Can someone help me with a DNA question?

Question

I have sent away my DNA to Ancestry, but it hasn't come back yet. At the moment this is all mystifying to me. I want to detach the cited profile from the parents shown. Nobody has stepped forward to object to my doing so. There are a number of reasons why it makes sense genealogically (beyond the lack of sources) which I won't take the time or space to cover here.

But I notice that five DNA tests are attached to this profile. One of them is from a descendant of this person. The other four (all private) are hard to track, but appear to be from descendants of supposed siblings.

Does the presence of these tests indicate any evidence of a connection? I think not, but want to be sure. And if I disconnect this profile from these parents, will the tests still show on the profile? Or is there a way to remove them?

Comments

Who are your descendants?

Answer 1

The DNA tests automatic populate onto profiles whose descendants have taken tests. They do not indicate any existing matches, only that it may be possible to examine the tests for a match. They should update if anyone becomes disconnected. Many processes take some time to update, I don't know if this is one of them, but if they don't disappear don't worry.

Comments

That answers my question. I have disconnected the profile. I guess the DNA tests will update overnight.

Thanks Greg.

---

Dave, in my 2-tests taken, I've found that ancestry does not give much in the way of results that are useful. Some sites don't charge for giving you results and some do, but it's not as expensive as I found with taking another DNA test. The autosomal test from ftdna.com has given me the best results. And people have made clear to me that the test given is the same test wherever you take it.

---

"And people have made clear to me that the test given is the same test wherever you take it."

Well... Not so much. Without the strangling detail I can tend to go into  :-)  autosomal DNA tests (yDNA and myDNA tests don't necessarily employ the same process, though some do) use some form of microarray chip, most of them manufactured by a company named Illumina. Over 90% of the world's genetic sequencing data is done by Illumina chips (there's a plot for a science fiction novel in there somewhere, but I won't touch it).
 

Some testing companies use customized Illumina chips, and some use the Illumina OmniExpress chip. Even if they use the same chip, it doesn't mean they use the results the same way...or even use the same data the chip provides. For example, when you look at the number of autosomal Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) tested, you see differences:

• 23andMe: 577,382 SNPs tested
• Family Tree DNA: about 690,000 SNPs tested
• AncestryDNA: 637,639 SNPs tested
• Genographic Project Geno 2.0: 700,000 SNPs tested
• MyHeritage: 702,442 SNPs tested

These numbers, though, pale when you consider that the human genome has about 3 billion bases to evaluate. To put that into perspective, 700,000 tested SNPs would represent about 0.0233% of the whole genome.

How the different companies evaluate results, and how/what they display, is a whole 'nother story.

---

Well, okay! That is so much better than I thought, but it (.0233%) makes the sales pitches out there ridiculous. Well, we should say then: it's ll we can get right now. Really??? Is that the "correct" perspective?

Edison, your view from the pinnacle strikes me as informative and witty. I'm so pleased, not that it's exactly great how we mortals stumble into things that are premature and seems llike the keys to the kingdom for a few years--until something that's even less probable comes in to bop us on the ears.

Are you in the DNA project?

---

Well, okay! That is so much better than I thought, but it (.0233%) makes the sales pitches out there ridiculous. Well, we should say then: it's ll we can get right now. Really??? Is that the "correct" perspective?

Edison, your view from the pinnacle strikes me as informative and witty. I'm so pleased, not that it's exactly great how we mortals stumble into things that are premature and seems llike the keys to the kingdom for a few years--until something that's even less probable comes in to bop us on the ears. 

Are you in the DNA project?

Roberta, if I somehow offended you, I most sincerely apologize. That was in no way my intent.

I merely attempted to offer my opinion, to the best of my limited ability.

Thank you very much for writing.

---

Oucheee! I did in no way mean to sound irritated at you. Perhaps my mental processes are outside the realm of possibility, but I was actually supporting you and ridiculing the incapacity of mankind to understand things that are by definition incomprehensible because the full and accurate data are not in. I truly thought you'd get it because you are so intelligent. Please forgive me.

"It's all we can get right now, that .0233%":  and yet we persist in seeing it as mankind's (falsely, and by definition ignorantly/innocently) chosen perspective because it's "all we can get right now" and thus all we have to work on. To quote one of the masters, Kurt Vonnegut: "And so it goes."

---

We share about 99% of our DNA with gorillas and other apes. AFAIK the SNPs tested by FTDNa and others are choosen to cover DNA parts that differ from individual to individual. Whole genome sequencing is possible but costs a 4 or 5 digit number. (Remember the human genome project? It costed millions back then.) So we could get more but it's quite expensive and the knowledge gain is not on par.

---

Erik Pischel and Edison Williams: I hope you two keep us filled with all the latest that's useful to us to understand our searches. You two know things. Do we have a place we can go here (like a DNA Project page) to get the basics of a more universal and accurate understanding of this one of our main streams to understanding this part of our complicated area of study here?