My AncestryByDna 2.0 Test Result

[Dean]

To Posters: I'm sorry for having accidentally deleted some of this text, so I've rewritten it.

I got AncestryByDNA 2.0 test result today. My estimated markers are 98% Indo-European and 2% East Asian, with no estimated African or Native American markers. This surprised me, as I thought I would have a slightly higher percentage of East Asian markers, due to the long Turkish occupation of Greece. The 2% is within the test's 2-3% error rate. Does anyone know how far back in time this test can detect genes--100 years, 500 years, 2,000 years? If I do indeed have very low admixture, could this have come hundreds of years ago or only recently?

I'm getting closer to my ultimate goal: taking the ABD 3.0 test, which if/when developed will show sub-racial estimates--e.g. Mediterranean vs. Northern European; Japanese vs. Chinese.

[Artemidoros]

Does anyone know how far back in time this test can detect genes--100 years, 500 years, 2,000 years? If I do indeed have very low admixture, could this have come hundreds of years ago or only recently?

I don't know about the specific test but if it is worth anything it should detect ancestry going back tens of thousands of years. Your 2% EA is probably Palaeolithic. Other Greeks have been linked to Amerindians and the only explanation is sharing ancestors in Siberia 30,000 ago.

[Artemidoros]

No Sub-Saharan ancestry? Sorry to give you the sad news but according to Afrocentrists you are not a true Greek. ;D

[Dean]

Artemidoros said:

No Sub-Saharan ancestry? Sorry to give you the sad news but according to Afrocentrists you are not a true Greek. ;D

Oh no! My self-image is shattered! I shall contemplate the Aegean death--a grief-stricken plunge off of an Attic cliff into the sea. ; ;D

You don't hear a peep out of the Afrocentrists after the bogus study of the Sub-Saharan origins of the Greeks was refuted.

[AWAR]

Dean said:

You don't hear a peep out of the Afrocentrists after the bogus study of the Sub-Saharan origins of the Greeks was refuted.

After that defeat, they and Arthur Kemp started smoking crack.

[Dean]

Dean said:

Does anyone know how far back in time this test can detect genes--100 years, 500 years, 2,000 years? If I do indeed have very low admixture, could this have come hundreds of years ago or only recently?

According to AncestryByDNA, detectable admixture could be recent or very old. Their example for old admixture is Russians, who as a whole have a relatively large amount of East Asian gene markers. The East Asian genes could have been acquired very long ago and passed along in low numbers in each generation.

[Dienekes]

Artemidoros said:

Your 2% EA is probably Palaeolithic.

2% is within the test's error margin

"Nonetheless, to be conservative, it is probably best for customers to take values less than 5% with a grain of salt."

www.ancestrybydna.com/FAQs.html

[Dean]

AWAR said:

After that defeat, they and Arthur Kemp started smoking crack.

And after that they can smoke each other's cracks.

[Dean]

Dienekes said:

2% is within the test's error margin

"Nonetheless, to be conservative, it is probably best for customers to take values less than 5% with a grain of salt."

www.ancestrybydna.com/FAQs.html

This is right. I posted this earlier but accidentally deleted it. I've visited and posted my result at a DNA log site: www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/dnaprint.cgi

An interesting phenomenon I've seen at this site is that some people who assumed or knew they have Native American ancestry have estimated East Asian ancestry and no estimated Native American ancestry. Some have suggested that Native American and East Asian classifications should be lumped together into one category, and that since Amerindians are derived from East Asians, their genes may be identical, causing erroneous-appearing results.

[galvez]

Dean said:

I got AncestryByDNA 2.0 test result today. My estimated markers are 98% Indo-European and 2% East Asian, with no estimated African or Native American markers.

Dienekes is correct: 2% is well under the margin of error, so I would not take that as evidence of admixture. The lack of Negroid in a Greek does not surprise me -- it seems a lot of Meds are coming out without the "taint" that Nordicists and Afrocentrists assumed would be there. Meds also seem to be coming out "purer" than most "White" Americans, to say nothing of Nordnik South Africans like Kemp.

[Dean]

galvez said:

The lack of Negroid in a Greek does not surprise me -- it seems a lot of Meds are coming out without the "taint" that Nordicists and Afrocentrists assumed would be there. Meds also seem to be coming out "purer" than most "White" Americans, to say nothing of Nordnik South Africans like Kemp.

These are the people with the racial purity issues who would stand to lose the most by taking this test and finding out they are not "pure". Many Whites in the U.S., whose families have lived here a long time, have significant Native American admixture, as do Black-Americans, who have significant Native American and Indo-European admixture.

