Anyone do the Ancestry Thing?

[Schmoe1]

I've gone back and forth about doing it or not, since I have certain reservations about sending my DNA to ANYBODY.

My parents finally did it, so there's no point in me doing it.  The results were somewhat surprising on my mother's side.  My father, we all knew, would come back Italian since his lineage is known.  My mother's side was always the question mark, even though we all grew up hearing Irish/German.

My father's came back 90-something percent Italy, with a smattering of Greek, Turkish, Armenian.

My mother's came back 40% Scotland/North Ireland, English, Norwegian, and Swedish.  Also a mention of Germanic Europe. 

Apparently the way they do this, is they take samples from people who've lived in certain areas for generations, and compare it with those sent in by people investigating their background.  I have no idea how accurate it is, but they nailed my father's test.

I've tried manually researching my mother's side, and can't even get past her grandmother.  It's like she never existed.  No records at all that I can find.  Maybe she was an illegal immigrant?

[Ninurta]

Yeah, I've done it. I had mine done at both Ancestry and 23andMe. I can't think of a reason anyone would want my DNA, so I didn't worry about it. If China or Russia got hold it it, it's possible they could create a virus tailored specifically to me and kill me dead, but I can't think of any valid reason either of them would take such a deep interest in me.

Your DNA is different from that of your parents - you got half of it from one, and the other half from the other, and when it combined to make you, it created a unique DNA signature.

When I had mine done, I downloaded the raw DNA files, and I have software here to analyze them. I used that software to combine the files and throw out the doubles where the same SNP was tested, unless one or the other came back as a no-call on that SNP. I used to  other file to fill in the blanks there. The resulting file was almost twice the size of either of the originals, with some of the blanks filled in and far more SNPs that one company tested and the other didn't all combined into a single file to make a finer-grained profile for more accurate analysis.

Since those two companies test different SNPs, the results from each differs somewhat from the other. On top of that, they both use different control populations, which make the results even more variable between them. The results are heavily weighted by the control populations they have available to compare your DNA to - they can't find anything they haven't got a control population to compare it against. As time goes on, they are steadily increasing their control population database, but it ain't there yet.

For example, one of them found Nigerian DNA while the other didn't. One found Central Asian where the other didn't. Things like that. When I upload the combined file to third party analysis sites, they find yet other things. One will even compare your DNA to ancient samples from archaeological digs to allow you to track your ancestry through time. For example, my DNA matches a skeleton dug up from a burial at Brattahlid, Greenland, Erik the Red's farmstead. I match 5 or 6 burials from Iceland, from around the time the vikings settled it. Bronze Age Britons are in there, too.

In your specific case, your parent's DNA, particularly your mother's DNA, can help you get past that roadblock you ran into when you were researching your family tree. Depending on the service they used to get tested, it's likely there is a section of the website on their profile that lists DNA relatives. If they were both tested at the same place, then you can tell which relatives are on which side. First cousins have a common grandparent, second cousins a common great grandparent, and so on. You start that search by looking for the appropriate cousin relationship, and then examining their family trees for people leading back to a known grandparent.

Both Ancestry and 23andMe have facilities for creating and comparing family trees on their sites. Ancestry in particular is geared towards finding relatives and researching family trees, as it is run by LDS, and they're real big on bloodlines on account of a religious factor.

I've been tinkering with my own DNA for 4 or 5 years now, so if there is anything you need to know, just ask, and I might have the answer.

ETA: My Dear Old Dad died in 1998, and never had his DNA done. I took my DNA, and one of my sisters' DNA, and have reconstructed dad's DNA file by about 75% or so. I could get it finer, but the rest of my sisters are like you, reluctant to let anyone test their DNA, so what I have of dad's file is likely to be all I'll ever have.

.

[Schmoe1]

Yeah, I've done it. I had mine done at both Ancestry and 23andMe. I can't think of a reason anyone would want my DNA, so I didn't worry about it. If China or Russia got hold it it, it's possible they could create a virus tailored specifically to me and kill me dead, but I can't think of any valid reason either of them would take such a deep interest in me.

Your DNA is different from that of your parents - you got half of it from one, and the other half from the other, and when it combined to make you, it created a unique DNA signature.

When I had mine done, I downloaded the raw DNA files, and I have software here to analyze them. I used that software to combine the files and throw out the doubles where the same SNP was tested, unless one or the other came back as a no-call on that SNP. I used to  other file to fill in the blanks there. The resulting file was almost twice the size of either of the originals, with some of the blanks filled in and far more SNPs that one company tested and the other didn't all combined into a single file to make a finer-grained profile for more accurate analysis.

