But beware of Ancestry, Xinia! The reports they produce really are nonsense.
They are running a television commercial in North America where a woman discovers she is "26% Native American".
Well come on.
Wouldn't you likely know about it, if one of your four grandparents, or two of your eight great-grandparents, or four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents, were Aboriginal? Or, for instance, if four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents each had one Aboriginal parent and two of them each had two Aboriginal parents? Keeping in mind that it's highly unlikely that at least a few of the great-great-grandparents of someone living in the US, if not more recent ancestors, were not immigrants or children of immigrants, i.e. 100% European.
That's really a pretty hefty percentage of ancestors to know
nothing about. Unless you know absolutely nothing about at least one of your parents' families.
The test says what your DNA is; not what your ancestors are. The DNA in question (autosomal DNA, atDNA) is transmitted randomly. The part of each of your parents' atDNA that you get will be different from the parts that your siblings get. Two siblings' results will be entirely different -- the sister of the woman with 26% Native American DNA might have a much smaller percentage, for instance. They have the same parents, and thus grandparents and great-grandparents, etc. But one is 1/4 Native American and one is, say, 1/8 Native American. Nonsense.
If you google things like
autosomal dna siblings you'll find lots of fairly easy to understand explanations.
If you are going to do DNA testing, it is most important to know
what you want to find out.
Expecting to find out what percentage of your ancestors came from where ... nope, that just won't happen.
DNA Ancestry Tests Are 'Meaningless' for Your Historical Genealogy Search
http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586
... Even genetic connections to historical ethnic groups like "Viking" or "Zulu" are vague. People's genetics do not reflect specific groups, since the high degree of genetic mixing over centuries means that even cultures with strong cultural boundaries do not have noticeable genetic differences.
People descended from more isolated populations, like the Scottish Highlands in the United Kingdom, have minor genetic differences from the general surrounding population, but they are not significant enough to identify a "Scottish gene" in an individual's genealogy.
"As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy," said Jones.
If an ancestry test finds a connection between a particular sequence of your DNA and a specific, isolated tribal group, the only thing that can be concluded is a mere possibility that some of your ancestors were in that group.
Human history involves an incredible amount of migration, and because each of your genes has its own ancestral history, there are thousands of possible versions of your genealogy. ...
Malcolm33 posted while I was typing.
Malcolm, your YDNA is a completely different thing from atDNA, of course.
A man's YDNA, inherited from his father, does trace directly back through his male line to the beginning, and does give a better indication of the origins of that particular male line (which means only one of four paternal great-great-grandfathers, for instance -- father's father's father's father -- and his father's father's father ...).
Men's and women's mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), inherited from their mother, does the same, through the mother's female line. But it is far less specific.
