or false (virtually worthless, but don’t let that worry you as the paper trail is no more accurate either).

What is more worrying, and many people cannot grasp this, is that science is not based on facts, science is based on theories that stand until shown to be wrong.
The basic principal behind DNA is everyone’s DNA is different, that however is just a theory, it has not been proved it is not a fact and cannot be proven until everybody’s DNA has been tested and compared.

Can I suggest you have a look at this short video from the University of Utah which explains how autosomal DNA is inherited:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/basics/molgen/

We inherit 50% of our DNA from each of our parents. You will share an entire Y-chromosome with your father. You will inherit mitochondrial DNA from your mother. Modern DNA tests using 700,000 or so markers can detect parent/child relationships unambiguously. The only other people on the planet with whom you would share 50% of your DNA are your siblings. Sibling relationships can be distinguished from parent/child relationships because you share fully identical regions with your siblings, whereas you inherit complete chromosomes from your parents. Please see the ISOGG Wiki page on autosomal DNA statistics:

https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics

If you read the ERSA paper that I cited you will see that you have misrepresented the conclusions of the paper.

Modern DNA tests can prove parent/child relationships and sibling relationships without ambiguity. Beyond parent/child and sibling relationships contextual evidence is required to determine the precise relationship. For example grandparents/grandchildren, aunt and uncles/nephews and nieces will share approximately 25% of their DNA but alternative relationships can usually be ruled out by looking at the age of the people testing. The Y-chromosome, the X-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA can also be used in combination with autosomal DNA to confirm the appropriate relationship.

You do not have to test the entire planet to prove close relationships. You will not share 50% of your DNA with anyone on the planet other than your parents or your siblings. There are now people who are finding through DNA testing that they have siblings that they knew nothing about.

It is also not necessary to test the entire planet to get useful results from DNA testing. We all have so many cousins and the databases are now at such a size that everyone is guaranteed to have plenty of DNA matches that they can work with. See the statistics here:

https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Jackiemh on Tuesday 02 May 17 10:09 BST (UK)
Knowing my luck, I would do my DNA and get no 'matches' on it!
From what I understand, the numbers of people who have done the test can only give a general outline of a possible connection. So, I will wait and see what develops.
Jackie
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: heywood on Tuesday 02 May 17 10:58 BST (UK)
Jackie,
I don't understand the various technical arguments put forward here. I also can see that people have various reasons for thinking about being tested and some of these reasons are quite emotional and personal.
In my case I just wanted to see what was revealed about my origins, not to particularly connect with people. The Ancestry test provided that - mainly what I knew or deduced in terms of places.
What I find interesting and even a bit magical about the test is, that in the matches given, my best match is a 2nd cousin - already known to me but others in the list originate from my family's particular place in Ireland, from what I can see, and from which there was much emigration to USA. It also shows a connection to someone I had corresponded with years ago when we couldn't prove anything and there are no records available.
One match shows as 3rd or 4th cousin in Australia and I realised that I knew some of her relatives when I was a child.  I can now see what the connection was. I have to say that I had already established that by records now published so I know that would give weight to the premise that you don't need a test!
I was advised on here to upload my results to Gedmatch and I only did that a few days ago. Someone contacted me - same area origins and we explored a closer match and that has proven to be a second cousin once removed.
So, there is my story - not a bit technical just enjoyable. I am perhaps fortunate because of the pattern of emigration. I know others have written that they have had no matches or not found the missing link. I wouldn't dismiss it though.

heywood
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Tuesday 02 May 17 12:20 BST (UK)
Jackie

If you take an autosomal DNA test at AncestryDNA, Family Tree DNA (the Family Finder test) or 23andMe you are guaranteed to have lots of matches. At a rough estimate I would say that the average person with English ancestry is getting about 1200 matches at FTDNA, about 8000 matches at Ancestry and about 800 matches at 23andMe. If you have Irish or Scottish ancestry you're likely to get many more matches. Each company has different thresholds for what constitutes a match so the numbers aren't directly comparable.

The vast majority of your matches will be in the fifth to distant cousin range where it's difficult if not impossible to determine the genealogical connection. However, most people are now getting at least a handful of closer matches where they can work out how they are related. A second cousin of mine in New Zealand that I hadn't been in contact with for a long time recently tested at AncestryDNA. I've also got a few other third and fourth cousins where I've established a connection.  It's very satisfying when you can make the genetic connection to confirm the genealogical relationship.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Jackiemh on Tuesday 02 May 17 22:58 BST (UK)
Thank you Heywood and DevonCruwys for your comments.
It makes me think that if I do the DNA test, it should not be for a specific outcome more as a tool for my family history research and out of curiosity.
Time to get my thinking cap on.
Jackie
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DevonCruwys on Tuesday 02 May 17 23:04 BST (UK)
Jackie

DNA testing works best if you have a particular hypothesis in mind, eg, do two men share the same surname or do two people share the same great-grandparents? For these scenarios you'd need to find the appropriate candidates for testing.