Since those two companies test different SNPs, the results from each differs somewhat from the other. On top of that, they both use different control populations, which make the results even more variable between them. The results are heavily weighted by the control populations they have available to compare your DNA to - they can't find anything they haven't got a control population to compare it against. As time goes on, they are steadily increasing their control population database, but it ain't there yet.

For example, one of them found Nigerian DNA while the other didn't. One found Central Asian where the other didn't. Things like that. When I upload the combined file to third party analysis sites, they find yet other things. One will even compare your DNA to ancient samples from archaeological digs to allow you to track your ancestry through time. For example, my DNA matches a skeleton dug up from a burial at Brattahlid, Greenland, Erik the Red's farmstead. I match 5 or 6 burials from Iceland, from around the time the vikings settled it. Bronze Age Britons are in there, too.

In your specific case, your parent's DNA, particularly your mother's DNA, can help you get past that roadblock you ran into when you were researching your family tree. Depending on the service they used to get tested, it's likely there is a section of the website on their profile that lists DNA relatives. If they were both tested at the same place, then you can tell which relatives are on which side. First cousins have a common grandparent, second cousins a common great grandparent, and so on. You start that search by looking for the appropriate cousin relationship, and then examining their family trees for people leading back to a known grandparent.

Both Ancestry and 23andMe have facilities for creating and comparing family trees on their sites. Ancestry in particular is geared towards finding relatives and researching family trees, as it is run by LDS, and they're real big on bloodlines on account of a religious factor.

I've been tinkering with my own DNA for 4 or 5 years now, so if there is anything you need to know, just ask, and I might have the answer.

ETA: My Dear Old Dad died in 1998, and never had his DNA done. I took my DNA, and one of my sisters' DNA, and have reconstructed dad's DNA file by about 75% or so. I could get it finer, but the rest of my sisters are like you, reluctant to let anyone test their DNA, so what I have of dad's file is likely to be all I'll ever have.

.

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

[kdog]

I did ancestry site years ago by searching my surname, but not any dna crap. 

It told me my family came to the states in the 1700's from scotland and our name meant the darkones , supposedly vikings that raided and assimilated into the society.

[Ninurta]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

There are several possibilities for that confusion.

The original Scotsmen were Picts, a Briton group. They went to Scotland during the Briton invasion of Britain, and settled there.

A possibility is that your ancestors were among the Irish that settled Scotland, strangely enough from the Irish tribe called "Scotti", and where the name Scotland came from. They crossed from Northern Ireland and settled on the coast of Scotland, and over the centuries spread out from there displacing or assimilating the Picts.

Yet another possibility is that some of your relatives were among the Scots-Irish, displaced from Scotland by the English and resettled on the Ulster Plantations. If they left their DNA there, then it would cause a hit in your own. The bulk of them left Northern Ireland after about 3 generations or so, and came to America and immediately ran into the wilderness to settle as far away from the English as they could get. A lot pf Appalachians, myself included, can trace part of their ancestry back to them.

.

[Infolurker]

Yeah,

I do not want my DNA in all their databases.

[GeauxHomeLittleD]

The oldest daughter did one of those DNA things. Imagine the shock and horror she experienced when her "woke" self found out there was not even a tiny fraction of one percent of any African blood in her family tree! She was so ashamed!

[FlyingClayDisk]

...

I've been tinkering with my own DNA for 4 or 5 years now, ...

...

Whoa!!

[EndtheMadnessNow]

I've gone back and forth about doing it or not, since I have certain reservations about sending my DNA to ANYBODY.

My parents finally did it, so there's no point in me doing it.  The results were somewhat surprising on my mother's side.  My father, we all knew, would come back Italian since his lineage is known.  My mother's side was always the question mark, even though we all grew up hearing Irish/German.

My father's came back 90-something percent Italy, with a smattering of Greek, Turkish, Armenian.

My mother's came back 40% Scotland/North Ireland, English, Norwegian, and Swedish.  Also a mention of Germanic Europe. 

Apparently the way they do this, is they take samples from people who've lived in certain areas for generations, and compare it with those sent in by people investigating their background.  I have no idea how accurate it is, but they nailed my father's test.

I've tried manually researching my mother's side, and can't even get past her grandmother.  It's like she never existed.  No records at all that I can find.  Maybe she was an illegal immigrant?

