... got DNA results, no such trace was indicated? It is his claim that even though it didn’t show, someone can even lose a trait from as recent as their grandparents. My thought is, if that is possible, then how would anyone be able to trace their DNA to anywhere or anyone other than their birth parents? Is it scientifically possible for someone to be 1/64th of anything and not have that trait trace back in their DNA?
Answers (2)
If one parent is ethnic, you can say you are 1/2 ethnic, but that does not mean exactly 1/2.
If one grandparent is ethnic, you can say you are 1/4 ethnic, but that does not mean exactly 1/4.
If one great-grandparent is ethnic, you can say you are 1/8 ethnic, but that does not mean exactly 1/8.
If one g-g-grandparent is ethnic, you can say you are 1/16 ethnic, but that does not mean exactly 1/16.
If one grandparent of six generations back is ethnic, you can say you are 1/64 ethnic, but that does not mean exactly 1/64, and in any case the fraction is getting awfully small. Besides being small, the fraction did not necessarily mean anything in the first place.
At six generations, that means your ancestor was about 96 years old when you were born and about 106 by the time you can get interested in outdoor activities. I don't think a 106 yo ancestor is going to take you camping or teach you how to hunt bears or any such thing.
Nobody knows anything for sure about DNA markers. That is what I was trying to say in my answer. The whole topic is flooded with sloppy thinking.
I understand all of that - but that is NOT an answer to my question. Can your DNA lose a genetic marker? Can you have, let's say, a great grandparent from Russia, but their DNA marker not show up in your DNA sequence? I am not talking about personal characteristics (someone tried to give me a hunter-gatherer trait from your past doesn't mean you're going to be a hunter-gatherer), I am talking genetic markers, genes, etc.