How significant is 1%, and how many generations ago did it occur? (find, search)
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 was thinking that 1% is 1/100, which is a lot less than 1/16 [4] or 1/32 [5] or even 1/64 [6] generations ago. When approximately could it have occurred?
Also, is 1% pretty much noise, or does it have tangible meaning?
I was thinking that 1% is 1/100, which is a lot less than 1/16 [4] or 1/32 [5] or even 1/64 [6] generations ago. When approximately could it have occurred?
Also, is 1% pretty much noise, or does it have tangible meaning?
It’s only one more generation/doubling to get to 1/128, so maybe 7 generations ago?
I was thinking that 1% is 1/100, which is a lot less than 1/16 [4] or 1/32 [5] or even 1/64 [6] generations ago. When approximately could it have occurred?
Are you referring to 1% shared DNA?
I have confirmed 1% DNA matches that range from 2nd cousin 1X removed to 4th cousins. I have a couple likely but unconfirmed 1% matches who would be 5th cousins if I can confirm them.
The DNA Painter Project 4.0 tool places the highest probability for a 1% match as 3rd cousins, with quite a range around that generation. They also state: "the furthest back you might need to go to find common ancestors for a match of 74cM is 8th-Great-Grandparent level. The connection may be closer." https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4/
I was thinking that 1% is 1/100, which is a lot less than 1/16 [4] or 1/32 [5] or even 1/64 [6] generations ago. When approximately could it have occurred?
1/64 is 1.56%, so an ethnicity result of 1% would be roughly from around that generation (5th-6th great grandparent), assuming it's a reliable result and not just noise or coming from a neighboring region. Keep in mind that although we inherit 50% from each parent, we do not necessarily inherited exactly 25% from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great grandparent, etc - so we can't really firmly pinpoint the exact generation 1% might be from.
Quote:
Also, is 1% pretty much noise, or does it have tangible meaning?
If it's in an unexpected area, it's probably just noise. If it's in an area that neighbors a place you have known ancestry from, it could just be coming from that. I definitely wouldn't assume 1% is a reliable results unless it matches your known ancestry. With a few exceptions, I wouldn't base actual tree research on ethnicity percentages, it will likely just lead you astray.
I think of it as, in a set of the closest hypothetical 100 ancestors there was the equivalent of one of them who was of whatever group. I say hypothetical because people do not neatly intermingle by 1/8, 1/4, etc. There is so much mix and match, but if that helps to visualize or think about it . . .
For instance, I have about 1% Sardinian so can think of it as, of my 100 closest ancestors one of them was a full-blooded Sardinian.
Standard statistical error is TEN percent. Anything below it is white noise.
For genetics, statistically significant results are only those above 80%.
They are selling you junk and everyone is buying it.
Standard statistical error is TEN percent. Anything below it is white noise.
For genetics, statistically significant results are only those above 80%.
They are selling you junk and everyone is buying it.
You tried to make this claim once before, it's still not true. You've never provided any evidence to support these outlandish claims.
I think of it as, in a set of the closest hypothetical 100 ancestors there was the equivalent of one of them who was of whatever group. I say hypothetical because people do not neatly intermingle by 1/8, 1/4, etc. There is so much mix and match, but if that helps to visualize or think about it . . .
For instance, I have about 1% Sardinian so can think of it as, of my 100 closest ancestors one of them was a full-blooded Sardinian.
You have to be careful with any "Sardinian" category. The standard "Sardinian" genetic profile is very high in early European farmer ancestry, and almost completely lacks the Bronze Age Steppe ancestry that all the rest of northern/central Europe received.
So, "Sardinian" is frequently assigned on these reports to balance somebody out if they have a bit more Early European Farmer ancestry than the reference panel for that genetic group.
It is not likely that most of us (save people actually from Sardinia, or have proven ancestry there) actually have any recent Sardinian admixture.
You have to be careful with any "Sardinian" category. The standard "Sardinian" genetic profile is very high in early European farmer ancestry, and almost completely lacks the Bronze Age Steppe ancestry that all the rest of northern/central Europe received.
So, "Sardinian" is frequently assigned on these reports to balance somebody out if they have a bit more Early European Farmer ancestry than the reference panel for that genetic group.
It is not likely that most of us (save people actually from Sardinia, or have proven ancestry there) actually have any recent Sardinian admixture.
Sez you. I'm a sardine. *swims away in a flash of silver*
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.
*swims away in a flash of silver*
