HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 5:33 AM
subterranean subterranean is offline
Registered Ugly
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,852
I’ve done both of the big DNA ancestry tests. Of the two, 23andMe lines up more closely with my documented family history.

Ancestry
• Southeastern England & Northwestern Europe — 33%
• Central Scotland & Northern Ireland — 24%
• Northeastern Italy — 18%
• North East Scotland — 14%
• Munster, Ireland — 4%
• Netherlands — 4%
• Southern Germanic Europe — 2%
• North East England — 1%

23andMe
• English — 36.4%
• Northern Italian — 25.6%
• Scottish — 9.6%
• Belgian, Rhinelander & Southern Dutch — 6.6%
• Irish — 5.2%
• Austrian & Southern German — 5.1%
• Dutch & Northern German — 4.2%
• French — 2.5%
• Swiss, Southwestern German & Western Austrian — 2.5%
• Czech, Hungarian, Slovak & Southern Polish — 2.1%
• Welsh — 0.2%

The Italian result is a good example of why 23andMe seems more accurate for me. My maternal grandmother and her family were from the Dolomites, in northeastern Italy. Based on my family tree, I should be roughly 25% Italian; 23andMe puts me at 25.6% Northern Italian and even identifies Veneto, while Ancestry estimates 18% Northeastern Italian.

Although I’m only about a quarter Italian by ancestry, that side of the family had an outsized cultural influence. My grandmother and great-grandmother spoke Italian at home, so the connection to that heritage remained relatively strong.

Genealogical research into that branch eventually allowed me and my two kids to obtain Italian citizenship jure sanguinis in 2020—before Italy substantially restricted that route to citizenship following years of enormous demand, particularly from South America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 5:44 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by 38 Geary View Post
Sheesh by foot?! How long would a journey like that take? And how did he pay for food and lodging and stuff like that?

People back then were seriously built different.
I'm sure he didn't actually walk the whole way, and he arrived in Boston in 1919; rail would have been somewhat back to normal in terms of civilian east to west routes by then. He claimed it took over a year to get from Ukraine to Amsterdam. He was also in his mid 90s when recalling these details, so who knows?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 5:57 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 12,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean View Post
I’ve done both of the big DNA ancestry tests. Of the two, 23andMe lines up more closely with my documented family history.

Ancestry
• Southeastern England & Northwestern Europe — 33%
• Central Scotland & Northern Ireland — 24%
• Northeastern Italy — 18%
• North East Scotland — 14%
• Munster, Ireland — 4%
• Netherlands — 4%
• Southern Germanic Europe — 2%
• North East England — 1%

23andMe
• English — 36.4%
• Northern Italian — 25.6%
• Scottish — 9.6%
• Belgian, Rhinelander & Southern Dutch — 6.6%
• Irish — 5.2%
• Austrian & Southern German — 5.1%
• Dutch & Northern German — 4.2%
• French — 2.5%
• Swiss, Southwestern German & Western Austrian — 2.5%
• Czech, Hungarian, Slovak & Southern Polish — 2.1%
• Welsh — 0.2%

The Italian result is a good example of why 23andMe seems more accurate for me. My maternal grandmother and her family were from the Dolomites, in northeastern Italy. Based on my family tree, I should be roughly 25% Italian; 23andMe puts me at 25.6% Northern Italian and even identifies Veneto, while Ancestry estimates 18% Northeastern Italian.

Although I’m only about a quarter Italian by ancestry, that side of the family had an outsized cultural influence. My grandmother and great-grandmother spoke Italian at home, so the connection to that heritage remained relatively strong.

Genealogical research into that branch eventually allowed me and my two kids to obtain Italian citizenship jure sanguinis in 2020—before Italy substantially restricted that route to citizenship following years of enormous demand, particularly from South America.
That could've been a very awkward family meeting without the 23andMe results.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:30 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
It has nothing to do with Evangelicals. All humans alive have a single common ancestor that lived in East Africa around 200,000 years ago. It's not relevant whether humans mixed earlier or later.

My genetic exam result showed me that on my matrilineal and patrilineal lines. Same for Steely.
Last common ancestor DOES NOT MEAN that each human does not have ancestors from elsewhere.

Yes, we ALL have a last common ancestor from Africa. No, we do not all, as individuals, have our entire genetic history originate from Africa. Nearly ALL humans not currently living in Africa with purely African roots have many (or most) ancestors that have literally zero evolutionary/genealogical connection to Africa. Humans are NOT African—even if our last common ancestor was.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:37 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is believed to be some (very, very light) mixing between Neanderthals and modern humans that have no human lineage outside of Africa, but that didn't occur until modern humans spread outside of Africa less than 50,000 years ago. Modern humans lived in Africa for upwards of 80% of the time that the species has existed. Neaderthals never lived in Africa and were not humans (but they were part of the homo genus).
Human: Homo sapiens
Anatomically modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens
Neanderthals: Homo sapiens neanderthalis

Genus (for both): Homo
Species (for both): sapiens
Subspecies (only this differs): sapiens v. neanderthalis

Fact: both subspecies are human at the species level.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:39 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 12,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Last common ancestor DOES NOT MEAN that each human does not have ancestors from elsewhere.

