I am not sure which twins study some of you saw (or read about) but I
did see one which was a video, so not sure where I came across it, This
is a while ago, I don't remember who sponsored it (not one of the
companies) BUT, it showed the results when twins DNA was sent to three
or four companies. ALL of the companies concluded the twins were twins.
I'm sorry to be so vague, but I thought at the time, "that's nice, what
did they expect?" and paid no more attention. If I can find it again,
As for the origins part of Ancestry, they are frequently upgrading and
fine-tuning the results as they gather more data. My percentage of Irish
ancestry according to Ancestry is now less than their last estimate
(sob!) But I agree, this is the hook that gets people to send money,
like the ad where the guy trades his kilt for lederhosen.
The results are sometimes hard to understand. My grandnephew, whose
mother is half Italian (her father is Italian from southern Italy all
the way back ) evidently inherited no DNA from his mother's father, when
one might have predicted up to 25% Italian, maybe even from some other
places within sailing distance along the Mediterranean. But no. This is
possible, of course, as what DNA an egg carries is entirely random, but
it is a bit strange. Incidentally, he does not look at all as if he is
part Italian, while his two siblings do.
From: Jack Fallin
Sent: February 10, 2019 9:09 PM
Subject: FERMANAGH-GOLD -DNA Analysis: "Pseudo-Science"?
Well, I went to the program described and it said absolutely nothing about DNA analysis
being “pseudo-Science.” This is a profoundly misleading description of what CBC was
It’s plain common sense that when a testing company tries to figure out “national” roots
they are comparing the material you submit to that submitted by others and those others
“self-identify” where their ancestors came from. Simple enough - if those people are
fibbing the results are going to be skewed. Over time, as enough people submit material
the outliers (fibbers) will be weeded out because their results are not lining up with the
folks whose ancestors really did come from those places. This also means that each
testing company will come up with slightly different results because they will be starting
from a different set of informants who were related to individual locations at different
points in time. As for why the twins hit slightly different “national origins” even
within the same testing company, that, as the story points out, will vary with the large
(but nonetheless limited) number of “sites” sampled, the “algorithm” employed to try to
identify distinctive variations, and the precise mix of alternative samples at the
specific date and time tested.
“National origin” results will always be inherently sloppier than than actual
DNA-relatedness tests [where the order of accuracy runs Y-DNA, Mitochondrial DNA,
autosomal DNA] and those tests of relatedness are the real reason for genealogical DNA
The companies involved absolutely Did Not miss the fact that these people were twins -
the only result that would justify the “pseudo-Science” label; the only result quoted
easily found the two to be more than 97% related. So if you are looking for relatives (as
opposed to what obscure country you may be attached to) the CBC results, if anything,
verified the tests’ ability to identify matches.
Walnut Creek, CA
Il giorno 10 feb 2019, alle ore 21:28, Eilish Gmail <eilish7(a)gmail.com> ha
"Fibbers" do not come into DNA testing. DNA "strands" are compared
with other "strands". The longer the "strand" that is identical, the
higher the change that the persons concerned are related to some degree. It's not a
lie detector test, and nor will the "fibbers" be weeded out over time. When I
did my own ill-fated DNA test, I was not prompted as to what I thought was in the mix.
Only the sample as required, certainly not an attached family tree.
And if it's "sloppy" for identical twins, Lord help the rest of us.