However, you can just test out of curiosity to see what matches you get. 
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Pejic on Wednesday 03 May 17 10:22 BST (UK)
Given the following descent over 6 generations, and given that only JAH, RLC, GPC, HOC and PMC are available for testing (all of whom are reluctant!)
AEM (m) = LMH (f)
   ICEM (f) = Unknown 1 (m)
      LIM (f)= PEH (m)
         JAH (f) = PC (m)
            RLC (f)
            GPC (m) = SA (f)
               HOC (m)
               PMC (f)

Can you suggest a test to confirm that Unknown 1 is or is not AEM

Given that AEM is NOT Unknown 1, what would be the best tests to get into which databases in case a relative of Unknown 1 ever gets tested as well? (other than all in each)
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Wednesday 03 May 17 13:16 BST (UK)
Your project fits atDNA testing since you have only three generations from JAH to AEM. However, you need different testers than just direct descendants as you show. You really need more descendants of AEM (other than ICEM) and more descedants of ICEM (other than LIM).

Even if you use YDNA, you also need a different set of testers for optimum results. It would be very helpful to two male descendants of AEM, ICEM and LIM. If you test YDNA of all one male line, it will only imply / confirm that they descend from the same male. With you limited list of testers, YDNA would not provide any useful information. Your need to test male decendants of different sons of your oldest proven male ancestor and different grandsons of your oldest proven male ancestor.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Pejic on Thursday 04 May 17 13:19 BST (UK)
Thank you Robert.

I have now added some more known, which is the complete descent from ICEM, which of males is a great grandson (GPC) and 2 GG grand sons (HOC and MAM), these 3 are also the only male offspring (I generation later of LIM.

ICEM had 3 siblings who married and had children, but I have not tried to track them or their descendants down.

The expanded 6 generation tree is now:
AEM (m) = LMH (f)
   ICEM (f) = Unknown 1 (m)
      LIM (f)= PEH (m)
----------------------------------------------------------dead above, alive below
         JAH (f) = PC (m)
            RLC (f)
            GPC (m) = SA (f)
               HOC (m)
               PMC (f)
         AMH (f) = HB (m)
            CB (f) = LGM (m)
               MAM (m)
               OGM (f)

What test(s) of the living people would confirm that Unknown is or is not AEM?

If AEM is not 'Unknown' which tests of the living people would potentially reveal descendants of Unknown's parents

If AEM is not 'Unknown', what could any DNA tests on any of the living people reveal about 'Unknown'?

I need details of the tests because, although I do not understand how they work, I want to leave instructions for any of my grandchildren who might be interested in taking the baton over from me, and I am keen to make sure that any useful sample contributors do not cross my dotted line before they can be persuaded to part with a scraping.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

I am working on discovering living descendants of ICEM's siblings
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Thursday 04 May 17 13:47 BST (UK)
Pejic -

I am afraid that neither YDNA testing or atDNA testing will be able to answer your question with only the living descendants found in your list. DNA is a matching system of sorts. You need other living descendants of AEM or ICEM to see if you match other living individuals.

For YDNA, I am assuming that ICEM is the daughter of AEM, so this breaks the all male line that is required for YDNA testing. So for the list that you provided, YDNA can not determine AEM is the ancestor of the people on your list. Unless you can locate a male descendant of AEM to test, YDNA testing will not work for your list of testing candidates.

For atDNA testing, you need proven descendants of two children of AEM (male or female) to determine who is related to AEM. You only have one - so somebody else who is a descendant of AEM would have to test to determine a common ancestor.

With so few generations, atDNA testing would probably be the best. You could test and passively wait for descendants of AEM to test to see if any of your living relatives match. With the list of living testers, you can not use YDNA since there is no direct all male descendants of AEM in your list.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Thursday 04 May 17 14:47 BST (UK)
Pejic

I have been following this quest of yours and although I am not fully certain I have completely got it I thought I would make a suggestion.

If you look at

https://dna-explained.com/2017/04/24/which-dna-test-is-best/

which another poster put on a different thread the other day you will see ftDNA do something called Phased Family Matching which may be a way forward for you.

