PDA

View Full Version : Best DNA test on the market?



RobinC
29-02-2016, 11:00 AM
Who has completed a DNA test that is available and what did you think of the results it gave you in relation to your research?

Hector
01-03-2016, 11:00 AM
My wife and I took individual tests on Ancestry and I was quite disappointed with both. They gave possible origins and list of people on Ancestry that were fifth cousins but having contacted them all there was no relationship that was close enough to be interesting. There was maybe a town, county or surname that we had in common but nothing more.
It enclosed lots of mainly American versions of history, no Henry Ford did not invent the automobile!
I told Ancestry I was disappointed but I didn't get a reply. At 100 each it wasn't worth it.

Break2015
06-03-2016, 11:02 AM
My wife and I took individual tests on Ancestry and I was quite disappointed with both. They gave possible origins and list of people on Ancestry that were fifth cousins but having contacted them all there was no relationship that was close enough to be interesting. There was maybe a town, county or surname that we had in common but nothing more.
It enclosed lots of mainly American versions of history, no Henry Ford did not invent the automobile!
I told Ancestry I was disappointed but I didn't get a reply. At 100 each it wasn't worth it.

Great thing to know. Can barely find any information on a great so forth grandfather by census / records. The site 23&me we were using has limited & vague relation [really nothing to the side we want to know, the female side different story] and was thinking of using Ancestry due to the site's self-promoting gimmicks of having "huge" resources.

23&me was pretty accurate with respect to the female based results we got - however, beyond 3rd / 4th cousin the relationship was so vague it wasn't worth the money. Unfortunately, as per that website, I have a total of 5 2nd cousins and 8 3rd cousins so not a lot to work with.

I think it depends, each site has a different process & different population, however, it also depends on if your family is "wide spread" & reproduced a lot. I know someone on 23&me whose apparently dirt poor great-great-grandparents had enough children & grandchildren to populate a tiny town by themselves.

SandraL
13-08-2016, 7:22 PM
You can download your DNA data from Ancestry and upload it to Gedmatch. It's a free site. You might get more luck with that site.

emmteeyess
13-08-2016, 9:49 PM
Who has completed a DNA test that is available and what did you think of the results it gave you in relation to your research?

First off, I have to say I've not taken a DNA test and from a totaly personal point of view I'd never bother with DNA tests/analysis. They strike me as a bit of an Ancestry money maker, and I'm not convinced their data base of people's DNA is comprehensive enough.

I've no desire to find a 3rd cousin I know nothing about from Little Town USA, and then try to track back to his ag.lab g.grandparents in Lower Bottomly. I mean, Why bother?

I don't even want to know if I'm 1/4 Viking or 7/8ths Neanderthal!

I'd much prefer to track ancestors thru their paper trail and known families, with all the stories that that produces. And there's more than enough of them to keep me busy to be sure that I've got the right people and their full life stories, and not just lift surnames from other people's trees unchecked.

Anyway - Rant over - this is just my own humble opinion - you must spend your money as you see fit!!

Cheers, MTS

SandraL
13-08-2016, 10:19 PM
I've been able to make about 121 positive matches on my list. The furthest back I have on my list was from 1661 from an 8th cousin.

stepives
13-08-2016, 11:12 PM
My wife and I took individual tests on Ancestry and I was quite disappointed with both. They gave possible origins and list of people on Ancestry that were fifth cousins but having contacted them all there was no relationship that was close enough to be interesting. There was maybe a town, county or surname that we had in common but nothing more.
It enclosed lots of mainly American versions of history, no Henry Ford did not invent the automobile!
I told Ancestry I was disappointed but I didn't get a reply. At 100 each it wasn't worth it.

200 buys a lot of certs.:yes:

My thoughts on DNA.......:banghead:

Steve.:)

SandraL
14-08-2016, 2:05 AM
Sadly many don't reply.

warwickhewett
09-12-2016, 1:36 AM
I bought 23andme for my mother and it was more interesting in regards to you medical genetics than especially ancestry.

However, can you download this data and upload it to ancestry? That would be interesting.

