ANCESTRY
Updated: Sep 3
The cult, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), or Mormon Church, is a Christian restorationist denomination founded by Joseph Smith in New York in 1830. The headquarters is based in Salt Lake City, Utah and claims over 18 million members globally. According to Britannica, adherents follow the Word of Wisdom which avoids alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea (all irrelevant). They believe https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng (also irrelevant).
Ancestry.com does not possess "DNA" from anyone's ancestors. This point creates the most important limitation when interpreting an ethnicity estimate. Ancestry's own technical explanation acknowledges this problem. The company explains that, "under ideal circumstances, researchers would construct reference populations from ancient DNA representing the actual ancestral populations. Historical populations, however, cannot simply provide DNA samples today." Ancestry therefore uses modern people as proxies for historical populations.
The reasoning works in this direction:
2. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SEND ANCESTRY YOUR DNA?
AncestryDNA uses saliva, rather than the cheek swab that some DNA companies use.
A customer places saliva into a collection tube, registers the tube's identification number, and sends it to the laboratory. The laboratory supposedly extracts DNA from cells in the saliva. They then claim to conduct a test examining hundreds of thousands of selected locations across the customer's DNA. Then they allegedly perform two fundamentally different types of comparisons:
DNA matching: Does this customer's DNA share significant segments with DNA from other customers? Ancestry estimation: Which reference populations most closely resemble different portions of this customer's DNA?
3. HOW DOES ANCESTRY PRODUCE COUNTRIES SUCH AS NIGERIA, GHANA OR BENIN?
Ancestry does not read a country name directly from DNA.
DNA contains no marker labeled "Nigeria," "Ghana," "Benin," or any other modern country.
Instead, Ancestry creates reference populations.
"The company obtains DNA samples from people whom it associates with particular geographic populations. It uses genealogical information, family histories and genetic analysis to select and evaluate those reference samples. Ancestry then compares a customer's DNA with those samples."
Therefore, when a report states:
Nigeria: 32%
Benin & Togo: 18%
Ivory Coast & Ghana: 12%
Ancestry has not identified three specific ancestors and established where those ancestors lived.
The percentages represent the company's statistical estimates of which reference populations portions of the customer's DNA most closely resemble.
Ancestry maintains African reference populations. Ancestry does not possess DNA from everyone who lives or historically lived in Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Benin or other African countries. It possesses selected DNA samples used to represent reference populations.
Its published reference data includes hundreds of samples associated with populations such as:
Nigeria, Benin & Togo, Cameroon, Congo & Western Bantu Peoples, Mali, Ivory Coast & Ghana, Senegal, Northern Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia & Eritrea, Somalia
Living reference person's DNA+Evidence connecting that person's family to a geographic population↓Reference population
Then:
Your DNA↓Comparison with reference populations↓Statistical similarity↓Estimated geographic region
That method differs fundamentally from:
Your DNA↓Identification of your actual ancestor↓Historical proof of where that ancestor lived
The first process produces an estimate.
The second would establish an individual's documented genealogy.
6. WHY CAN THE COUNTRY PERCENTAGES CHANGE?
Your inherited DNA does not change when Ancestry updates your ethnicity results.
Ancestry changes the comparison system.
The company can add reference samples, remove samples, redefine populations, improve its statistical models, or change geographic categories.
For example, DNA that an earlier model divided between Nigeria and Benin & Togo could receive a different distribution after Ancestry updates its reference panel.
The customer supplied the same DNA.
The company's interpretation of that DNA changed.
That fact demonstrates why researchers should treat the percentages as estimates rather than permanent historical facts.
7. WHAT CAN DNA ESTABLISH MORE DIRECTLY?
DNA becomes much more powerful when researchers use it to establish biological relationships.
If two people share substantial stretches of DNA, genetic analysis can provide strong evidence that they share biological ancestry.
Researchers can then combine that evidence with:
birth records, death records, census records, marriage records, family Bibles, wills, probate files, immigration records, military records, plantation records, slave schedules, church records, family trees and other historical documents
to identify the likely common ancestor.
That method connects genetic evidence with documentary evidence.
An ethnicity percentage alone does not accomplish that.
RESEARCH CONCLUSION
When researching an AncestryDNA report, distinguish three separate claims:
1. Biological relationship:DNA can provide strong evidence that two tested people share biological ancestry.
2. Documented ancestry:Historical records can identify ancestors and establish where particular people actually lived.
3. Ethnicity or geographic estimate:Ancestry compares a customer's DNA with selected reference populations and calculates which populations the DNA statistically resembles.
Therefore, a result such as "32% Nigeria" does not independently prove that 32% of a person's documented ancestors came from the modern nation of Nigeria.
It means Ancestry's current model assigned approximately that portion of the tested DNA to the genetic patterns represented by its Nigeria reference population.
The distinction is critical:
DNA similarity to a reference population is evidence of genetic affinity. It is not, by itself, documentary proof of the identity, nationality, residence, or exact geographic origin of a person's historical ancestors.
BACKGROUND:
The business traces its corporate history to Ancestry, Inc., established in Utah in 1983. The original company published genealogy books, magazines, and family-history information. Ancestry's own corporate history identifies 1983 as the beginning of Ancestry Publishing. SEC filings also identify 1983 as the company's original incorporation date.
A separate Utah company called Infobases entered the genealogy and electronic-publishing business in 1990. Paul Brent Allen and Dan Taggart, both Mormons and Brigham Young University graduates, founded Infobases and distributed electronic publications and genealogical information on computer disks.
Ancestry launched Ancestry.com in 1996, moving genealogy research onto the internet. Allen and Taggart subsequently gained control of the Ancestry business and developed Ancestry.com into a large subscription genealogy database.
Ancestry, Inc. → Ancestry.com, Inc. → MyFamily.com, Inc. → The Generations Network, Inc. → Ancestry.com Inc.
The company's SEC filings document corporate changes showing Ancestry, Inc., to Ancestry.com,Inc, to Myfamily.com, inc., to the Generations Network, Inc and back to Ancestry.com, Inc.
Ancestry became a publicly traded company in 2009.
In 2012, a private-equity group led by Permira acquired Ancestry for approximately $1.6 billion and took the company private. In 2012, a private-equity group led by Permira acquired Ancestry for approximately $1.6 billion and took the company private.
In 2016, investment firm Silver Lake and GIC, Singapore's sovereign wealth investment organization, acquired substantial stakes in Ancestry. Silver Lake and GIC each held equal minority positions, while Permira, Spectrum Equity, Ancestry management, and GIC collectively retained majority ownership.
Another major ownership change occurred in 2020.
Private-equity funds managed by Blackstone purchased Ancestry from Silver Lake, GIC, Spectrum Equity, Permira, and other shareholders in a transaction that valued Ancestry at $4.7 billion. GIC retained a significant minority interest rather than selling its entire investment
Comments