Made me think ... dangerous lol

[Guyb93]

Yesterday I had my results of my genealogy test and despite being British on birth and land that is not the case with my ancestors , the results were beens I paid nearly a £100 for this so I’m assuming is accurate 38% English (46% British ) 18% Jamaican Caribbean 12% danish 7% french 6% Irish 2% sub Saharan African , firstly I’m missing 10% somewhere as results were based off 98% as apparently as a European 1-2% is Neanderthal dna ... who knew lol , has anybody else delved into there origins ?? And secondly what origins would our fish have for example. My sailfin pleco , it’s South American native but if there was a way to test its dna would it have a similar result to myself and be a mix of everything

 

[kwi]

Apparantly if you pay again you'll get different results.

People were very migratory and moved about and interbred, more so then we give them credit for.

There was an article I'll try to dig up that suggests that as well as being very warlike early homo sapians actually bred away the homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis species so traces of their DNA should be expected. These species are no longer considered our common ancesters but 3 divergent species as their existence overlaped H. sapians and therefore shouldn't be considered as ancestral.

The ancient celts weren't a race but a common culture that spread from india to the british isles and there have been asian artifacts found in viking graves, so how anyone can expect a "pure" strain example of humans without looking to the isolated tribes in the amazon basin is beyond me.

 

[Guyb93]

Apparantly if you pay again you'll get different results.

People were very migratory and moved about and interbred, more so then we give them credit for.

There was an article I'll try to dig up that suggests that as well as being very warlike early homo sapians actually bred away the homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis species so traces of their DNA should be expected. These species are no longer considered our common ancesters but 3 divergent species as their existence overlaped H. sapians and therefore shouldn't be considered as ancestral.

The ancient celts weren't a race but a common culture that spread from india to the british isles and there have been asian artifacts found in viking graves, so how anyone can expect a "pure" strain example of humans without looking to the isolated tribes in the amazon basin is beyond me.

See when I did it it asked me what I already knew about my family tree and I knew about my Jamaican part as my grandad didn’t move to the uk until the 50s from Jamaica and I deliberately left it out to try and add more proof as of what they were saying as if it didn’t show I knew it would be a false test , I know being British to expect a mix of nations as we have been conquered by almost every great empire but not to be even half of what I claim to be is disturbing slightly. In theory somebody born in the USA could be more British than myself and how long would European dna have to live in the americas to physically change to not be recognised as European and become just American

 

[Essjay]

Most genealogists treat ethnic origins as a bit of fun and not to be taken seriously. We use it to back up what we already know from research and to help break down brick walls (If we share DNA with someone, we know we are related via an as yet unknown ancestor). There is not enough data in the system yet to be accurate. My ethnic origin has changed several times since I took my DNA test - with the same tester.
I'm currently 61% England & north west Europe; 14% Scotland; 11% Wales; 5% Ireland; 5% European Jewish; and 4% Sweden.
They removed the small % of Africa a few revisions ago.
Sweden I can understand - most British people have some Viking blood. North west Europe - Normans, Saxons etc. I have no southern Europe though (yet) - maybe my Roman ancestors' DNA has been diluted out by the more recent invaders.

I Know that virtually all my ancestors for the last few hundred years are English by birth - though that doesn't mean that further back they didn't come from somewhere else. I know that a great great grandmother was half Welsh. But I have several illegitimate ancestors and fathers of these children were not recorded (though I have discovered a couple from the Lancashire Quarter Sessions where the father was ordered to pay the parish for the upkeep of the children); their fathers could have come from anywhere and with current knowledge there is no way to find out who they were, let alone where they were from.

 

[Essjay]

Don't forget that a lot of people descended from people taken as slaves don't necessarily have 100% of that ethnicity. There has been enough in the media over the years to show that women were often raped by the "owners" resulting in pregnancy which would affect the ethnic origin DNA of their descendants.

 

[Guyb93]

Most genealogists treat ethnic origins as a bit of fun and not to be taken seriously. We use it to back up what we already know from research and to help break down brick walls (If we share DNA with someone, we know we are related via an as yet unknown ancestor). There is not enough data in the system yet to be accurate. My ethnic origin has changed several times since I took my DNA test - with the same tester.
I'm currently 61% England & north west Europe; 14% Scotland; 11% Wales; 5% Ireland; 5% European Jewish; and 4% Sweden.
They removed the small % of Africa a few revisions ago.
Sweden I can understand - most British people have some Viking blood. North west Europe - Normans, Saxons etc. I have no southern Europe though (yet) - maybe my Roman ancestors' DNA has been diluted out by the more recent invaders.

I Know that virtually all my ancestors for the last few hundred years are English by birth - though that doesn't mean that further back they didn't come from somewhere else. I know that a great great grandmother was half Welsh. But I have several illegitimate ancestors and fathers of these children were not recorded (though I have discovered a couple from the Lancashire Quarter Sessions where the father was ordered to pay the parish for the upkeep of the children); their fathers could have come from anywhere and with current knowledge there is no way to find out who they were, let alone where they were from.

Interesting it really is , the test I taken showed me things I already knew and things that I didn’t , but for example how can they determine that I have 7% french dna . What is french is that of the modern french human a

Don't forget that a lot of people descended from people taken as slaves don't necessarily have 100% of that ethnicity. There has been enough in the media over the years to show that women were often raped by the "owners" resulting in pregnancy which would change the ethnic origin DNA of their descendants.

my dad did a similar test years back when it was not so public accessible and he was mixed race half white half black and showed that he had more British heritage than myself who is dilution to 3 parts white to one part black so my mother who is pale and ginger has taken away from my British , who your dna can be so deceiving to yiur appearance lol

 

[Essjay]

My mother's ethnicity is England & NW Europe 76%; Scotland 13%; Sweden 5%; Wales 3%; European Jewish 3%.

My half Welsh great great grandmother is on my mother's side yet the ethnicity estimate says she has less Welsh DNA than me, and as far as I know there is no Welsh on my father's side (he and all his siblings are dead so I can't check that side).
But my test says for Wales "your ethnicity estimate is 11% but it can range from 0 to 21%" and my mother's 3% "can range from 0 to 19%". The ranges are the same for both of us.


As I said earlier, ethnicity estimates are not taken seriously by people researching their ancestry.

24/9/2020 LostCousins Newsletter

www.lostcousins.com