SandraL
09-12-2016, 2:11 AM
One can only use Ancestry's DNA on Ancestry. You can download it and upload it to other sites. I have mine on Gedmatch as well as Family Tree DNA. If one wants to see all the matches on Family Tree DNA. It's a one time fee of $39 US. If one is a free member on the site they will only show the first 20 matches. I also have mine on My Heritage but was very disappointed with that site. I am a member of that site but I am not going to renew it.

One can also build a tree on Family Tree DNA but it has it's pros and cons. I can't seem to get pictures uploaded. And if one links to a person that is either a Jr. or Sr. it will switch the people around. I tried changing it back to the proper way but it kept changing back to the wrong way. When I tried to remove that person to do them over, it removes the whole line and must be added again.

SandraL
09-12-2016, 2:18 AM
I watched a short video on DNA and this pro that was narrating it said many have been disappointed with it.

Ladkyis
09-12-2016, 9:02 AM
Unless you have a sample of the DNA from your ancestors the "matches" they make cannot be confirmed and would not survive the paper trail tests we should subject our research to.The results will always be totally vague - I mean what does 3% eastern European really mean? If you are testing for claims against huge estates with large amounts of money involved, or to see if someone really is the Princess Anastasia then go ahead but to possibly connect you to a very distant cousin when you don't have the connective paper trail? oh no not me.

If you want to know your ethnicity or if you are descended from vikings then go ahead but until they find a way to take samples from long dead, cremated ancestors I will spend my pocket money on subscriptions to information websites and to buying certificates

Lesley Robertson
09-12-2016, 12:24 PM
All they do is tell you that you have a common ancestor with one or more people. It won't pinpoint who that ancestor was... it could be the person you suspect, their sibling or someone further back.

warwickhewett
10-12-2016, 6:46 AM
One can only use Ancestry's DNA on Ancestry. You can download it and upload it to other sites. I have mine on Gedmatch as well as Family Tree DNA. If one wants to see all the matches on Family Tree DNA. It's a one time fee of $39 US. If one is a free member on the site they will only show the first 20 matches. I also have mine on My Heritage but was very disappointed with that site. I am a member of that site but I am not going to renew it.

One can also build a tree on Family Tree DNA but it has it's pros and cons. I can't seem to get pictures uploaded. And if one links to a person that is either a Jr. or Sr. it will switch the people around. I tried changing it back to the proper way but it kept changing back to the wrong way. When I tried to remove that person to do them over, it removes the whole line and must be added again.

so I opened a Family Tree DNA account, went to upload a freshly downloaded 23andme autosomal data file (the test was done this year, and I got this message "We only accept autosomal raw data files from Ancestry DNA & 23andMe V3 (sold from about Jan 2011 to Oct 2013)."

I've made contact with a potential distant cousin on Ancestry - he has his DNA results on Ancestry (not sure the version), I have mine (actually my mothers but the connection is on her side) - do we have other options to compare results?

Peter Goodey
10-12-2016, 8:47 AM
I'd much prefer to track ancestors thru their paper trail

I'm with you there, MTS! I've always taken genealogy to mean tracing ancestors through surviving documents and can't see the place of DNA testing in the hobby.

warwickhewett
12-12-2016, 9:18 PM
I have some interesting DNA news that's personal to my own research. But thanks to GEDmatch I was able to prove a match between my mother and her cousins she didn't even know she had. Basically my gt gt grandfather had several wives and children, although we don't know the exact motives we are guessing he changed his name subtly to avoid paying child support (or obligations) back in the late 1800s. He also changed his dob several times and this made paper trailing him hard because you would doubt how accurate you were being or if you had found just another person with a similar name. So I made a guess and reached out to another person with this gt gt grandfather in his tree. It turned out he had already done a DNA test on ancestry so by using GEDmatch we could compare the raw data one to one and have conclusive evidence that we have the same person in our trees even though their names and birth differ (because of the records we had relied on).

Guy Etchells
13-12-2016, 11:45 AM
It has yet to be proved that a persons DNA is unique and we are a long way off proving such a claim.

Keep in mind for many years it was claimed that snowflakes were unique but in 2014 it was shown that they fall into on of 35 different shapes ruled by temperature and humidity.

