Duggars by the Dozen 30 - On a Mission from GOD!

[Jess]

9 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

 

I guess a lot would depend on what the Judge would consider an "open secret" to be. 

The legal definition of a private fact is "not generally known". I have read some of the case law on it and I don't think this is something that was generally known but obviously there is a lot that could come out in discovery that no one knows yet.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

20 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

If you don't have gallons of malt vinegar, it's not real fish and chips.

Off topic, but I agree. I just don't know anyone in the midwest or south who does that!! lol

[Audrey2]

10 minutes ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

Off topic, but I agree. I just don't know anyone in the midwest or south who does that!! lol

I grew up in Ohio and always put malt vinegar on my fair fries, thin cut limp greasy yummy fries. It's the only thing I put on fries, though not fast food fries.

[Greendoor]

20 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Even us white European mutts get confused for other races sometimes. My siblings and I have the same parents. As far as we know, we're mostly Irish and German. My brother and I look it, but our sister? 

snip ....

She has similar facial features to us, but with dark coloring. Her hair is very dark brown. So are her eyes. And she can tan, whereas brother and I turn into Sebastian the Crab if we're in the sun too long. My mom and her father are the same as my sister, so it must be genetic on our Irish side. 

May I suggest 23 and me?  Not expensive and very fun.

[SongRed7]

On 9/30/2017 at 9:42 PM, Swamptribe said:

Hey, did this article get posted before?  Sorry if it's a repeat.  Found it while doing a web search.

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/08/jim-bob-duggar-compulsive-shopper-and-high-class-hoarder-exclusi/

Um, you realize that the Hollywood Gossip isn't REAL news? right? No offense, but all those tabloids (Hollywood Gossip, the Inquisitor, The Stir, etc) are all sites where people make up crap and they get paid by the number of page views, forwarding, etc. So by reading them, you are helping to fund not-real-journalists.  The people who sign up to be correspondents/writers are given incentives to just churn out story after story. Doesn't matter if its true or not. And they also know there is a market for "Duggar news" and people eat this up. 

I'm not Duggar defender, but the crap these sites put out is laughable at best and just mean spirited.  There are enough REAL issues to discuss when it comes to the Duggars, but spreading mean malicious rumors just for the fun of it is just -- mean.  Doesn't make any of us better people just to be mean for meanness sake. 

[Palimpsest]

6 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

Um, you realize that the Hollywood Gossip isn't REAL news? right?

Well, darn.  Really?  I am soooo disappointed to learn that.

Actually we are well aware that they get most of their stories from mining snark sites like Free Jinger.  The reporter in that article didn't even bother to dig up the real lawsuits filed against Jim Bob, so they were quite slovenly.

I also don't see where the Hollywood Gossip remembered to credit either FJ or Pickles for the mean spirited compulsive hoarding comment.  Goodness, they may have actually talked to a real insider source this time!  Unless they made it all up.

[SongRed7]

9 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Actually we are well aware that they get most of their stories from mining snark sites like Free Jinger.

Yes, I recognize that most people know this. But honestly, I find it so funny when people get all excited and post the latest "news" from one of these sites and think its actually real.    "Did you see this article...." 

And don't get me started on Pickles....I'm not a fan.

 

[Swamptribe]

1 hour ago, SongRed7 said:

Um, you realize that the Hollywood Gossip isn't REAL news? right? No offense, but all those tabloids (Hollywood Gossip, the Inquisitor, The Stir, etc) .....

Uh, gee SongRed7, could you please point out where I ever claimed the article was 'real news'?  Thanks....

[VelociRapture]

3 hours ago, Greendoor said:

May I suggest 23 and me?  Not expensive and very fun.

Lol! I've considered it. As far as I know though, none of those home DNA tests are very reliable or extremely accurate. I think I'd rather wait a bit until the technology hopefully catches up or improves. 

[singsingsing]

4 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Lol! I've considered it. As far as I know though, none of those home DNA tests are very reliable or extremely accurate. I think I'd rather wait a bit until the technology hopefully catches up or improves. 