I won't say anything else at this stage so that I do not prejudice you one way or the other but perhaps after you have read it that may be something another poster or myself could try and see if it is of assistance to you.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Pejic on Thursday 04 May 17 16:49 BST (UK)
RobertCasey - thanks again - I am not concerned about AEM being the ancestor of the tree, I believe he is.  What concerns me is that he might appear in it more than once!  If he doesn't then I wish to leave some trace to match to future descendants of 'unknown' who might emerge.

davidft - that is a fantastic link explaining the subject in lay terms (avoiding clades and SNPS etc), it will take some time to study properly but at the moment the 'adoptee support' description seems to offer me some hope.  The problem I am grappling with is that AEM appears as the father of ICEM on her birth certificate and the father of LIM on LIM's marriage certificate, with a cloud of obfuscation, downright lies and denials surrounding the father of LIM (not shown on LIM's birth certificate) - including refusals to submit DNA samples.  In addition ICEM had another (defective) child palmed off onto somebody else.

If anything more occurs to either of you - or anyone else of course, please let me know, though perhaps my enquiry should be a thread on its own.

Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: davidft on Thursday 04 May 17 17:41 BST (UK)

If anything more occurs to either of you - or anyone else of course, please let me know, though perhaps my enquiry should be a thread on its own.

If you contact the mods they may be able to take your relevant posts, and replies, out of this thread and start a new thread for them
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Sunday 21 January 18 22:54 GMT (UK)
I've done my YDNA to 67 markers. No matches worth while pursuing. All I can say is not why not DNA but Y DNA?
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Monday 22 January 18 04:42 GMT (UK)
I've done my YDNA to 67 markers. No matches worth while pursuing. All I can say is not why not DNA but Y DNA?
How many matches do you have at 67 markers ? What is the genetic distance of these matches ? Are any of these testers (or yourself) either YSNP predicted or YSNP tested ? What surnames are found ? What geographic area are your male ancestors from ?

There are two reasons why a certain number of testers (10 to 20 %) have few matches: 1) their line does not have very many living descendants (died out or daughtered out); 2) their line has not have had many tested to date (random clusters that have not well be tested to date or belong to geographies where the number of testers is more an investment in future vs. immediate matches).
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Ruskie on Monday 22 January 18 06:20 GMT (UK)
I've done my YDNA to 67 markers. No matches worth while pursuing. All I can say is not why not DNA but Y DNA?

I have found the same with my OH's YDNA test.

I have come to the conclusion -: common name - working class - stayed in England/UK - no male descendants have taken the test.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: DavidG02 on Monday 22 January 18 10:33 GMT (UK)
I've done my YDNA to 67 markers. No matches worth while pursuing. All I can say is not why not DNA but Y DNA?
How many matches do you have at 67 markers ? What is the genetic distance of these matches ?
I have 1 at distance of 5. My family is from Hallaton Leicestershire 1650-1843 and my match has a tree that says Godmanchester Huntingdonshire. 1750c-1860

I have said before I am happy to wait. I understand I am also in the minority for my family name. Only ( procreative ) son of an only son. Not many cousins on my dads side. Which is why I was hoping for a little more connection to the UK. But I am patient
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Monday 22 January 18 12:41 GMT (UK)
I  have 4 matches at 67 markers with a genetic distances of 6,6,7 &7. My male ancestor is from County Kilkenny (Rower Parish), Ireland. Names are Cody, Wicker, Bennett, and Bray. Both Cody and Wicker have Cody as earliest common ancestor and 2 are in the same predicted Haplogroup as I am. Iknow nothing of YSNP testing thst has been done, none here.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Monday 22 January 18 21:36 GMT (UK)
I  have 4 matches at 67 markers with a genetic distances of 6,6,7 &7. My male ancestor is from County Kilkenny (Rower Parish), Ireland. Names are Cody, Wicker, Bennett, and Bray. Both Cody and Wicker have Cody as earliest common ancestor and 2 are in the same predicted Haplogroup as I am. Iknow nothing of YSNP testing thst has been done, none here.
I assume that the predicted haplogroup is R-M269 (this is around 75 % of all Irish testers - but some are haplogroup I, R1a, E and J as well. I assume that your surname is Cody. Have you joined the Cody FTDNA Surname project yet. If not log into FTDNA using your FTDNA Kit number and password (required by FTDNA to let them know who is requesting to join) and then click on this link:

https://worldfamilies.net/surnames/cody (https://worldfamilies.net/surnames/cody)

Then click on "Join the Project" link in the top middle.

