Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always wondered about people of Asian descent and what their DNA results would be. I did notice Ancestry only had 12 regions for the Asian continent. I guess for China, since it is so large, it would be interesting to collect DNA from all the various provinces and autonomous regions across the entire country and build up a reference panel that could break down the country into DNA subregions.
AncestryDNA isn't the most detailed for East Asia. 23andMe at least have sub-regions for China (sub-regions don't have percentages though). LivingDNA has the most percentage break down for China.
I was disappointed with mine too...basically 100% British.
We must have wanted something more exotic....
I think it's kind of exotic being mostly British. We get the Angles and Saxons and Romans and Vikings all thrown in. And if you go back far enough, you've got French and German and other European links and before that...
But for Chinese, they probably just haven't tested enough people yet to be able to develop a detailed enough base for comparison. Try uploading it to other sites and also just waiting until there is more information would probably yield more interesting results.
I don't really understand how being non-admixed is "boring." It is not objectively better or worse than being admixed, and in some ways opens up large doors for research that aren't available to people whose ancestors came from multiple genetic regions.
Everybody's DNA tells a story of their ancestry. Having that narrative take place in one specific location is fascinating, IMO. It becomes a story about how one place changes and develops over time, rather than merely a story of how "you" came to be.
I can't see being proud or ashamed of one's ancestry, after all, the "who had a kid by whom" stuff went on before you were even born, and you didn't have any input.
I mean, it would be sort of neat to find some famous person in my own ancestry, but if I were related to Washington or Jefferson, for example, I would be inclined to think that I haven't done much with such regal DNA, considering.
I can sort of see how Ancestry or 23 and Me results that come back more or less "100% One Tribe" are relatively boring, you didn't get much of a story for your money. But this is not the DNA sequencer's fault, it's just that you are what you are, and you are a "purebred" of sorts.
I can't see being proud or ashamed of one's ancestry, after all, the "who had a kid by whom" stuff went on before you were even born, and you didn't have any input.
I mean, it would be sort of neat to find some famous person in my own ancestry, but if I were related to Washington or Jefferson, for example, I would be inclined to think that I haven't done much with such regal DNA, considering.
I can sort of see how Ancestry or 23 and Me results that come back more or less "100% One Tribe" are relatively boring, you didn't get much of a story for your money. But this is not the DNA sequencer's fault, it's just that you are what you are, and you are a "purebred" of sorts.
I am proud of my ancestry because those people were instrumental in founding the community I still live in. The mountains, streams, and towns bear their names. They were frontiersman, farmers, and miners, that made a life for themselves literally right here (like I am literally sitting and typing this on a piece of land that was an ancestor's farm, the town is named after him.)
I grew up knowing who these people were from older relatives, what they accomplished, who else in the community was related to me through them.
This experience is a bit unique in today's America. I can see how people transplanted away from their families' roots may know little, and relate even less, to their ancestors.
Last edited by westsideboy; 04-10-2019 at 04:15 PM..
I always wondered about people of Asian descent and what their DNA results would be. I did notice Ancestry only had 12 regions for the Asian continent.
That's not even remotely close to being enough.
I spent some time at a UN refugee camp in Mae Hong Son, Thailand. I came into contact with eight different ethnic groups, and you could identify each group by simply looking at an individual's physical characteristics, they were that distinct.
And people can't tell me the Nung, Montgnards, Hmong and Vietnamese are the same, too, because they're not.
The issue is testing. They don't need to test thousands, but they do need to test about 200 or so people in order to make valid comparisons in genetics for purposes of distinguishing ethnic groups.
One thing that aggravates and angers me is the government's DNA data and their refusal to share. I'm not talking about living people, I'm talking about the State of Ohio or one of the public universities on an archeological dig. That's my tax-dollars paying for that, and I demand access to the DNA they collect from archaeological sites.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