It is therefore perfectly possible that as more individuals have DNA tests duplications could be discovered.

Science does not deal in facts it deals in claims (theories) that hold true until proven false.

Cheers
Guy

Lesley Robertson
14-12-2016, 10:28 AM
Agreed.

"have conclusive evidence that we have the same person in our trees"

Not quite. You have evidence that you have a common ancestor who could be the individual that you have in mind (call him Z). If it's a male and you're looking at the Y chromosome, it could be that you descend from brothers, cousins or even a nephew and uncle. Man who share a common completely male line (father's father's father's, etc).
That's why we say that DNA is a useful tool but must be combined with other evidence. If Z was the only male relative in town, it makes it more likely. However if Z's whole family was in town, it confirms the family but not an individual.

tony vines
14-12-2016, 11:29 PM
I recommend that anyone who contemplates taking a DNA test first reads "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford is a geneticist who writes very accessible books about the subject of DNA and what it can and, more importantly, cannot tell us about our ancestry (among many other things). I am reading it for the second time in a month, partly because I understand more as a result but also because it is such a fascinating read. It is available in hard copy, as a Kindle book and in our local library (in the UK).

He debunks some of the sensational claims made by some companies who offer the service. He also reveals that different companies look at different areas of your DNA so you probably need to know what you are looking for before you choose to use one over an another. I had mine tested several years ago (Y Chromosome). All it showed me was that I wasn't genetically related to a lot of people round the world with the same surname as mine (who'd had theirs tested by the same company) within modern historic times i.e. going back several hundred years.

Read the book first then decide whether it's for you.

Tony

GakuWolfe
30-12-2016, 5:17 PM
Agreed.

"have conclusive evidence that we have the same person in our trees"

Not quite. You have evidence that you have a common ancestor who could be the individual that you have in mind (call him Z). If it's a male and you're looking at the Y chromosome, it could be that you descend from brothers, cousins or even a nephew and uncle. Man who share a common completely male line (father's father's father's, etc).
That's why we say that DNA is a useful tool but must be combined with other evidence. If Z was the only male relative in town, it makes it more likely. However, if Z's whole family was in town, it confirms the family but not an individual.

Unless you can find a potential tie though such relevance is extremely limited. So you're related? To whom & how?

The vast problem I've found with people taking DNA tests - and I've tested on all the major DNA sites not to make discoveries but rather to see what all the hype is about - is the majority have limited genealogical knowledge. They don't know much about their familial history. A number likely can't trace their genealogy past the first hundred, maybe hundred and fifty, years and stumbling their way back across the pond is a daunting obstacle few can't tackle.

I mean there's one DNA forum I frequent where the chap was throwing a party on the forums for having found his great-great-grandfather. The jaw-dropping revelation? This ancestor had lived a whopping 200 miles from where his family had lived for decades.

Thus, in this sense, DNA testing becomes a case of the blind leading the blind.



Besides Y, and mtDNA, is not autosomal. It doesn't recombine every time there's a baby. It can stay the same for generations upon generations. Thus a "relative"'s ancestor can be generations separated from your own ancestor.


I mean, before I got fed up with the guy's bullying attitude which is a dang shame as I would have liked to assist but the person was a complete arse, some guy supposedly related to me indicated that he had found a potential French connection between his British ancestral line and some chap from France. He maintained my paternal line might "crack the code". His theory was it was Norman ancestry from the 1066s and onwards. He portrayed it as if he had broken ground on some life altering ancient mystery but given England's history of invaders, etc. I can't say I was as impressed**.

The Normans, after all, aren't the only French in England's history. I know for a fact one of my ancestors' wives happened to have married a Huguenot descendant after his death for example. The irony is, is this person's ancestry happens to come from a region where Huguenot weavers settled too.


**That's another thing I've found about these DNA researchers, their rather limited knowledge of historical populations movements. I frequent various DNA forums and some of their questions about so & so showing this and this ethnicity or their commentary about their supposed ancestry would make you roll your eyes except for the fear they become stuck that way you do it so often.