DWalt
Member
I agree with that. From about WWI onward, I didn't see those large litters of kids, more like 2 or 3, about like today.
DNA results in....I am a mutt...
- Thread starter Ron M.
- Start date
I agree with that. From about WWI onward, I didn't see those large litters of kids, more like 2 or 3, about like today.
yanici
US Veteran
I am a descendant of Charlemagne, William the conqueror, some Vikings, French/English/Spanish and predominately Irish. Look up Fulk V the King of Jerusalem, another of my forefathers.
But alas I'm still a mutt too just like most of us. My brother who did all the research into our genealogy has joined all kinds of societies that only allow proven heritage to the past hierarchy. Me, I could care less . Woof-woof.
But alas I'm still a mutt too just like most of us. My brother who did all the research into our genealogy has joined all kinds of societies that only allow proven heritage to the past hierarchy. Me, I could care less . Woof-woof.
I don't have anybody famous in my family tree, but I am having a lot of fun playing Mexicans and Indians in movies, chili cook-offs and SASS.
2 siblings do not necessarily have the same DNA. Hardly.
I got 1/2 of my DNA from my dad and 1/2 from my mom as did my brother, but we probably did NOT get the same 1/2 from each
It is possible that an ancestor say 8 generations back was 100% B. Does not mean any will show up in all of the people in the 8th generation. 2nd gen will be 50%, but all of the 3rd will NOT be 25% Theoretically possible for one of them to have 0% if the 50% past on was the part with no B genes. The farther from the source the more likely none might be past on.
I got 1/2 of my DNA from my dad and 1/2 from my mom as did my brother, but we probably did NOT get the same 1/2 from each
It is possible that an ancestor say 8 generations back was 100% B. Does not mean any will show up in all of the people in the 8th generation. 2nd gen will be 50%, but all of the 3rd will NOT be 25% Theoretically possible for one of them to have 0% if the 50% past on was the part with no B genes. The farther from the source the more likely none might be past on.
500SNW
Member
I have a problem. I just got back the DNA data for both my parents and an uncle. Comparing theirs to mine, AncestryDNA rightly linked us all up as matches/close relatives...but I have two "trace regions" or "low confidence regions" which neither of my parents, nor my uncle have. Since I get everything from my parents...how can that possibly be?
dougb1946
Member
The hobby in N Europe for centuries was, after spring planting, get the weapons and invade your neighbors. Kill as many as possible, rape as many as possible, take anything of value and a few slaves, and head home for harvest. Next generation was your neighbor , after spring planing, invading your little piece of heaven and returning the favor. In a large part of the world, the Roman army, with members from everywhere, did the invading and raping. England was invaded by everyone. Your blood lines will be mixed. And now, it seems that the oldest body dump in England (Cheddar man) had really dark skin. We have common ancestors, but we just don't like the neighbors. Fear of the stranger, and humans can be strange.
fiasconva
Member
My wife got her results yesterday. Her mom was a war bride from Ireland so she thought that she was of mostly Irish decent. Turns out she was 57% Great Britain and only 13% Irish. She was even more Scandinavian than Irish. Ya just never know.
CBus660R
Member
As I mentioned before, the databases are small, they rely on what their participants tell them, and are mostly comprised of Americans. That means there's lots of DNA markers they can't identify. Those 2 trace or low confidence regions could actually confirm your heritage, they're just not in their database as such yet.