[Dean]

Dienekes, Other Greeks and Others,

I've been having a hell of a hard time with my former web posting site with regard to posting a good image of the following pictures. I hope this link works. If not, please let me know. I am sorry that this is a cumbersome link, with several steps, and I hope others can access the photos.

The photos are of some of my relatives. I wonder whether these olive-skinned people look Greek or Middle Eastern or both--not like there's always much of a difference. The man in the top photo is my mother's brother and his new wife, who's seated to his right. The woman to his left is my grandmother's lighter-skinned Russian maid. The adults in the black-and-white photo are, from left to right, my maternal grandmother, an in-law and her husband, my late maternal grandfather's cousin. In the other photo is my sister, my maternal grandfather (who's photo is in another thread), my mom's other brother and my grandfather's cousin, who's in the black-and-white photo.

Your opinions?


photos.yahoo.com/[e-mail]

P.S. I'm sorry, but this is a faulty link. I thought I had a web posting site, but I apparently do not. I will try to solve this problem, as I am interested in your opinions.

[ProdigalSon]

Dean said:

Their example for old admixture is Russians, who as a whole have a relatively large amount of East Asian gene markers. The East Asian genes could have been acquired very long ago and passed along in low numbers in each generation.

That's quite interesting, could you give me the link? The forest zone of Eastern Europe was populated by hunter-gatherers of Uralolappinoid type, who were later mostly sumbmerged by Caucasoid invaders. I am however curious, to the definition of "Russian" used by this study. Most Westerners view "Russian" as a national, not ethnic term, and fail to take into account the enormous genetic diversity that exists in that country. A case in point is a study of mtDNA in Russia, which gave a figure of 5.2% Mongoloid mtDNA for "European Russia", and which Racial Myths subsequently used as his figure for Mongoloid mtDNA in ethnic Russians. That study, interestingly enough, included 122 Maris and Mordvins in its sample. Studies of ethnic Russians done by Russian reserchers consistently produce figures of less than 2% Mongoloid mtDNA.

[Dean]

ProdigalSon said:

That's quite interesting, could you give me the link? The forest zone of Eastern Europe was populated by hunter-gatherers of Uralolappinoid type, who were later mostly sumbmerged by Caucasoid invaders. I am however curious, to the definition of "Russian" used by this study. Most Westerners view "Russian" as a national, not ethnic term, and fail to take into account the enormous genetic diversity that exists in that country. A case in point is a study of mtDNA in Russia, which gave a figure of 5.2% Mongoloid mtDNA for "European Russia", and which Racial Myths subsequently used as his figure for Mongoloid mtDNA in ethnic Russians. That study, interestingly enough, included 122 Maris and Mordvins in its sample. Studies of ethnic Russians done by Russian reserchers consistently produce figures of less than 2% Mongoloid mtDNA.

According to AncestryByDNA (ABD), ABD and Rosenberg et al. found via their research "significant East Asian admixture in Russians." ABD also states the obvious, that admixture has occured throughout history. For their purposes they may or may not delve too deeply into Russian ethnicity; they may simply accept a person's oral or written statement as to their ethnicity. ABD also states that they found significant (over 5%--per their standard) East Asian admixture in Central Europeans. They mention Mongolian and Hun invasions but back off from making definite statements. The link is here: www.ancestrybydna.com/genealogicaladdition.html

ABD states they can confidently detect exogamy in most cases in the last 4-5 generations, and rarely in the last 6-7 generations. Admixture could also be detected through the preserved genes of endogamous populations with admixture events happening very long ago.

[galvez]

ProdigalSon said:

That's quite interesting, could you give me the link? The forest zone of Eastern Europe was populated by hunter-gatherers of Uralolappinoid type, who were later mostly sumbmerged by Caucasoid invaders. I am however curious, to the definition of "Russian" used by this study. Most Westerners view "Russian" as a national, not ethnic term, and fail to take into account the enormous genetic diversity that exists in that country. A case in point is a study of mtDNA in Russia, which gave a figure of 5.2% Mongoloid mtDNA for "European Russia", and which Racial Myths subsequently used as his figure for Mongoloid mtDNA in ethnic Russians. That study, interestingly enough, included 122 Maris and Mordvins in its sample. Studies of ethnic Russians done by Russian reserchers consistently produce figures of less than 2% Mongoloid mtDNA.

Anyone who feels Russians are Mongoloid or significantly Mongoloid is as blind as a bat or biased. A small amount of admixture within a population tends to show itself in not so subtle ways. There are certainly Russians who exhibit Mongoloid traits, but they are a tiny minority. And even when this minority exhibits Mongoloid traits, it tends to be very minor.

The 2% admixture figure seems about right -- although it may be a bit less than that. In the east, of course, admixture would be a bit higher.