GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I think it would be. Plus you give it as a Christmas present and get double value.

There are a half dozen competitors. I am still selecting. My first thought is to use the service with the best selection of ethnic regions. The breakdown that fits the detail of what I suspect.

I have zeroed in on ancestry because I have cousins on both sides that have worked on family trees in their network. You can upload the results into that to connect to other trees. To me more "hits" increases accuracy.

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I think it would be. Plus you give it as a Christmas present and get double value.

There are a half dozen competitors. I am still selecting. My first thought is to use the service with the best selection of ethnic regions. The breakdown that fits the detail of what I suspect.

I have zeroed in on ancestry because I have cousins on both sides that have worked on family trees in their network. You can upload the results into that to connect to other trees. To me more "hits" increases accuracy.

---

Just be forewarned, the quality of recordkeeping in the US prior to about 1920 is debatable. Get one name wrong and the whole tree can be incorrect.

Factor in common names, the U.S. Civil War and you have a very difficult task. I have a side of the family tre that runs cold prior to WWI, and the Great Depression adds another challenge.

I am already back to 1800 on one. 1860 on another. 1890 on the other two.

1620, 1740, and 322, that last one thanks to FTDNA.

I did one last year and all it told me were percentages of different nationalities that I am - most of which I already knew. Turns out, I'm a pretty run-of-the-mill white person. 69% 'British' (I have a Scottish last name but whatever), 12% Irish and like 5% Scandinavian.

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I've not looked into the DNA thing that far but I read or heard that you have to give them use of your DNA sample forever. Buried in the fine print supposedly. Could be misinformation but I'm not going to do that.

Just recently I did aome free searching and found others had done genealogies on my father's family back to 1670. I've learned several people have had dna tests confirming a y chromosome match to the earliest known male based on their y matches and paper evidenced lineage back to my supposed common ancestor.

Two different branches of my family have traced back to him. I haven't been able to reach anyone yet to see if they both found evidence independently or if maybe one relied on the work of another, or if there has been dna confirmation.

Supposedly my earliest ancestor came over pre Revolutionary War. One of the sons in my direct line fought in the war of 1812, and signed the Revolutionary War pension application for his brother. His grandson, if that connection is correct, is my great great grandfather who I have confirmed fought for the Union in the Civil War.

DNA can confirm all this.

Roy Rogers said:

---

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I've not looked into the DNA thing that far but I read or heard that you have to give them use of your DNA sample forever. Buried in the fine print supposedly. Could be misinformation but I'm not going to do that.

---

What are you concerned about?

I have been reluctant to take one of those tests for the fear of finding out I am genetically related to human beings.

SSadler said:

---

Hoping to find I'm a b*st*rd son of Sam Walton.

---

The first part will be true

Na I'm just messing with ya

Just found out I descend from Davy Crockett's uncle (and his cousin).

This is also a great way for the Federal Government to have a record of your DNA.

quash said:

---

Roy Rogers said:

---

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I've not looked into the DNA thing that far but I read or heard that you have to give them use of your DNA sample forever. Buried in the fine print supposedly. Could be misinformation but I'm not going to do that.

---

What are you concerned about?

---

Not concerned about anything other than having my DNA in someone's data base that I don't know what they will do with it.

Roy Rogers said:

---

quash said:

---

Roy Rogers said:

---

GolemII said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

GolemII said:

---

If I buy a test for my brother, can I just use his results for ancestry purposes?

---

How do I put this delicately. Uh, your mother might better answer that.

Seriously, you would think they would be identical. But I have read that there can be some variance. Some of the variance is your percentage or range say 2-12% Scandinavian of a particular geographic area. Your brother could be 2-20%.

---

Touche'...but no. No worries there.

So, with the same mother and father, we could have variances in the specific ancestry? Interesting. But do you think, theoretically it would at least yield an overall similar result?

I'm not a fan of handing out DNA samples (not on anything less than a blue dress at least), so I was wondering if this would be a shortcut.

---

I've not looked into the DNA thing that far but I read or heard that you have to give them use of your DNA sample forever. Buried in the fine print supposedly. Could be misinformation but I'm not going to do that.

---

What are you concerned about?

---

Not concerned about anything other than having my DNA in someone's data base that I don't know what they will do with it.

---

They tell you what they do with it. Which use bothers you?

I'm afraid they might use my DNA to make some freaky lizard/human hybrids

Turns out I am related to the Kennedys! But so is everyone else from Kilkenny Conty.

Looks I go back to a monkey

Private Pyle said:

---

Looks I go back to a monkey

---

Bro, do you even science?

The Hound said:

---

I'm afraid they might use my DNA to make some freaky lizard/human hybrids

---

When the freaky hybrids attack, they may cut you some slack if related

I have been googling potential ancestors based on census records and proximity in time and place to the death of my 3x great grandfather. I have located two genealogiy BOOKS written in the 1800's that include one or two of these families.

On current trees, I have found the same two potential ancestors (actually more above them as well) in multiple lines that are just not possible given the children's names and those kid's locations on other trees.

On my surname DNA test project page, participants from about 7 DIFFERENT families per DNA results (that is not closely related to each other in the last 4-8 generations) all claim to descend from the same individuals.

I feel very sorry for the people who went to all that trouble to build an incorrect paper trail, and for the people who took a DNA test that will be compared to someone with an incorrect paper trail. At least they will learn they aren't related, but they may not learn which one has the tree wrong.

