DNA

Discussion in Genealogy Forum started by James M Bagby, Aug 14, 6:34 PM
JB
James M Bagby
  website
I used 23 & me for my DNA

I have noticed that lots of people shown, are not in my data base. Plus i notice they only list the people that are also members.

Not to pleased with results, Wondering if TP members are having same results???/ itsjbagby@ aol dot com

RB
Robert Burns
  website
I took a DNA test years ago as wall as a recent DNA test on Ancestry.com and what I found out is that the results are quite misleading.

Remember, the results are based on the number of people that have actually supplied DNA in each country, so if 500 people in Ireland supplied DNA and 5000 supplied DNA in England, the results will probably give you a higher percentage of matches in England even though your family may have originated in Ireland. So you can't say "Yea I'm English". You're really Irish.

Remember, the migration of people has a lot to do with your results also. If your family originates in Ireland and the majority migrates to England and prospers there but the remaining Irish dwindle, your results will show you're English when in fact you are Irish.

So your results do not show you your original nationality only where the majority of your DNA now lives.

Also out of the hundreds of possible relatives they found for me, only one had a last name of Burns. All I got from Ancestry was the area in Ireland the Burns name is from, nothing more. Both a waste of money.

L
Les
  website
I took a DNA test years ago as wall as a recent DNA test on Ancestry.com and what I found out is that the results are quite misleading. Remember, the results are based on the number of people that have more ...
actually supplied DNA in each country, so if 500 people in Ireland supplied DNA and 5000 supplied DNA in England, the results will probably give you a higher percentage of matches in England even though your family may have originated in Ireland. So you can't say "Yea I'm English". You're really Irish. Remember, the migration of people has a lot to do with your results also. If your family originates in Ireland and the majority migrates to England and prospers there but the remaining Irish dwindle, your results will show you're English when in fact you are Irish. So your results do not show you your original nationality only where the majority of your DNA now lives. Also out of the hundreds of possible relatives they found for me, only one had a last name of Burns. All I got from Ancestry was the area in Ireland the Burns name is from, nothing more. Both a waste of money
As I have always said. a complete waste of time . Just a MONEY MAKER for those firms

that people join

Regards

Les

AS
Alan Scott
  website
As I have always said. a complete waste of time . Just a MONEY MAKER for those firms that people join Regards Les
Not exactly a complete waste in my case. I was fortunate because from the DNA test I verified that what I had researched by other means was in fact correct when some relatives had suggested I was on the wrong track. However beware of Ancestry's ethnicity estimates. They can be misleading as the regions they use overlap a lot. Best not to take some of their origins too seriously.
L
Les
  website
Not exactly a complete waste in my case. I was fortunate because from the DNA test I verified that what I had researched by other means was in fact correct when some relatives had suggested I was on more ...
the wrong track. However beware of Ancestry's ethnicity estimates. They can be misleading as the regions they use overlap a lot. Best not to take some of their origins too seriously
Correctly this should lead us all to ADAM & EVE.

Please look at Link

All the Best

Les
Related Link:Click Here

AS
Alan Scott
  website
Correctly this should lead us all to ADAM & EVE. Please look at Link All the Best Les
HI Les,

Most people who do DNA tests are not thinking about tracing back to Adam & Eve therefore I will not bother to go to the link to your article. For us "colonials" who's ancestors immigrated from the UK it has given us the opportunity to find out more about our UK roots, and, to trace other relations, world wide. It has NOT been a complete waste of money for many. We all have our own reasons for doing these tests. Some will not get what they expect. Maybe that's their fault for not looking into testing more fully before they outlay the money. In my case the money was well spent in more ways than one. It is unwise to completely rubbish testing as some, such as I, have found it very useful. However I would suggest that if anyone is considering testing, first read some very good articles on what to expect. Organizations such as "Lost Cousins" and FamNet NZ who are independent from the likes of Ancestry.com have published a lot of very good information in their newsletters.

