What is a good DNA test to help determine my full ancestry?

5 Comments

1. scotgirl60 says:

   August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

   https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/journey.html

   Here you go. I don’t know if DNA is going to narrow it down so specifically for you, though.
2. Shirley T says:

   August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

   The Y dna is passed solely from father to son.

   The mitochondrial is passed from the mother to both son and daughter but only the daughter passes it on to their children.

   Most of our DNA is autosomal. We get it 50-50 from both parents. It is the only DNA that relates a female to her father or a male to his maternal grandfather. Right now, autosomal isn’t being used. In about a year SMGF is going to use it for Genealogy.
   Just put SMGF in your search engine.
3. nickipettis says:

   August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

   what you want does not exist yet.

   yeah, i know they are advertising it on TV, and their are artiles. But the state of the science is such that, at this time, they can RELIABLY say you had relatives in NOrthern Europe ( and 12 other places.)

   If they say they can PROVE you have relatives from Poland, they are telling you what you want to hear.

   give the science another 5 to 10 years before you spend your money.
4. Mind Bender says:

   August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

   The problem isn’t the DNA test. Any properly performed DNA test will in fact accurately (to the current limits of science) determine your DNA structure for the features being tested for (some do 8 point test, some 11, some 22, others (MUCH more expensive) even more).

   The problem is the application of the DNA analysis to some other situation….where you came from for example. The resulting determination is only as good as the data on which it is based. And that data is evolving on a constant basis. If you look at the fine print, you will see an awful lot of disclaimers. "Anthropologists believe that", "Within the last 0 to 14 generations", etc.

   If this suits your purpose, that’s great. Just be aware of the limitations. Usually DNA testing is primarily used in CONJUNCTION with other information. Not standalone.

   Just like genealogy, anthropology (and historical genetics which is pretty much the same thing) relies on best guesses at the time. A certain "mutation" is known to be predominant in a certain part of the world – thus, and for good reason, it is assumed that’s where the mutation originated and thus anyone carrying that mutation (note mutation doesn’t mean bad, just means different) must come from that region. Trouble is, historically it also shows up with less prevalence in other regions. Well, there are (AT LEAST) two ways to explain this — The favorite is that the predominant original group MIGRATED to this region. Quite possible. But one other possibility is that the mutation occurred in this population, maybe at a much later time, just as it did in the original. There is no way to tell which is correct.

   Now what can happen is that ADDITIONAL information can become known (archeological evidence for example) that also indicates a migration – bingo – now the belief that the original group migrated has more confidence. BUT, suppose archeological evidence showed that this group of people were there BEFORE the original group even existed! Well, the couldn’t have migrated because they didn’t exist yet. So is this a second mutation occurrence? OR now maybe this is the original source of the mutation and THIS group migrated to the other spot. It is dynamic, just as genealogy, history, archeology, anthropology is dynamic. Changing all the time based on new information, finer studies, etc.

   But if you have the money and you understand what the results mean – and this fits your needs and purpose, they are all pretty much the same. Go for it.
5. janettee_mccrary says:

   August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

   Keep in mind that unless someone on the other end is also submitting their DNA, there isn’t anything to compare it to!