Good explanation, but I was a little distressed by the part of the analogy that says people know what work to do because "someone tells us." That statement makes people sound like robots and that we do not make decisions on our own. Maybe this is lost on me because I work for myself, but this paints the picture of a chain of people telling other people what to do and everyone following blindly. Something to think about when discussing this concept with children! Humans have free will... :)

Living DNA offers the best biogeographical ancestry analysis on the market for people with British ancestry and they are the only company to offer regional breakdowns. With the inclusion of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup information, this is a good all-round test for someone who wants an overview of their genetic ancestry. The test cannot currently be used for genealogical matching, though an autosomal matching service is promised for the future. As a late entrant to the market, Living DNA will start with a smaller database though the test is more likely to appeal to people in the UK, especially those who feel safer keeping their DNA data in Europe.
AncestryDNA is appealing to many because the results can be matched (to some degree) with many well-established family trees, but major privacy concerns (about how your data is used and sold) have been present in the past. For many, this is a deal breaker. They also offer the fewest advanced tools for analyzing data, although their database is very large.
Instead, MyHeritage DNA reported I that I’m of Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese, and Mongolian descent. As I was looking for a reason to explain the discrepancy between tests, I discovered that there are large swaths of the map not covered by any of the service’s ancestral regions. The Korean peninsula is one of those areas, as are southern regions in South America, Africa and almost all of Australia and Russia. The oversight seems odd because MyHeritage could have easily included these missed areas inside a larger, generalized region instead of completely omitting them.
4. Geno 2.0: At $199 National Geographic’s Genographic Project is the most expensive of all of the choices and is also not deigned specifically for genealogists. They do not offer a database of known relations and the data they provide is more general in nature. However, joining the project does provide a geographic ancestry breakdown as well as a report on how much Neanderthal you may have (fun!). It is an exciting scientific endeavor and definitely worth exploring and joining if you have the resources to do so. Find it here.
×