My dad did it about 10 years ago but, paid an astronomical sum to a private genealogy firm that has full access to the Mormons database, and a genealogy research center over in France and a few others that work together. He wanted to have his roots traced as far back as possible, including if any trace of Neanderthal genes (result was zero) and other interesting odd stuff. Turns out he's a descendant of the Hussars and going back further the Knights Templar. That was a bit shocking. As part of the huge payment the research team produced a hard cover book the size of the bible with family origins, coat of arms, birth location/death dates and all the history. My family on my dad's side has had at least one father/son of every generation in every US war going back to the Revolutionary War.

9/11/1683 marks the anniversary of the epic Battle of Vienna, at a city the Islamic troops called "The Golden Apple." A battle where brave men stood side by side to stop the warriors of Ottoman's expansionist onslaught from entering into Europe. A relief force making up of the Holy League, included the Polish Winged Hussars, a legendary elite cavalry unit the world has ever seen. The cavalry charge of some 18,000 men came to Vienna's aid after Vienna endured 2 months of constant siege by the Turkish armies. The heroic battle that ensued not only saved Europe but Christendom as a whole.

My mom's side is a whole different story.

[Ninurta]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

I just thought of another possibility to explain this confusion.

The DNA testing at the ancestral population level matches you to the closest populations to your DNA that is in their database, and some times, the results are inaccurate because the closest population they have isn't exactly the right one, just close due to migrations and whatnot. For example, in the early days, my Indian DNA showed up in one test as "North Asian", because that is where at least some of the Indian populations migrated to America from in the long ago, and their DNA is similar to DNA from Siberia and the Altai Mountains. So in that case where they had no Indian DNA in their database, the analysis kicked out the closest match to it that they did have in the database, which was "North Asian".

Another test showed my Indian DNA as "Mayan" because Mayans were the only Indians they had in their database, so that is how it identified my Indian DNA. In yet another, it showed up as "Pima" as I recall, because Pima DNA was the only Indian DNA in that database. So that is at least 3 different identifications for the exact same bits of DNA.

There is a program called "DIY Dodecad" that will allow you to run your raw DNA file against several different datasets, and it's interesting to see how the ancestry of the same DNA can appear to change based upon the reference populations it is tested against.

.

[DISRAELI]

Only in the old-fashioned way. Two lines of my ancestry have been traced back by different people, and I have inherited personal material which helps in other lines (e.g. the "birthday book" given to one of my great-grandmothers in 1882).

If anyone's ancestry includes the Symons clan of west Cornwall, or the clan Penrose, or the clan Melton, it could be worth swapping notes.

[AugustusMasonicus]

If you want your DNA information owned and monetized by an unregulated industry then you should certainly give them a sample.

[Michigan Swamp Buck]

I have the family book and research notes from my father's side and a number of stories recorded in the late sixties (recorded by my dad) spoken by my great aunt on my mother's side and other material about her family. That was a great thing to do back then, a hi-fi stereo recording of my great aunt reciting my mother's family stories from the civil war to present, thanks Dad!

Developing an interest in the family roots late in life and having wasted any opportunities to get the stories from my relatives while they lived, I worked on the family tree on Ancestry.com.

I got the free month and worked feverishly to build up the tree. After the free trial, you can edit it and build it up still, but without the website's resources. So I explored other historical and genealogy websites and added more information and even paid for a month once to get new stuff from Ancestory.com.

After combining the ethnic make-up of both families I determined a few things, one important one was my mother's family didn't have Blackfoot Indian blood from a great aunt like they believed. I found out that my ethnic make-up is basically 1/4 English, 1/4 Scott/Irish, 1/4 Czech, and 1/4 German.

After finding out all that, my 1st cousin (mother's sister's daughter) got the DNA test done. It was always assumed she was 1/8 or 1/16 African blood from her father, but it turns out not only there is zero African blood, but no Native American blood either. So that helps verify my research by eliminating a couple family stories that weren't true.

It's amazing how much information is available online and I encourage others to make their family tree and then decide at some point if a DNA test will help fill in the blanks. The history alone is worth the effort. I have two ancestors from the Mayflower on my dad's side and a founder of Jamestown on my mom's side. Lots of Revolutionary war and Civil war involvement as well. The things you will learn will place your family firmly within the history of our nation and others in the Old World.

[CelticBanshee3]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

I just thought of another possibility to explain this confusion.

The DNA testing at the ancestral population level  matches you to the closest populations to your DNA that is in their database, and some times, the results are inaccurate because the closest population they have isn't exactly the right one, just close due to migrations and whatnot. For example, in the early days, my Indian DNA showed up in one test as "North Asian", because that is where at least some of the Indian populations migrated to America from in the long ago, and their DNA is similar to DNA from Siberia and the Altai Mountains. So in that case where they had no Indian DNA in their database, the analysis kicked out the closest match to it that they did have in the database, which was "North Asian".

