The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results

[dobfarm]

One story I heard  of was an upper posh English lady who bragged about her fathers ancestry went back to the Plantagenet Kings of England at the village church flower arranging club, deciding to have a DNA search to try to prove the issue and got a match result in the USA -she had a half brother she did not know about who also had an ancestry DNA test. It turned out her real biological father was a WW2 - American G I  soldier based in England while the man thought was her father, her mothers husband, was away abroad on war service at that time. -The woman quietly left the flower arranging club very quickly in case certain issues became common leaky knowledge or embarrassment to her  (Sob).


 

[Essie]

I am not convinced that DNA can tell us our ethnicity any more than history already has.

What I have learned is that civilisation began around the Middle East and spread in three directions.
1.   To Europe
2.   To Africa
3.   To Asia
From Europe migration extended to Scandinavia; England, Scotland and Ireland; then in later centuries to North and South America where I assume there is now a mixture of ethnicity with the first inhabitants of the Americas.

As for tracing direct ancestors I wonder where mine were in 1 AD, or even in 7000 BC?
Thinking in terms of 2 or 3 generations a century, that makes somewhere between 40 and 60 generations since 1 AD.  I can’t even count up the different family surnames after 4 or 5 generations and they were all Germanic from c1700 onwards. 

How many direct family lines do we actually have?  Can DNA science really tell us our ethnicity when there are hundreds of families from whom we are descended?

Essie
 

[Stevebinfrance]

A great idea. I have often wondered about the mixture that goes to make up the Britain of today.
Unfortunately, there is an immense amount of ignorance, and concomitant suspicion, in this area.
Even within my own family, some cousins are unhappy that I know their Y chromosome type, inevitably, as I know my own. Trying to explain it was like pushing water uphill!
All my data is with FTDNA; I would be delighted to contribute.

[Anne Rand]

I have found autosomal DNA results very interesting, including those for ethnicity.  They are not necessarily the same between siblings - sometimes show genetic ethnicity from the same parts of the world, but at other times from different parts of the world.  I suspect that only identical twins would have identical ethnicity results. 
Autosomal DNA is inherited in a very random pattern.  One's genetic ancestry is not the same as one's genealogical ancestry, which includes all one's ancestors way back to the mists of time.  If only the testing for British and European ethnicity could be as specific as it is for African ancestry.  On "Finding Your Roots" on PBS in the United States one guest was shown how much of his/her ancestry was from specific areas of Africa.
I have results for about 70 cousins, both paternal and maternal, from my only sibling to a fifth cousin once removed.
In addition to ethnicity, autosomal DNA testing matches one to others with a lot or a little shared DNA.  I assume anyone on RootsChat is interested in their family history.  For $99 US (from Family Tree DNA) plus shipping you can have your autosomal DNA tested.  I understand that Ancestry charges £99 for their autosomal testing for those in the UK.  [I have no connection with Family Tree DNA other than having ordered so many kits for them, including several for 111 marker Y-DNA testing.]

[Flattybasher9]

"46% Irish
37% West Europe
11% Scandinavian
3% Great Britain - ONLY 3% really???
2% Italian/Greek
<1% Iberian Peninsula

On 23andMe I come in at a more respectable:

63.1% British & Irish
8.1% French & German
4.5% Scandinavian
20.2% Broadly Northwestern European
2.3% Broadly Southern European
1.8% Broadly European"

Does the above results actually mean anything to you.
Ireland and what is now Great Britain was covered with a sheet of ice at one point. No humans lived here, so where does the "Irish" "Great Britain" and "British & Irish" come from? Did they fly in from North Africa?
Three "Broadly" results, six relating to European origins? But they originated elsewhere, as did the "Scandinavians" and the "Iberian". How far back genetically does these results actually relate to. Great Britain did not exist until the start of the 18th century. I really am starting to think that this DNA tracing is for the susceptible in society.

Regards

Malky

[lizdb]

"46% Irish
37% West Europe
11% Scandinavian
3% Great Britain - ONLY 3% really???
2% Italian/Greek
<1% Iberian Peninsula

On 23andMe I come in at a more respectable:

63.1% British & Irish
8.1% French & German
4.5% Scandinavian
20.2% Broadly Northwestern European
2.3% Broadly Southern European
1.8% Broadly European"

How do you know which is right?

[DevonCruwys]

All these "ethnicity" estimates are doing is matching you with genetic clusters. The country labels that they give to these clusters should not be taken literally. There are a limited number of reference populations available and the results are not at all meaningful beyond the continental level. Even then, it's still very difficult to distinguish between say Irish and English DNA. If you have some Asian or African DNA then this is something that is worth following up but just treat the rest of it as a bit of fun. "Ethnicity" reports are NOT the main reason for taking an autosomal DNA test. Autosomal DNA tests are used for genealogy for confirming hypotheses about relationships and for finding lost cousins in the databases. The tests are very effective for this purpose up to the second cousin or third cousin level but are more speculative for distant relationships. The "ethnicity" reports are bonus add-on features. They are also subject to change over time. We're already on the second reincarnation at 23andMe, FTDNA and AncestryDNA. Both AncestryDNA and FTDNA have said that they are hoping to roll out updated reports later this year.

[Marilyn S]

Mark,
My mother's youngest brother was adopted.  His father was born in Ireland.  I tested him with FTDNA and 23andMe.  I transferred his raw data to GEDmatch.  Ancestry was not available at the time when I found his mother's match so I did not use them.  DNA is the best tool to augment the decades I spent searching on the frustrating paper trail.  23andMe finally found a match to his birth mother so at the age of 80 he finally got to see a photo of his birth mother. 
I don't like to hear the negative remarks about DNA as a genealogy tool.  We all know that the earth is no longer flat.  DNA has expanded our research tools into a new dimension.  Folks should not fear that they will fall off of a cliff if they use DNA.  Any surprises in their family tree have been there all along.  It's time to open our eyes and embrace the future.
Marilyn 

[julie7239]

Trystan

No great expectation on the ethnic side. I have stated on other boards my concerns about profiling by name. I also feel , if anthropology is correct, that our path is From Africa, Middle east, Europe. So our DNA will reflect that.

I would utilize DNA ( a $$$ issue for now) as a means to break down brickwalls or to find common relations - within a 300 year period. If I could have that happen I would be happy with the money spent. Am I aiming too high? Possibly , if I can find I have a broken connection then so be it.

I have no fears or qualms as to what may be exposed. If I am not related to my grandfather , as rumour has it, then I move on to another family.

I had mostly dismissed the idea of DNA testing for now, because it is expensive and like all technology will probably be a lot better and cheaper in a few years' time.  There are also issues of privacy regarding an unknown technology and as a precaution I don't want my DNA on any database that could leak.