They (well, the big 3 - Ancestry, 23&Me and FamilyTreeDna) are pretty accurate depending on what you're expecting. If you look at it as a broad snapshot and a fun curiosity, it's great. In terms of continental breakdown, they're accurate (by that I mean, if you're 100% European, it will basically reflect that. If you're 50% Asian, that will definitely show up, and the percentages should be about right). I've found it's even pretty good when it comes to breaking down European regions. What it can't do is tell you that you're 34% Irish, 16.5% Spanish and the village in Scotland your ancestors came from in the 1700s. The problem comes when people take the ethnicity breakdown literally, and the testing companies are guilty of false advertising in that regard, in my opinion. When you actually dig into the results, it explains how much estimation is actually involved. 

I'm sure the tests will become more refined on the future, but I don't see how the ethnicity estimates will ever be anything more than a fun curiosity (and a valuable set of clues and guideposts for those searching for their origins). There's just been far too much migration and intermarriage to be able to differentiate specific populations with the degree of accuracy so many people expect.

[SapphireSlytherin]

22 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Lol! I've considered it. As far as I know though, none of those home DNA tests are very reliable or extremely accurate. I think I'd rather wait a bit until the technology hopefully catches up or improves. 

DH and I have done three:  23andMe, MyHeritageDNA, and Ancestry DNA. They all gave pretty much the same results for me, although one showed 1% "Arab" while the other two showed 1% Greek.

That said, although my family lore long said we were Cherokee and Sioux, there was 0 Native American DNA. I'm mostly Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English, despite the long LONG lines of German names. I'm actually more English than my English-born husband. lol

Another thing the tests show is migration patterns - (I think it's the Ancestry one) - it showed that my family has been in the USA since the early 1600s, which we do have documentation of, whether through military service records, ships' manifests, church records, land-owner records, and even records from the Proceedings of the Old Bailey in London (where a multi-great-grandmother and her sister were "transported to the colonies for seven years) in 1701 for stealing aprons and sheets from someone's clothes line. Their husbands applied for and received permission to go along, and they just stayed - settling in Maryland and then moving to the Carolinas. lol

 

[VelociRapture]

@singsingsing @SapphireSlytherinThanks both of you!

I probably do have unrealistic expectations to be honest. It'd be kind of cool to do one of the tests though. My in-laws did last year and it was fun looking through the results with them both. They were both mainly Italian, but there were definitely some surprises that popped up. It'd be cool to see my husband's results compared to their's.

[HereticHick]

Did anything happen in Duggarland to cause this article to be posted today?:

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-ati-143260

Sexual Abuse, Shame, Pseudo-Science: The Horrifying Truth About the Duggars' Ministry

Updated: Oct 3, 2017 11:04 am

[cascarones]

 

15 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

m sure the tests will become more refined on the future, but I don't see how the ethnicity estimates will ever be anything more than a fun curiosity (and a valuable set of clues and guideposts for those searching for their origins).

Maybe, maybe not and you were very generous in your reviews  I'm currently working in the DNA storage space and can tell you those tests have a high algorithmic weight on the name provided and use less loci matching than the standard PCR lab used in Intro to Genetics in college. Like you said they're for fun and guideposts  

[Exposedknees]

I'm thinking of Ancestry or 23 and me kits for Xmas this year.

 

[Jinder Roles]

@VelociRapture I did a genetic test as well. Can't remember which one but mine also broke down my human genome and told me if I have variations of certain genes which make me sensitive to certain tings (for example I discovered I have on genetic deviation from the norm to gluten). If you're interested, I can look it up and PM you. 

IIRC, you're white so it isn't applicable to you, but I found that these genetic tests are a little too vague with Sub-saharian grouping (especially when they get into East and Central Africa). I'm about 80% Sub-saharian African and it broke down the places of origin by country (an issue because nation-state borders in Africa are a modern convention). It also grouped tons of different ethnic groups into 'Bantu' which is a huge super-ethnic group that covers 2/3rds of the continent. I personally think there needs to be more test groups for more accurate and ethnic based groups (instead of country division). Plus, since homo sapiens originated out of Africa, native Africans and their descendants are the most genetically diverse humans. The breakdowns should reflect that. 

I haven't done much research into Asian or Indigenous groupings but I suspect some issues with that as well. 

Question: has anybody gotten any Neanderthal? I find that super fascinating. 

 

Edited to say: It's amazing what genes get passed down. Both my parents did the test and had significant percentages of things, that I didn't get any of. 

[singsingsing]

2 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

DH and I have done three:  23andMe, MyHeritageDNA, and Ancestry DNA. They all gave pretty much the same results for me, although one showed 1% "Arab" while the other two showed 1% Greek.