Another test showed my Indian DNA as "Mayan" because Mayans were the only Indians they had in their database, so that is how it identified my Indian DNA. In yet another, it showed up as "Pima" as I recall, because Pima DNA was the only Indian DNA in that database. So that is at least 3 different identifications for the exact same bits of DNA.

There is a program called "DIY Dodecad" that will allow you to run your raw DNA file against several different datasets, and it's interesting to see how the ancestry of the same DNA can appear to change based upon the reference populations it is tested against.

.

[CelticBanshee3]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

I just thought of another possibility to explain this confusion.

The DNA testing at the ancestral population level  matches you to the closest populations to your DNA that is in their database, and some times, the results are inaccurate because the closest population they have isn't exactly the right one, just close due to migrations and whatnot. For example, in the early days, my Indian DNA showed up in one test as "North Asian", because that is where at least some of the Indian populations migrated to America from in the long ago, and their DNA is similar to DNA from Siberia and the Altai Mountains. So in that case where they had no Indian DNA in their database, the analysis kicked out the closest match to it that they did have in the database, which was "North Asian".

Another test showed my Indian DNA as "Mayan" because Mayans were the only Indians they had in their database, so that is how it identified my Indian DNA. In yet another, it showed up as "Pima" as I recall, because Pima DNA was the only Indian DNA in that database. So that is at least 3 different identifications for the exact same bits of DNA.

There is a program called "DIY Dodecad" that will allow you to run your raw DNA file against several different datasets, and it's interesting to see how the ancestry of the same DNA can appear to change based upon the reference populations it is tested against.

.

Is the "DIY Dodecad" fairly simple to use? I've been researching my Mom & Dad's genealogy the old fashion way, family group sheets, census, library, Courthouse, etc. I got my brother to do the Ancestry DNA for my Dad's line. I'm thinking about getting him to do it again with My Heritage and maybe one other. I just want to know where they migrated from to here. Thery were here for the Revolutionary War in York District, South Carolina. Probably sometime before that.

[CelticBanshee3]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

I just thought of another possibility to explain this confusion.

The DNA testing at the ancestral population level  matches you to the closest populations to your DNA that is in their database, and some times, the results are inaccurate because the closest population they have isn't exactly the right one, just close due to migrations and whatnot. For example, in the early days, my Indian DNA showed up in one test as "North Asian", because that is where at least some of the Indian populations migrated to America from in the long ago, and their DNA is similar to DNA from Siberia and the Altai Mountains. So in that case where they had no Indian DNA in their database, the analysis kicked out the closest match to it that they did have in the database, which was "North Asian".

Another test showed my Indian DNA as "Mayan" because Mayans were the only Indians they had in their database, so that is how it identified my Indian DNA. In yet another, it showed up as "Pima" as I recall, because Pima DNA was the only Indian DNA in that database. So that is at least 3 different identifications for the exact same bits of DNA.

There is a program called "DIY Dodecad" that will allow you to run your raw DNA file against several different datasets, and it's interesting to see how the ancestry of the same DNA can appear to change based upon the reference populations it is tested against.

.

Is the "DIY Dodecad" fairly simple to use? I've been researching my Mom & Dad's genealogy the old fashion way, family group sheets, census, library, Courthouse, etc. I got my brother to do the Ancestry DNA for my Dad's line. I'm thinking about getting him to do it again with My Heritage and maybe one other. I just want to know where they migrated from to here. Thery were here for the Revolutionary War in York District, South Carolina. Probably sometime before that.

I have wondered why Ancestry updates and changes the results ever so often. Today my brothers DNA results show England & NW Europe - 44%, Scotland - 26%, Ireland - 24%, and Wales - 6%.

[Schmoe1]

As always, you're a wealth of information.  My parents used the Ancestry DNA kit my sister got them for Christmas.  Like you said, they're still getting more and more accurate results by testing a wider base.  What confused me was that the majority, 40% of my mother's DNA was pegged as Scotland, with a possibility of north Ireland, Inishowen in particular.  It makes me wonder, was my great grandmother a Scot who lived in Ireland?  Or is the DNA testing not extensive enough yet, so they lump Scotland and Northern Ireland together?  How different is Irish DNA from Scottish DNA?  (Sorry Gordi).  I thought it was funny seeing a mix of Norwegian, Swedish, and English.  I guess one of my ancestors got it on with a viking.  I always knew I had some berserker blood in me 

I just thought of another possibility to explain this confusion.