Everyone has their own reasons for carrying out the tests. Likewise you have your reasons for not liking DNA testing. However I would not go as far as saying it is a complete waste of money for all of us. I appreciate that persons who live in the UK may not be as interested in DNA testings as us "colonials".

Incidentally my son also DNA tested so between us we covered my wifes ancestors as well as my own. Some very interesting results that uncovered present day relatives that we never knew existed. We have made several new contacts. including some in our present Country.

Not a waste of money in our case.

Best wishes,

Alan

JB
James M Bagby
  website
Not exactly a complete waste in my case. I was fortunate because from the DNA test I verified that what I had researched by other means was in fact correct when some relatives had suggested I was on more ...
the wrong track. However beware of Ancestry's ethnicity estimates. They can be misleading as the regions they use overlap a lot. Best not to take some of their origins too seriously
Same way here I do genealogy for years I have my line baco to yourk shire back in GB

my 1st to 4th Cousins og who they are

I can document almost all

I only get names of those who purchased a DNA kit

My g dau. is listed She did her DNA & down the line But my dau & grandson did not, Their not listed.

I wrote to a few thats on the list. Naaaa . It's not fair to them either. Some actually believe this crap ,,,,,But they can't prove their related to my Line.

AS
Alan Scott
  website
I took a DNA test years ago as wall as a recent DNA test on Ancestry.com and what I found out is that the results are quite misleading. Remember, the results are based on the number of people that have more ...
actually supplied DNA in each country, so if 500 people in Ireland supplied DNA and 5000 supplied DNA in England, the results will probably give you a higher percentage of matches in England even though your family may have originated in Ireland. So you can't say "Yea I'm English". You're really Irish. Remember, the migration of people has a lot to do with your results also. If your family originates in Ireland and the majority migrates to England and prospers there but the remaining Irish dwindle, your results will show you're English when in fact you are Irish. So your results do not show you your original nationality only where the majority of your DNA now lives. Also out of the hundreds of possible relatives they found for me, only one had a last name of Burns. All I got from Ancestry was the area in Ireland the Burns name is from, nothing more. Both a waste of money
Hi Robert,

My ethnicity results through Ancestry.com were misleading. I had a lengthy exchange of correspondence with Ancestry during which they tried to tell me they were correct and I was wrong. However when I pointed out to the person concerned that she had not read their own data I received a message from a different person saying they understood where I was coming from and they agreed their differences to my known and confirmed Church record data and their ethnicity estimates was due to overlapping areas. Ancestry say the following in their information section -

"based on the way AncestryDNA® analyzes your DNA to determine your ethnicity estimate, your DNA may look more similar to regions near your ancestors' homelands rather than their country or origin itself"

This means their ethnicity figures should not be regarded as 100% correct.

Fortunately I have ancestral data going back to the 1500/1600's otherwise Ancestry's results could have put on the wrong path for research purposes.

Therefore it is wise to treat Ancestry's ethnicity findings as suspect. Useful but not necessarily 100% correct. I have factual data going back to 1500. All but one ggg grandparent originated in southern England, That one person was from Galway, Ireland. My son who also did a test has 50% of my wife's line who's ancestors originated in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Yet my ethnicity estimates show me as 45% Irish/Scottish and 41% southern England. My son, 50% Ireland and Scotland, 47% southern England. That was enough to make my ethnicity results suspect.

However the ethnicity figures is not what I set out to mainly find when I did DNA tests. I am fortunate that I discovered what I was looking to find. (a family link) That has made testing worthwhile in my case. A cut price Ancestry subscription was available at the time together with the test itself. However that subscription expires next month and I will not renew. A have what I wanted and I don't see any purpose in paying for a continuation of an all access membership at the full subscription price getting up towards NZ$500. Not worth even the cheaper rates now I have what I wanted out of the DNA test.