I've done 23&Me, AncestryDNA, and FamilyTreeDNA, and transferred my results to MyHeritage. Did you find MyHeritage gave you weird ethnicity results? The other three companies were more or less consistent, but MyHeritage was kind of wacky, haha. I'll post the comparison of all my results, in case anyone's curious:

Spoiler

 

6 minutes ago, cascarones said:

Maybe, maybe not and you were very generous in your reviews  I'm currently working in the DNA storage space and can tell you those tests have a high algorithmic weight on the name provided and use less loci matching than the standard PCR lab used in Intro to Genetics in college. Like you said they're for fun and guideposts  

Could you explain what you mean by 'DNA storage space'? I'm assuming by 'high algorithmic weight on the name provided' you mean that the algorithm takes into account the kit owner's name, thereby assuming greater probability of a 'Mike Smith' showing mostly British ancestry, whereas a 'Giovanni O'Connor' might be weighted more toward Irish and Italian? That in and of itself doesn't strike me as entirely without merit, but it actually doesn't mesh at all with what I've seen from thousands and thousands of adoptees with totally unknown parentage testing.

[Rachel333]

I did a MyHeritage test and it definitely wasn't completely accurate. I am certain I am about 50% Dutch, but the test showed 0%. That side of my family immigrated too recently to be a mistake. I look too much like my dad to think mistaken paternity is possible (plus I believe my mother ) and he looks very much like his parents, especially his father, so I don't think he was adopted.

This is what my results look like:

I don't think it's a big deal that it's not completely accurate. It did say that I'm 89% North/West European, and that would include the Netherlands, it's just the breakdown of that area that's wrong, and I wouldn't really expect the test to be perfectly sensitive to the difference between Dutch and English genes. When I've talked to people about this, though, I've had people insist that the test must be completely accurate and I must be the one who is wrong about my parentage.

The other results were a surprise to me. I'd be interested in learning about my East European and Italian ancestors, but I have no idea who they are. I've looked through my family tree on https://www.familysearch.org/ pretty extensively and never seen anyone but people from the British Isles and from France/Belgium/Netherlands/Germany, so those ancestors must be from one of the dead ends in the tree.

Re: Native American genes: From what I've learned from previous discussions on FJ, these tests aren't completely accurate for Native American genes, so while chances are the stories of a Native American ancestor are false, not finding Native American ancestry on one of these tests doesn't completely rule it out.

One final thing, for those who want to try one of these tests but don't want to pay for it, you could try Genes for Good. It's a research project and if you answer some questions about your health and family background they'll send you a test for free. I actually did it and got the test kit but never got around to sending it back since by the time I received it I had already gotten the other test as a gift. One of these days I should still try it and see what it says.

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

@VelociRapture I did a genetic test as well. Can't remember which one but mine also broke down my human genome and told me if I have variations of certain genes which make me sensitive to certain tings (for example I discovered I have on genetic deviation from the norm to gluten). If you're interested, I can look it up and PM you. 

IIRC, you're white so it isn't applicable to you, but I found that these genetic tests are a little too vague with Sub-saharian grouping (especially when they get into East and Central Africa). I'm about 80% Sub-saharian African and it broke down the places of origin by country (an issue because nation-state borders in Africa are a modern convention). It also grouped tons of different ethnic groups into 'Bantu' which is a huge super-ethnic group that covers 2/3rds of the continent. I personally think there needs to be more test groups for more accurate and ethnic based groups (instead of country division). Plus, since life originated out of Africa, native Africans and their descendants are the most genetically diverse humans. The breakdowns should reflect that. 

I haven't done much research into Asian or Indigenous groupings but I suspect some issues with that as well. 

Question: has anybody gotten any Neanderthal? I find that super fascinating. 

I had some Neanderthal, as did H.  I didn't find my results surprising though, basically they were in line with family history.  H's were shocking, on the other hand.

[SapphireSlytherin]

1 minute ago, Exposedknees said:

I'm thinking of Ancestry or 23 and me kits for Xmas this year.

I'd be careful with that - my own family has some "secrets" that might be better off undiscovered by certain individuals. lol

 

1 minute ago, Jinder Roles said:

Neanderthal

That word doesn't show up in any of my results, although there are specific percentages of DNA or "shared segments" with some DNA that has been extracted from people who were buried in prehistoric graves. Those data are tied to the places where the gravesites were.

