Some time ago I believe I posted about DNA testing and results and gave a positive spin on the whole process. Times have changed. I know this is a emerging process and all but the claims of accuracy seem to far out-strip reality. For reference, here is the 'original' results I received as a result of testing:

Looking at the family tree and parsing through our passed-down history this seemed quite plausible, even expected with one notable exception: Family lore says that my Great Great Grandfather was, in fact, a Native American who forsook his tribe for love. That same lore claims he was from the Tuscarora tribe but that's not all that significant to the 'allegation' that we have Native American blood yet none of that shows up. Furthermore I have made contact with numerous first and second cousins, a niece, and a 2nd cousin once removed all of whom have had tests and none of whom have shown to have Native American heritage. Now again, this is an emerging science that will have pitfalls so I supposed it's possible there is too small a sample of Native American DNA to reference against. However, if that is the case for a number of lineages (I mean N.A. is not the only potential scant source out there, right?) then you would expect that result to be indicative by not even attempting to hit 100% in its prediction. There should have been more 'unknowns' than .... um .... virtually none.

Right?

Well, that had me a bit flummoxed for a while and I even tried to open an incident against Ancestry about it but they weren't having it. They fell back on the "it's new and emerging, results may vary, 100% is not REALLY 100% it's just 100% of what we know at this time.".

And now for the rest of the story .......

I received notification recently on Ancestry that they had new data, their sample size of 3000 for my heritage (what exactly does that mean, anyhow? Of MY heritage?) had 'ballooned' to up over 15,000 and I could request an update. And so I did, expecting maybe to see something new and wonderful OR at least a more accurate depiction of their, um, accuracy.

Queenie, Sensible, and a couple cousins received notification as well and their results in one case didn't change and the rest changed by a few percentage points here or there.

So here's to better accuracy! Never mind, perish the thought!! I know now EXACTLY where all the bodies are buried, where I came from, what I'm made of .... just look and see for yourself:


Take a good long look at it, I know there's just too much info there to take in one shot. Take all the time you need, read every word and every component. You don't wanna miss a thing.

Yeah, now I have a REAL incident open with Ancestry. they insist that the science has 'matured' (in 6 months) and that this corrects the inaccuracies that were reflected in prior data but seem totally flummoxed by my vain protestations. I did try to explain that statistically speaking a sample size increase of even 400% should at the very least show a 'Europe West' component of less than 1%.

Well I'm not buying it. But at least I have a better understanding of how the Native American component may still be in there but not exposed. By this accurate ..... well, debatable result. If any of you bought into this based on my earlier post, I do apologize. Perhaps it will all work out in the end. In a few years time?

So at the moment I'm 100% Wale-ing English. And Wail I shall until they can explain my fluid heritage .....
1>