DNA Why I urge caution

[Finley 1]

There you go.. Robert and thank you for trying to explain however....

This brain 'no comprende' 


so will never get to grips with it... old dog and new tricks etc.

But at least I now know who King Brian Boru is.. cheers Sinann

xin

[Sinann]

This brain 'no comprende' 

This brain didn't either

[Finley 1]

 

xin

[BushInn1746]

I personally would not give my DNA for ancestry, basically because I don't trust the security of the data base from hackers and USA laws on the like of the FBI accessing it. OK !! - -  if your an honest law biding citizen, it could be said you have nothing to worry about, yet ! but say your DNA was a near match to some unworthy character or of an unknown direct cousin living in the USA ( like if your were brought up an adopted child), who was unworthy and brings unwanted headache interest in your DNA enquires or hassle at your front door.

Other law enforcement agencies started using GEDmatch, making it "the de facto DNA and genealogy database for all of law enforcement," according to The Atlantic's Sarah Zhang.[2]

[2] Zhang, Sarah (May 19, 2018) . The Coming Wave of Murders Solved by Genealogy The Atlantic

[Yonnie3]

Dear bridigmac; your mums' cousin told her about some ancestors who went to America to set up a Mormon colony (from England?) in 1600. We had no such colony in 1600. The church was restored in 1830 by Joseph Smith. No one came to America to join the Mormons until 1837; because no Missionaries were in England until then to make the church known and to start an immigration. I understand there is much misinformation about many things that happened in the past, but if you are looking for ancestors in America who came from the British Isles to join the Mormons, please look in the correct time period. On the other hand, perhaps you are referring to Quakers. They were interested in immigration to America starting in the 1600's because there was no freedom to practice their beliefs. Or also the Huguenots, who came from France and areas nearby to gain freedom of religion as well. They came to America beginning from what I can remember in the
1600's. Please feel free to correct me.

Thank you.

You forgot the Puritans who came here to hang witches.
I believe in science and DNA even though it's fairly new it's good enough to hang criminals with or free them from prison.  Without DNA I would have no chance of finding my family, with DNA I now have a tool with which to find them.  What if DNA says your paper daddy isn't your daddy?  Daddy can be whoever your mother let hang his hat.  You can have all the pedigree paper trails you want to create but if your mother wants it to stay secret the person writing the paper trail will never be told.  Now we have a science that can unmask momma's tales!

[dobfarm]

Picture in your mind, a well to do snobby senior aged lady, a member in the village church flower arranging coffee morning club, who use to brag about her paternal ancestry went back to royalty, and to prove the aforesaid she did ancestry DNA. The lady got a result, a taxi driver in New York, who was her half brother and his father was one of the USA WW2 G I's in England and the posh snob lady very quietly left the flower arranging club after she found her true paternal ancestral history. 

[Yonnie3]

I haven't had a good laugh in days, thank you.

[Amberella]

I am extremely wary about taking one of these DNA tests.  Here in Canada especially, and also to some extent in the US, some companies doing these tests allow insurance companies & others to access the data to use it.  Now I don't mind it being used to find a serial killer as recently happened in the Golden State Killer case however I'd be extremely uneasy if my supplemental health insurance company accessed my data & then used it against myself or my children. For instance, Alzheimer disease is rampant in my family (mother, father, only aunt & now my older sister) & I wouldn't want to pay higher rates or even be denied coverage because of the chance of possible diseases developing.  It HAS happened in North America. Until privacy / access laws are made much, much tighter, I'm going to pass.

[RobertCasey]

The current genetic genealogy tests have no medical data of any value: atDNA (Family Finder) just reads junk DNA that has no meaning for health; YSTRs are random variations of YDNA that have no medical value; YSNP testing (SNP packs and individual YSNP testing) no medical information; NGS testing (Big Y) - no medical data. The only test that could be used for medical purposes is the Whole Genome Sequencing - but the very small read length being used now is not enough to read medical data. However, sometime in the future, WGS testing will have much longer read lengths where medical data could be extracted. But testing companies are not going destroy their own business by selling this data to insurance companies. Also, the GINA law in USA prohibits usage of DNA for screening data and fines for violations would put most insurance companies out of business as well as the genetic genealogy company providing this information. So medical concerns are not an issue.

However, identification of individuals by law enforcement is a valid concern for some but it will not make any difference as your cousins will test - over 10,000,000 atDNA tests in the last few years with 40 to 60 % annual growth rare currently. The number of documented cases in the US is at least 50 to 100 where convictions have been obtained and there are dozens of law enforcement agencies creating departments for this kind of research which save significant amounts of costs as cold case files are extremely expensive to run and rarely produce results like atDNA does.

Here a some the brick walls that I have cracked: 1) my Pace line was traced back to early Jamestown but two different lines claimed to a son of one Jamestown descendant - YDNA clearly solved this issue. 2) my Brooks ancestor (b. 1765) and his brother were not included in extensive probates even though they lived in the same household, had marriage bonds connected them. DNA now suggests that these were adopted sons; 3) My Casey line arrived in South Carolina in the 1750s. Links to the VA Casey lines (rampant in Ancestry.com) were proved false by YDNA; out of the 20 lines tested to date - all but one line are closely related in the last 200 to 400 years; testing positive for FGC5639 means that you belong to this South Carolina line and testing positive for FGC5647 means that are related to the South Carolina line earlier than settlement of America; the YSTR mutation 460 (12 to 13) means you belong to the younger branch of FGC5639; 4) My John Tucker spouse revealed her parents with atDNA matches - revealing another two direct ancestors on my pedigree chart (have around 120 ancestors - this was the weakest part of my pedigree chart. I could write ten more pages of these kinds of discoveries that I have helped others with.