The DNA testing at the ancestral population level  matches you to the closest populations to your DNA that is in their database, and some times, the results are inaccurate because the closest population they have isn't exactly the right one, just close due to migrations and whatnot. For example, in the early days, my Indian DNA showed up in one test as "North Asian", because that is where at least some of the Indian populations migrated to America from in the long ago, and their DNA is similar to DNA from Siberia and the Altai Mountains. So in that case where they had no Indian DNA in their database, the analysis kicked out the closest match to it that they did have in the database, which was "North Asian".

Another test showed my Indian DNA as "Mayan" because Mayans were the only Indians they had in their database, so that is how it identified my Indian DNA. In yet another, it showed up as "Pima" as I recall, because Pima DNA was the only Indian DNA in that database. So that is at least 3 different identifications for the exact same bits of DNA.

There is a program called "DIY Dodecad" that will allow you to run your raw DNA file against several different datasets, and it's interesting to see how the ancestry of the same DNA can appear to change based upon the reference populations it is tested against.

.

Is the "DIY Dodecad" fairly simple to use? I've been researching my Mom & Dad's genealogy the old fashion way, family group sheets, census, library, Courthouse, etc. I got my brother to do the Ancestry DNA for my Dad's line. I'm thinking about getting him to do it again with My Heritage and maybe one other. I just want to know where they migrated from to here. Thery were here for the Revolutionary War in York District, South Carolina. Probably sometime before that.

I have wondered why Ancestry updates and changes the results ever so often. Today my brothers DNA results show England & NW Europe - 44%, Scotland - 26%, Ireland - 24%, and Wales - 6%.

I believe it has to do with Ancestry constantly increasing it's sample size to get more accurate results.  Reading my mother's, it said the percentages would change as more and more people submit samples.

[Ninurta]

If you want your DNA information owned and monetized by an unregulated industry then you should certainly give them a sample.

No, they don't own the DNA nor the DNA data - not if they are based in the US or EU, anyhow. They DO monetize it by farming it out in anonymous bundles to bio researchers, which I personally am ok with - part of that "profit" goes to pay for the expenses of sequencing the DNA, the part I didn't pay for.

When did they become unregulated? The FDA was regulating them, so when did that change?

.

[Ninurta]

Is the "DIY Dodecad" fairly simple to use? I've been researching my Mom & Dad's genealogy the old fashion way, family group sheets, census, library, Courthouse, etc. I got my brother to do the Ancestry DNA for my Dad's line. I'm thinking about getting him to do it again with My Heritage and maybe one other. I just want to know where they migrated from to here. Thery were here for the Revolutionary War in York District, South Carolina. Probably sometime before that.

Yes, it's easy to use. it comes as  single program inside a "wrapper", a GUI. You just download the raw DNA file from the DNA service, which is typically about 5 or 6 mb, and run the software on that file. But be warned, there are a lot of differing datasets you can run it against, and every one is going to give you a different result. Some are entirely invalid - for example, if an pure African ran his DNA against a European dataset, or vice versa, he'd get really wonky results.

If you got your brother to do the test, that means you will be able to know your dad's Y-DNA haplogroup as well as your mom's (and both yours and your brother's) mtDNA haplogroup. It's possible for some of those haplogroups to be traced back thousands of years, recording a lot of migrations.

There are a lot of free DNA analysis programs out there, with a lot of different purposes. DIY Dodecad is not the only one. One guy in Australia wrote a tone of programs for DNA analysis, gives them away free on the internet, but no longer maintains them - he gave up coding DNA software to devote full time to evangelizing for Christians.

Some of it is pretty intricate, and may be difficult to use, but with a minimum or research to figure out the terminology, you'd be up and running with it in no time at all. If I can figure it out, you can, too.

.

[Ninurta]

I have wondered why Ancestry updates and changes the results ever so often. Today my brothers DNA results show England & NW Europe - 44%, Scotland - 26%, Ireland - 24%, and Wales - 6%.

They update it often because they integrate new reference population datasets fairly often. More or different reference datasets will change the resulting analysis, making it finer grained. Occasionally, the data itself will be refined with error corrections and things like that, which may also slightly affect the resulting analysis.

An example of how changing the data file can change the results is this - Neither of my raw data files match the Cheddar Man, but the combined data file incorporating both does. My guess is that in each one, there were enough missing SNP's, "holes" in the data, that no match could be made, but by filling in the gaps with SNPs from the other data set for a more complete picture, that match could them be made.

.