23andMe 23andMe, Geno 2.0 and free admixture tools

This question is for those ones, who tested 23andMe or Geno 2.0 or both. Is there any difference between your autosomal results and ethnic percentages comparing to free admixture tools (e.g. Dodecad, Eurogenes)?

BakodiP said:

This question is for those ones, who tested 23andMe or Geno 2.0 or both. Is there any difference between your autosomal results and ethnic percentages comparing to free admixture tools (e.g. Dodecad, Eurogenes)?

Click to expand...

all companies are different , you choose what you think is best for you.

Doug M is the only one I know who specifically can show you your personnel mixture.

recently a GPS site has come on, its early but for me it places me in central France , which is why I am asking for paperwork on the 5% of T marker in central france



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sile said:

all companies are different , you choose what you think is best for you.

Doug M is the only one I know who specifically can show you your personnel mixture.

recently a GPS site has come on, its early but for me it places me in central France , which is why I am asking for paperwork on the 5% of T marker in central france



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Click to expand...

I don't quite exactly understand your reply. My qestion was if someone who tested e.g. Geno 2.0 and have an autosomal admixture like e.g. 80% NE-Europe and 20% Central Europe does he/she have the same estimates with Dodecad or Eurogenes or not? I'm not about to find an exact and adequate geographical point (which I think is impossible - at least at this state of science).

is it possible to transfer Geno 2.0 results to FTDNA with no cost. Geno 2.0 gives u a preschool explanation and alot of it is BS. Their migration maps are only based on modern distribution and they act as if when a people groups settle somewhere nothing changes for 30,000 years i get sick of the lies they are spreading. and specer wells the leader even though he is white is a total Afro centrist he is in love with the black looking southeast asians trying to proof they where the first out of Africa and kept the original human features. Even though in globe13 they show huge relation with Mongliods same with y dna and mtdna so they migrated with Mongliods to asai and probably where the first out of the mid east human where already out of Africa. and says humans where not in europe till 40,000ybp even though we have multiple over 40,000 year old human remains in Europe Britain. Italy, Romania, and two in south Germany including a accurate half man half lion statue and a flute. I don't understand why people are so conservative on the date of Human really they should say Caucasian arrival in Europe. They should not say Modern Human because we have the remains we have DNA we know the Human families and the earliest settlers in Europe where Caucasian specifically in the west Asian European group which makes sense.

I want to know my real Y DNA haplogroup is it R1b1a2a1a L11*, R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116*, R1b1a2a1a2a Df27, R1b1a2a1a2d L238, R1b1a2a1a2e Df19

It seems just fro the geno 2.0 "who am i" aust DNA test there is a little Native American, Sub Saharan African, and Oceania?? ancestry and a pretty decent size of mid eastern which is almost only found in Italy and Southeast Europe. and i am wondering how true that is by taking another test.

BakodiP said:

I don't quite exactly understand your reply. My qestion was if someone who tested e.g. Geno 2.0 and have an autosomal admixture like e.g. 80% NE-Europe and 20% Central Europe does he/she have the same estimates with Dodecad or Eurogenes or not? I'm not about to find an exact and adequate geographical point (which I think is impossible - at least at this state of science).

Click to expand...

no, they are different. My friend showed me his natGeno 2.0 and they do not have Caucasian mixture as a separate body