Yes, we ALL have a last common ancestor from Africa. No, we do not all, as individuals, have our entire genetic history originate from Africa. Nearly ALL humans not currently living in Africa with purely African roots have many (or most) ancestors that have literally zero evolutionary/genealogical connection to Africa. Humans are NOT African—even if our last common ancestor was.
Actually, all branches of the homo genus originated in Africa, but Neanderthals and Denisovans descended from a branch that left Africa before those species evolved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:40 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
They were part of the homo genus, but they were not "modern humans" (Homo sapiens). They were a distinct branch of the homo genus that evolved outside of Africa. Homo sapiens were a branch of the homo genus that evolved within Africa. The branches only had brief contact with each other between when homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, and Neanderthals went extinct.
The rest of the species he listed are separate species—denisovans and Neanderthals, otoh, are currently best understood as distinct SUBspecies within the human species, Homo sapiens. Hence why the Wikipedia page calls them HUMANS.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:45 PM
Greavsie Greavsie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Up to when? The Irish church records must not go back very far given all the destruction there's been in Ireland with the English.
nonsense
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:46 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 12,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
The rest of the species he listed are separate species—denisovans and Neanderthals, otoh, are currently best understood as distinct SUBspecies within the human species, Homo sapiens. Hence why the Wikipedia page calls them HUMANS.
You're mixing up species and genus. Humans are a genus but Homo sapiens sapiens are currently the only species of the genus that still exists. All members of the homo genus are called humans. Homo sapiens sapiens are "modern humans" referred to as "humans" for shorthand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 7:49 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
You're mixing up species and genus. Humans are a genus but Homo sapiens sapiens are currently the only species of the genus that still exists. All members of the homo genus are called humans. Homo sapiens sapiens are "modern humans" referred to as "humans" for shorthand.
Humans are a species, not a genus. Go look at the Wikipedia page and every single dictionary and peer reviewed study out there.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 8:08 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 12,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Humans are a species, not a genus. Go look at the Wikipedia page and every single dictionary and peer reviewed study out there.
Whatever you were reading is wrong:

Quote:
Homo (from Latin homō 'human') is a genus of great ape (family Hominidae) that emerged from the genus Australopithecus (subtribe Hominina), encompassing a single extant species, Homo sapiens (modern humans), along with a number of extinct species (e.g. Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis) classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans, collectively called archaic humans. Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus.[1] The closest living relatives of Homo are of the hominin genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7–11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 8:20 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Humans are a species, not a genus. Go look at the Wikipedia page and every single dictionary and peer reviewed study out there.
H. Sapiens is the species while "human" describes any of the species under the Homo genus. Neanderthals were also human, for example.
__________________
Who are you people and where is my horse? - G. Carlin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 8:30 PM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 9,069
[deleted]

Last edited by Docere; Aug 23, 2026 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 8:33 PM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 9,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Cultural identity is not a scientific classification.
That's for sure. The idea that genetics drives culture is problematic. I recall seeing an add once where someone thought he was German but then discovered he was Scottish. So he trades the lederhosen for the kilt!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 8:37 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greavsie View Post
nonsense
Nonsense? I've just had a look, and the vast majority of surviving Catholic church records in Ireland start between 1820 and 1850. That's very recent. That means most people with Irish ancestry will probably not be able to go much further back in time than 1820.

In France, for example, the majority of surviving Catholic church records start in the 1670s-1680s.

In Spain, if they haven't been destroyed during the Spanish Civil War, the church records usually start in the 1560s-1580s.

The reason the church records in Ireland are not very ancient is because of the penal laws enforced by the English in Ireland, which heavily restricted the Catholic Church. Priests often operated underground, and did not collect baptisms, marriages, and burials records for safety reasons. It's only with the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 that the Catholic church could operate openly once again, and the practice of recording births, marriages, and burials was started in earnest.

In Catholic countries not under Protestant occupation, the Council of Trent in the 16th century made it mandatory for priests to record the baptisms, marriages, and burials. In France, this recommendation was badly enforced, both due to the weakness of the royal authorities and to the civil wars that affected the country in the 16th and early 17th century. It's only when Louis XIV restored peace and unity, and started his personal reign (in 1660) that a modern French administration was put in place, and the priests were more severally required to register the births, marriages, and burials (BMB). The French royal administration was also unique in Europe in requesting 2 copies of each BMB books (one to be kept in the parish, the other to be sent to the local law court), as early as the 1670s. In the French colonies, they even requested a 3rd copy to be sent to Paris for record keeping (that's why we still have BMB books from French Guiana, Haiti or Martinique from the 1670s which have long since rotten and been eaten by insects in those tropical places, but the 3rd copy is kept intact in Paris).