L
Les
  website
Hi Robert, My ethnicity results through Ancestry.com were misleading. I had a lengthy exchange of correspondence with Ancestry during which they tried to tell me they were correct and I was wrong. more ...
However when I pointed out to the person concerned that she had not read their own data I received a message from a different person saying they understood where I was coming from and they agreed their differences to my known and confirmed Church record data and their ethnicity estimates was due to overlapping areas. Ancestry say the following in their information section - "based on the way AncestryDNA® analyzes your DNA to determine your ethnicity estimate, your DNA may look more similar to regions near your ancestors' homelands rather than their country or origin itself" This means their ethnicity figures should not be regarded as 100% correct. Fortunately I have ancestral data going back to the 1500/1600's otherwise Ancestry's results could have put on the wrong path for research purposes. Therefore it is wise to treat Ancestry's ethnicity findings as suspect. Useful but not necessarily 100% correct. I have factual data going back to 1500. All but one ggg grandparent originated in southern England, That one person was from Galway, Ireland. My son who also did a test has 50% of my wife's line who's ancestors originated in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Yet my ethnicity estimates show me as 45% Irish/Scottish and 41% southern England. My son, 50% Ireland and Scotland, 47% southern England. That was enough to make my ethnicity results suspect. However the ethnicity figures is not what I set out to mainly find when I did DNA tests. I am fortunate that I discovered what I was looking to find. (a family link) That has made testing worthwhile in my case. A cut price Ancestry subscription was available at the time together with the test itself. However that subscription expires next month and I will not renew. A have what I wanted and I don't see any purpose in paying for a continuation of an all access membership at the full subscription price getting up towards NZ$500. Not worth even the cheaper rates now I have what I wanted out of the DNA test
Hi Alan the Link was not to do with ADAM and EVE, but if Ancestry had their DNA it is obvious that we would go back in time.The LINK explains more or less what you have described above.

Ancestry require £79 pus shipping.

It now depends if they have DNA files of any of your distant relatives, if they have sent their DNA to them, so it depends on their Files.

No files no connections.

That is why I say it is a waste of time and money. Unless they have the whole population on file, which is an impossibility, your File DNA will be in complete or not be available to do.

No redress if they cannot.

Just my opinion as yours is and as long as your satisfied so be it, and i honestly do not see te point of it

All the best

Les

AS
Alan Scott
  website
Hi Alan the Link was not to do with ADAM and EVE, but if Ancestry had their DNA it is obvious that we would go back in time.The LINK explains more or less what you have described above. Ancestry require more ...
£79 pus shipping. It now depends if they have DNA files of any of your distant relatives, if they have sent their DNA to them, so it depends on their Files. No files no connections. That is why I say it is a waste of time and money. Unless they have the whole population on file, which is an impossibility, your File DNA will be in complete or not be available to do. No redress if they cannot. Just my opinion as yours is and as long as your satisfied so be it, and i honestly do not see te point of it All the best Le
Les,

What I consider is the most important thing is Ancestry having matching DNA tests from living relatives so we can make contact with each other. By distant you mean living relatives who are distantly related. This is in fact how many who carry out the tests find them of most value. Not so much the ethnicity results which many seem to regard as important. Not everyone will get the results they hope to find. Some of course get results they had never wished they found.

I have two good examples in my tree of persons who were adopted out at birth and have now located their birth family.

In my case being able to make contact through DNA matches enabled me to confirm where a great grandfather originated and the matches proved that my earlier research was correct. There must be many other similar cases where the tests have proved to be of similar value.

I must admit that I would have never outlayed the money for the test and Ancestry subscription if I had not wished to try and prove that what I had earlier researched was correct. Fortunately the money was well spent. Incidentally, it proved that my name should be Cott and not Scott. My great grandfather and his partner changed their names to Scott when they came to NZ. Its all in my Tribalpages tree. My G. Grandfather had a son from a first marriage who emigrated from England to the USA and through Ancestry DNA matches I was able to link to descendants from that first marriage. That's how I was able to prove that I had the correct Cott located as my g. grandfather. I am just using this example to show that all DNA tests are not a waste of money. One does not know unless you try and sometimes that does mean some expense. We all have to make our own decision on whether to take the risk and spend the money when the DNA test may not provide what we hope it will.

