PDA

View Full Version : Admixture,Making the best of what’s not so good ,i.e. science not there yet



rock hunter
03-13-2015, 02:50 AM
We have to keep in mind what these admixture tests do: they take the DNA of living people — us, the test takers — and they compare it to the DNA of other living people

Nobody is out there running around, digging up 500- or 1,000-year-old bones, extracting DNA for us to compare our own DNA to.

In the final analysis, because the science is simply not there yet to support percentages at the country or tribal level, we’re all left choosing to accept what we want to believe.


http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/02/22/making-the-best-of-whats-not-so-good/

Arbogan
03-19-2015, 02:17 PM
With the right markers and using a good enough amount of samples you can still make fairly robust Ks that can show the macro relationships between different. Its harder with inbred populations. But one can still show meaningful genetic relationships. Even with ancient samples one can see genotypic frequency commonalities. But it requires more advanced tools aswell as a more wholistic multi disciplinary (archaeology, y-dna/m-dna, linguistics) approach to arrive of convincing inferences. We definitely need more samples. This has been repeated verbatim. For whatever reason. Its been a slow process. But now that paleogeneticists realize its value. Were getting more and more samples. Its groundbreaking work. I wish there was a way for us amateurs and hobby dna enthusiasts to speed up the process of their research.