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

---

Disregard the above. My 3rd great grandfather was Chief Lewis. His dad married a Cherokee and that is where the blood came from. Didn't realize so many western euro's mixed with native Indians.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

---

Always a Cherokee and usually a Cherokee princess. Even though the Cherokee had no royal lines or any concept of prince/princess.

quash said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

---

Always a Cherokee and usually a Cherokee princess. Even though the Cherokee had no royal lines or any concept of prince/princess.

---

yeah, but 'Navajo Community Activist' just doesn't have the same ring ...

The Hound said:

---

I did one last year and all it told me were percentages of different nationalities that I am - most of which I already knew. Turns out, I'm a pretty run-of-the-mill white person. 69% 'British' (I have a Scottish last name but whatever), 12% Irish and like 5% Scandinavian.

---

British includes Scottish. 69% Great Britain is England, Scotland, and Wales. I am 56% GB and 14% Irish and 4% Scandinavian. The average Brit is only 54% British.

BU84BEAR said:

---

I have been googling potential ancestors based on census records and proximity in time and place to the death of my 3x great grandfather. I have located two genealogiy BOOKS written in the 1800's that include one or two of these families.

On current trees, I have found the same two potential ancestors (actually more above them as well) in multiple lines that are just not possible given the children's names and those kid's locations on other trees.

On my surname DNA test project page, participants from about 7 DIFFERENT families per DNA results (that is not closely related to each other in the last 4-8 generations) all claim to descend from the same individuals.

I feel very sorry for the people who went to all that trouble to build an incorrect paper trail, and for the people who took a DNA test that will be compared to someone with an incorrect paper trail. At least they will learn they aren't related, but they may not learn which one has the tree wrong.

---

That is why my Mother-in-law taught me that you must have the documentation.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

---

In the Southeast, a lot of the claims are plausible because, contrary to popular belief, a great many Cherokee dropped off the Trail of Tears and managed to create lives for themselves within the larger white society. Multiply that number through natural increase over more than 175 years, and you can have lots and lots of people with Cherokee ancestry. Inevitably, the story is that the ancestor was a chief of some kind. That part may or may not be true. Then again, the native Americans had lots of different people who qualified as chief. There was rarely a supreme chief, as Europeans would think of a king, who could speak for all the various groups within a big tribe. That's one reason why so many treaties were considered fraudulent by the Native Americans. The Europeans or Americans would get some minor chief to sign a deal and then treat it as if his signature was binding on all of the others.

as an adoptee, it's interesting to see what science has to say.

Ancestry.com says:

Great Britain 50%
Europe West 25%
Ireland 13%
Europe East 3%
Caucasus (SE Russia down to Bharain) 3%
Scandinavia 2%
Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2%
Finland/Northwest Russia 1%
European Jewish 1%
Asia South (India/Nepal) 1%

Assassin said:

---

as an adoptee, it's interesting to see what science has to say.

Ancestry.com says:

Great Britain 50%
Europe West 25%
Ireland 13%
Europe East 3%
Caucasus (SE Russia down to Bharain) 3%
Scandinavia 2%
Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2%
Finland/Northwest Russia 1%
European Jewish 1%
Asia South (India/Nepal) 1%

---

shalom

NoBSU said:

---

Assassin said:

---

as an adoptee, it's interesting to see what science has to say.

Ancestry.com says:

Great Britain 50%
Europe West 25%
Ireland 13%
Europe East 3%
Caucasus (SE Russia down to Bharain) 3%
Scandinavia 2%
Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2%
Finland/Northwest Russia 1%
European Jewish 1%
Asia South (India/Nepal) 1%

---

shalom

---

Happy Hanukkah to you all!

Now for some matzoh balls with curry and cumin...

bubbadog said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Private Pyle said:

---

I just got my results. Pretty much as I thought, Scandinavian, Western Europe, Britain, Scotland/Wales/Ireland. Always heard I had some Native American but guess not.

---

Rumors of native American ancestry vary directly with the federal funding granted to Native Americans because of associated atrocities.

I've been told that as well and I'm pretty damned sure there is zero chance of it. just an old wives tales that circulated too long.

---

In the Southeast, a lot of the claims are plausible because, contrary to popular belief, a great many Cherokee dropped off the Trail of Tears and managed to create lives for themselves within the larger white society. Multiply that number through natural increase over more than 175 years, and you can have lots and lots of people with Cherokee ancestry. Inevitably, the story is that the ancestor was a chief of some kind. That part may or may not be true. Then again, the native Americans had lots of different people who qualified as chief. There was rarely a supreme chief, as Europeans would think of a king, who could speak for all the various groups within a big tribe. That's one reason why so many treaties were considered fraudulent by the Native Americans. The Europeans or Americans would get some minor chief to sign a deal and then treat it as if his signature was binding on all of the others.

---

If you are from the Smokies, it isn't hard to see why you drop off or drop back to Northern Arkansas or Southern Missouri when you are confronted with Oklahoma. The Ozark Mountains have a lot of clear rivers and creeks. One problem was that it was illegal from Indians to own land in Arkansas. That is the reason given as to why my ggg cut his hair and never referred to himself as Indian. He was 1/2 white and half Cherokee but left before the Trail of Tears when he lost his land in Alabama.