If you will then post your FTDNA ID, I will look at your YSTRs and run them them through my L21 SNP predictor tool (or you can run it yourself):

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R-L21_SNP_Predictor_Intro.html (http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R-L21_SNP_Predictor_Intro.html)

Four matches are not too bad but not that great as well. This varies a lot. For the L226 project (one of the three large known haplogroups with Irish origins), we have one person with over 500 matches but others in the haplogroup with on three or four matches.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Monday 22 January 18 21:39 GMT (UK)
I  have 4 matches at 67 markers with a genetic distances of 6,6,7 &7. My male ancestor is from County Kilkenny (Rower Parish), Ireland. Names are Cody, Wicker, Bennett, and Bray. Both Cody and Wicker have Cody as earliest common ancestor and 2 are in the same predicted Haplogroup as I am. Iknow nothing of YSNP testing thst has been done, none here.
I assume that the predicted haplogroup is R-M269 (this is around 75 % of all Irish testers - but some are haplogroup I, R1a, E and J as well. I assume that your surname is Cody. Have you joined the Cody FTDNA Surname project yet. If not log into FTDNA using your FTDNA Kit number and password (required by FTDNA to let them know who is requesting to join) and then click on this link:

https://worldfamilies.net/surnames/cody (https://worldfamilies.net/surnames/cody)

Then click on "Join the Project" link in the top middle.

If you will then post your FTDNA ID, I will then look at your YSTRs and run them them through my L21 SNP predictor tool (or you can run it yourself):

http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R-L21_SNP_Predictor_Intro.html (http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R-L21_SNP_Predictor_Intro.html)

Four matches are not too bad but is not that great as well. This varies a lot. For the L226 project (one of the three largest known haplogroups with Irish origins), we have one person with over 500 matches at 67 markers but others in the same haplogroup with only three or four matches.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Monday 22 January 18 22:03 GMT (UK)
Sorry, Robert, I forgot to mention my name is Walsh and not Cody. There are no Codys in my family tree. Yes, my predicted Haplogroup is R-M269. I have already joined the Walsh surname group (along with all the surname groups with surnames which are in my family tree) with no luck. One of my matches has a Bridget Walsh from County Kilkenny (as is my GGGF) in the family tree. I have emailed them and am still hoping for a reply.

Moderator comment: edited for content. ID and password removed
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Monday 22 January 18 22:08 GMT (UK)
Interesting my 2X great grandmother was Ann Troy(widow), nee Walsh who married my 2x great grandfather John Luffman at Alford (Lincs) on 25th December 1797. Could there be any of her DNA still traceable in me I had a 37 marker Y test in 2011-12.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: RobertCasey on Tuesday 23 January 18 06:41 GMT (UK)
Sorry, Robert, I forgot to mention my name is Walsh and not Cody. There are no Codys in my family tree. Yes, my predicted Haplogroup is R-M269. I have already joined the Walsh surname group (along with all the surname groups with surnames which are in my family tree) with no luck. One of my matches has a Bridget Walsh from County Kilkenny (as is my GGGF) in the family tree. I have emailed them and am still hoping for a reply.
I went to the Walsh FTDNA project and copied your YSTRs into both my L21 predictor tool and the NEVGEN Predictor Tool. My tool did not find any match but NEVGEN predicted you to be CTS3386 with 100 % probability. Your YSNP string is R1b>L21>DF13>ZZ10>CTS3386. You should join the CTS3386 project and ask for assistance. First, log into FTDNA using your ID and password (required by FTDNA to know who is making the request) and then click on the link below.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-cts3386/dna-results (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-cts3386/dna-results)

Then click on the JOIN buttion in the top right hand corner of the screen.

The FTDNA haplotree for haplogroup R has eleven branches under CTS3386. YFULL estimates that CTS3386 is around 3,900 years ago - not very close to genealogical time frames (which are around 1,000 years ago).



Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: youngtug on Tuesday 23 January 18 07:21 GMT (UK)
Probably not a good idea to post a password on a public forum

Moderator comment: removed
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: AngelaR on Tuesday 23 January 18 08:07 GMT (UK)
Interesting my 2X great grandmother was Ann Troy(widow), nee Walsh who married my 2x great grandfather John Luffman at Alford (Lincs) on 25th December 1797. Could there be any of her DNA still traceable in me I had a 37 marker Y test in 2011-12.

I am a bit of a novice at this but I think you would need an autosomal test to look at connections with her DNA as the Y test just folows the male line. I did a mitrochondrial DNA test some years ago and it was a complete waster of time and money, but then did an autosomal (Family Finder) one and have found connections going back 5 generations (can be more if you are lucky), so it certainly should work for your 2xgreat grandmother!
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: Redroger on Wednesday 24 January 18 17:09 GMT (UK)
Thanks Angela.
Title: Re: DNA Testing - Why Not
Post by: scooper200 on Thursday 25 January 18 23:59 GMT (UK)
Thanks, Robert, for your efforts. Not sure what all this means yet, not sure I need to go down this road, but who knows?, no harm to inquire.