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

I've done 23&Me, AncestryDNA, and FamilyTreeDNA, and transferred my results to MyHeritage. Did you find MyHeritage gave you weird ethnicity results? The other three companies were more or less consistent, but MyHeritage was kind of wacky, haha. I'll post the comparison of all my results, in case anyone's curious:

Oh, I just wrote a long post about my MyHeritage results. It's the only one I've tried and it definitely wasn't completely accurate for me, so it's interesting that you say it was different for you from the other tests you've taken.

[SapphireSlytherin]

Just now, singsingsing said:

MyHeritage was kind of wacky, haha.

My experience as well. Let me see if I can remember my login and I'll post mine.

 

[SilverBeach]

Putting weight on a name for genetic testing purposes is fraught with peril. Mr. SB has the surname of his grandfather by marriage, no genetic connection at all to this man. My youngest brother had my same surname but his biological father was not mine. These are not uncommon situations.

[cascarones]

7 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I've done 23&Me, AncestryDNA, and FamilyTreeDNA, and transferred my results to MyHeritage. Did you find MyHeritage gave you weird ethnicity results? The other three companies were more or less consistent, but MyHeritage was kind of wacky, haha. I'll post the comparison of all my results, in case anyone's curious:

  Hide contents

 

Could you explain what you mean by 'DNA storage space'? I'm assuming by 'high algorithmic weight on the name provided' you mean that the algorithm takes into account the kit owner's name, thereby assuming greater probability of a 'Mike Smith' showing mostly British ancestry, whereas a 'Giovanni O'Connor' might be weighted more toward Irish and Italian? That in and of itself doesn't strike me as entirely without merit, but it actually doesn't mesh at all with what I've seen from thousands and thousands of adoptees with totally unknown parentage testing.

Sure! By DNA storage space I mean using DNA as a stable, long term data storage for archival usage. All written texts in the national library could be preserved in a single strand of DNA with engineering. For the most part binary is used, but secondary and tertiary folding have to be taken into account and are used as retrieval points, but DNA can last through a lot under the right conditions (why we're able to extract it from extinct creatures). Right now, it's a pricey space, but very fascinating research going on. I'm not on the science side since I didn't go for a PhD, but the analytics side.

You're right on about the weight naming and it varies between tests, they only test a few sites on the strands of DNA, some of which don't vary much ethnically and are compensated by the name given. There's an article online about identical triplets giving their DNA and getting different results. I know personally simply changing my first and middle name on two samples submitted the same day and taken at the same time changed my Ancestry.com results drastically. In one I was 7% Native American, the other ~40% (more accurate, but it related to using my middle name).

It's also important to note the DNA being tested hasn't been received in ideal condition on these tests, you're home sampling and mailing it off with no control of conditions in between (heat, wetness, etc), which can cause deterioration or restructuring.  So they're less accurate than samples taken at hospitals. 

They're fun though, they're guideposts and if anyone needs medical DNA profiling it'll be done in a controlled setting. 

[singsingsing]

@cascarones Thank you so much! That's absolutely fascinating! And so, so important.

I would love a link to that article about the triplets, if you have it handy. If not, no worries, I'll search for it myself. That's pretty crazy about your own experiment, too! So it seems (if I'm understanding it right), if you have any substantial genetic heritage from a certain population, the test is going to show it some way or another (trust me, I know I'm vastly oversimplifying here) but based on your name, it might greatly underestimate, overestimate, or get it dead on? I'm just going to let my mind spin for a moment here.  But seriously, that makes a lot of sense to me, given how inexact the science is, and how AncestryDNA at least shows you the range of their estimate. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

I have a very distinctively French surname. I can imagine that if I'd uploaded the kit using, say, my mother's maiden name (Scottish origin), I might've seen a result closer to that 84%.

7 minutes ago, cascarones said:

They're fun though, they're guideposts and if anyone needs medical DNA profiling it'll be done in a controlled setting.

One of my biggest concerns with the recent home DNA testing fad is the medical aspect. The genealogical side is fantastic, but the medical side is really worrying to me. Like you said, these tests are not done in controlled environments, but I've seen people fall apart emotionally, make major health decisions, and spend thousands of dollars based on their 23&Me results. There are even websites that will break your medical results down to the nittiest, grittiest detail, and people take it as gospel truth. I don't know. I'm not a scientist, but I can't imagine that's good.