That's why, in most cases, you can usually find parish archives since at least the 1670s-1680s in France (metropolitan and overseas territories alike).

In Spain, where the royal authority was much stronger than in France in the 16th century, and where they suppressed Protestantism early and did not suffer from religious wars, the recommendations from the Council of Trent were enforced immediately, that's why usually their parish registers start in the 1560s-1580s. But unlike France, Spain declined after the 17th century, their administration became inefficient, they never requested a 2nd copy of the BMB book, and they did not create a civil registration like France did in 1792, so until the very end of the 19th century they only had BMB books, and only 1 copy (kept in the parish). If that copy was destroyed, then the entire records from that parish are destroyed (whereas if the parish copy was destroyed in France, then the law court's copy would still remain, or vice versa). Also, unlike France they never forced the Catholic Church to relinquish their BMB books and entrust them to secular archives. During the Spanish Civil War, the Republicans attacked and burned many churches in Spain. The churches still kept the BMB books, so a lot of BMB books were destroyed in 1936. In cities like Barcelona and Valencia, nearly all the churches were burnt in 1936, so that means nearly all the church records since the 16th century have disappeared. They don't have records older than 1939. In cities that were taken by the Nationalists on the 1st day of the civil war, like Seville, the churches were preserved, and the BMB books still exist, and go back to the 1560s.

So Spain is a hit and miss: either you find everything up to the mid-16th century, or you have nothing before 1939. In France, in nearly 98% of places you can find the church records going back to the late 17th century, because there were 2 copies, so at least one always survived. But in most places, you won't find church records before the 1660s (except in cities where the church records usually start in the 16th century, but in the countryside it's rarely older than 1660s).
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 10:14 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Whatever you were reading is wrong:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo
Quote:
Humans (Homo sapiens, meaning 'thinking man' or 'wise man') are the most abundant and widespread species of primates, characterized by bipedalism, minimal body hair, and large, complex brains enabling the development of advanced technology, culture, and language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

From your link:

Quote:
Homo (from Latin homō 'human') is a genus of great ape (family Hominidae) that emerged from the genus Australopithecus (subtribe Hominina), encompassing a single extant species, Homo sapiens (modern humans).
You’re wrong. Homo COMES ETYMOLOGICALLY from the word human, but it NOT synonymous with the human species. Go away dude. It includes humans, [no longer distinct] archaic humans (other subspecies within the Homo sapiens species) AND other separate species altogether that are now extinct such as H. erectus and H. ergaster.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 10:53 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,287
Guys, you are just arguing tangerines vs mandarins. In scientific terms (i.e. for scientists), "human" refers to any member of the Homo genus (so Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc). Homo sapiens is referred to as "modern humans", and Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc are referred to as "archaic humans", or "early humans".

In everyday speech, in general the Anglophones by "humans" mean us the homo sapiens. But I'd rather stick to scientific usage if we speak of a scientific subject.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2026, 11:05 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Guys, you are just arguing tangerines vs mandarins. In scientific terms (i.e. for scientists), "human" refers to any member of the Homo genus (so Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc). Homo sapiens is referred to as "modern humans", and Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc are referred to as "archaic humans", or "early humans".

In everyday speech, in general the Anglophones by "humans" mean us the homo sapiens. But I'd rather stick to scientific usage if we speak of a scientific subject.
This is NOT actually how the science categorizes these things, but whatever. Say whatever you’re gonna say.
__________________
Houston: 2.4m (+3.9%) + MSA suburbs: 5.4m (+12%) + CSA exurbs: 200k (+5%)
Dallas: 1.3m (+2%) / FtW: 1.0m (+10%) + suburbs: 6.4m (9%) + exurbs: 566k (+9%)
San Antonio: 1.5m (+6%) + MSA suburbs: 1.2m (+10%) + CSA exurbs: 82k (+3%)
Austin: 994k (+3%) + MSA suburbs: 1.6m (+18%)
Texas (whole): 31.29m (+7%) / Texas (balance): 8.6m (+3%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2026, 12:06 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,921
__________________
Chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies, chaos upon my enemies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2026, 2:15 PM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 9,069
The NYT posted this 6 weeks ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/07/01/us/america-ancestry-census-data-map.html

Unfortunately it includes American responses since it's based on ACS. The 2020 Census had excluded them.

Most American responses are found in areas where British Isles ancestry is dominant among whites, but it does show up in odd places like Lakewood NJ ("country of origin" is a complicated question for Jews).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.