Best wishes,

Alan

L
Les
  website
Les, What I consider is the most important thing is Ancestry having matching DNA tests from living relatives so we can make contact with each other. By distant you mean living relatives who are distantly more ...
related. This is in fact how many who carry out the tests find them of most value. Not so much the ethnicity results which many seem to regard as important. Not everyone will get the results they hope to find. Some of course get results they had never wished they found. I have two good examples in my tree of persons who were adopted out at birth and have now located their birth family. In my case being able to make contact through DNA matches enabled me to confirm where a great grandfather originated and the matches proved that my earlier research was correct. There must be many other similar cases where the tests have proved to be of similar value. I must admit that I would have never outlayed the money for the test and Ancestry subscription if I had not wished to try and prove that what I had earlier researched was correct. Fortunately the money was well spent. Incidentally, it proved that my name should be Cott and not Scott. My great grandfather and his partner changed their names to Scott when they came to NZ. Its all in my Tribalpages tree. My G. Grandfather had a son from a first marriage who emigrated from England to the USA and through Ancestry DNA matches I was able to link to descendants from that first marriage. That's how I was able to prove that I had the correct Cott located as my g. grandfather. I am just using this example to show that all DNA tests are not a waste of money. One does not know unless you try and sometimes that does mean some expense. We all have to make our own decision on whether to take the risk and spend the money when the DNA test may not provide what we hope it will. Best wishes, Ala
Hi Alan I agree with you,as it was a Great help to you.

Until the DNA files are completed you can be very unlucky to get a match. I would prefer te Family Tree search as we are doing.

Hope you are both OK, and I expect you have Winter starting

All the best

Les

L
Les
  website
Les, What I consider is the most important thing is Ancestry having matching DNA tests from living relatives so we can make contact with each other. By distant you mean living relatives who are distantly more ...
related. This is in fact how many who carry out the tests find them of most value. Not so much the ethnicity results which many seem to regard as important. Not everyone will get the results they hope to find. Some of course get results they had never wished they found. I have two good examples in my tree of persons who were adopted out at birth and have now located their birth family. In my case being able to make contact through DNA matches enabled me to confirm where a great grandfather originated and the matches proved that my earlier research was correct. There must be many other similar cases where the tests have proved to be of similar value. I must admit that I would have never outlayed the money for the test and Ancestry subscription if I had not wished to try and prove that what I had earlier researched was correct. Fortunately the money was well spent. Incidentally, it proved that my name should be Cott and not Scott. My great grandfather and his partner changed their names to Scott when they came to NZ. Its all in my Tribalpages tree. My G. Grandfather had a son from a first marriage who emigrated from England to the USA and through Ancestry DNA matches I was able to link to descendants from that first marriage. That's how I was able to prove that I had the correct Cott located as my g. grandfather. I am just using this example to show that all DNA tests are not a waste of money. One does not know unless you try and sometimes that does mean some expense. We all have to make our own decision on whether to take the risk and spend the money when the DNA test may not provide what we hope it will. Best wishes, Ala
Hi Alan so pleased that the results helped you, and yes

This is what I meant

**************************

By distant you mean living relatives who are distantly related. This is in fact how many who carry out the tests find them of most value. Not so much the ethnicity results which many seem to regard as important. Not everyone will get the results they hope to find. Some of course get results they had never wished they found.

**************************************************

and as I mentioned it is so expensive, that possibly most of us get the results we are looking for the Old Fashioned way on the Tree

Hope that you are both in good health. I expect Winter has set in now for you.

All the best

Les