New My Origins Results

[hdw]

My family are from East Anglia and I have traced them back to the 16th Century. All local country folk and English Christian.

I don't have any problem with having Ashkenazi Jewish or any other Jewish Diaspora ancestry, it would be quite cool but I cannot see how it can be accurate.

I'm showing 4 percent, could this be a mix up with more ancient Middle Eastern origins?, farmers obviously came to Europe during the Neolithic. I did consider that perhaps this percentage came over during the Roman period.

My previous results didn't show any Non-European, I would expect to be 3-5% Asian as most Europeans are but this seems rather bizarre.

Anyone else with English origins getting these kind of results?

My Scandinavian has disappeared, even though my ancestors came from Danelaw. Gedmatch gets it right, matches me with Norwegian and Danish populations on the EU test.

Similar to me, I'm Scottish (east coast and Borders) with one line of ancestors from north Northumberland and one from northern Ireland (Ulster Presbyterians). So it's quite surprising to find I'm 3% Jewish diaspora (Sephardic), as well as 11% Iberian. I know I have Y DNA R1b partial matches with individuals of Iberian descent, which I have put down to all our ancestors sheltering together in the Iberian ice-age refuges 10,000+ years ago. But Sephardic ...? I'm not complaining, just intrigued.

Before, I had 5% Finland and North Siberia, also rather baffling, and 0% Scandinavian. Now I have 33% Scandinavian (Anglian??) and my Finnish/Siberian component has disappeared as quickly as it came.

Harry

[N202533]

Confusing Results

I will add my information to the confusion regarding the update of MyOrigins:

European 59%
Iberia 50%
East Europe 9%
New World 38%
Trace Results
Asia Minor < 2%

My previous results were basically 64% European (Southern European around 34% and Western European 30%) 23% New World, 7% East Asian, around 4% Central Asia 1% Middle East- North Africa. (It never reached 100%)

With the new results the Western European amount has changed dramatically and replaced by the East Europe percentage, which is very elusive.

They have reduced the European percentage and I got more New World. I could understand between European clusters that they can be misread but a mistake between two very different clusters New World - European it's very complicated to understand.

I know FamilyTreeDNA is using Cluster Populations it's supposed they are updated with first hand information, but I think the results are very difficult to understand and contribute to more confusion than giving us more insight to our genetic background.

I've got a German - Austrian Great great grandmother, which explained my previous high percentage of Western European, but I have also confirmed French ancestry and now it disappeared completely and rests only a dubious Eastern European origin.

The clusters are very complicated to understand, in the case of the Iberian Peninsula is easy because you've got only Spain and Portugal but the Eastern Europe cluster englobes more than 12 countries and between them sections of Germany.

The New World, North and Central America cluster is completely absurd. It could means Aztec, Cherokee, Pueblo, Mayan or any other group from millions of square kilometers, it gives no real insight regarding ancestry. My worst problem, I haven't got a Native American grandparent for the percentage I obtained, (or perhaps I had one and one of my grandparents is not my real grandpa, who knows).

Finally the trace results are completely background noise and meaningless. Though I obtain all the time a small amount of Middle East.

Comparing to other DNA services including the use of GEDMATCH databases the results are absolutely different. Of course depends of the type of population databases and reference clusters used, but in this case, more information is needed.

[Armando]

I will add my information to the confusion regarding the update of MyOrigins:

European 59%
Iberia 50%
East Europe 9%
New World 38%
Trace Results
Asia Minor < 2%

My previous results were basically 64% European (Southern European around 34% and Western European 30%) 23% New World, 7% East Asian, around 4% Central Asia 1% Middle East- North Africa. (It never reached 100%)

They have reduced the European percentage and I got more New World. I could understand between European clusters that they can be misread but a mistake between two very different clusters New World - European it's very complicated to understand.

The New World, North and Central America cluster is completely absurd. It could means Aztec, Cherokee, Pueblo, Mayan or any other group from millions of square kilometers, it gives no real insight regarding ancestry. My worst problem, I haven't got a Native American grandparent for the percentage I obtained, (or perhaps I had one and one of my grandparents is not my real grandpa, who knows).

Finally the trace results are completely background noise and meaningless. Though I obtain all the time a small amount of Middle East.

Comparing to other DNA services including the use of GEDMATCH databases the results are absolutely different. Of course depends of the type of population databases and reference clusters used, but in this case, more information is needed.

The one thing that I have found to be fairly accurate with this update is the Native American percentage. The old MO had way too much Native American identified as European - Finland & Northern Siberia, Central Asia, and East Asia - Northeast Asian. Now the Native American amount is closer to what is reported at 23andme, AncestryDNA, and Gedmatch which all make more sense than the old MO for well documented genealogies. How much Finland & Northern Siberia did you get with the old MO? Your 23% New World, 7% East Asian, around 4% Central Asia are part of your current New World 38%.

You can see the old MO results of a living Sioux person and compare them to the old MO results of the ancient Anzick infant from Montana here

FTDNA, or any of the DNA companies, have enough Native samples from all over the Americas in order to differentiate between Natives from the Unites States and Natives from Mexico. Even geneticists that have more Natives samples than FTDNA are finding a lot of similarities between Natives in Canada and Natives in Mexico so there are obviously going to be a lot of similarities with Natives in the U.S. So the New World, North and Central America cluster really isn't absurd.

Where is your ancestry known ancestry from? Since you have a lot Iberian and a lot of Native American I assume your ancestry is from the southwest U.S. or Latin America or both.

[imorassini]

Very unhappy with new algorithms. Something is wrong. Please fix it.

I am not happy with the new ftdna myOrigins results. You can not take away what is there. I reran my raw results in gedmatch and rechecked DNA land. Thank you G-d for these other tools. They confirmed what I already knew and what myOrigins picked up but did not go further due to ftdna's perimeter. I don't understand why you change things. DNA does not change. Since I have had my DNA tests done, I have personally paid for over 8-9 people to have their tests done (some of these people were not from my family) and I have had another 7-8 people do there DNA tests because of my experience. These are people that check with me, ask me questions and trust my thoughts. This change that is very flaw (you can't take away what is in people's DNA--you are to report it as it is...you can add but not take away.) I love how Dnnaland says that if your DNA shows up when they don't have enough to show a match...they put a ? in that simply because it showed up. I am not referring to percentages here...show the areas where my DNA shows I am there...it is a part of what makes me ME. I am holding off purchasing on the others that I am assisting with for DNA tests kits at FTDNA until this is resolved. I really like FTDNA and speak very highly of it but.....well we shall see.

[N202533]

The one thing that I have found to be fairly accurate with this update is the Native American percentage. The old MO had way too much Native American identified as European - Finland & Northern Siberia, Central Asia, and East Asia - Northeast Asian. Now the Native American amount is closer to what is reported at 23andme, AncestryDNA, and Gedmatch which all make more sense than the old MO for well documented genealogies. How much Finland & Northern Siberia did you get with the old MO? Your 23% New World, 7% East Asian, around 4% Central Asia are part of your current New World 38%.

You can see the old MO results of a living Sioux person and compare them to the old MO results of the ancient Anzick infant from Montana here

FTDNA, or any of the DNA companies, have enough Native samples from all over the Americas in order to differentiate between Natives from the Unites States and Natives from Mexico. Even geneticists that have more Natives samples than FTDNA are finding a lot of similarities between Natives in Canada and Natives in Mexico so there are obviously going to be a lot of similarities with Natives in the U.S. So the New World, North and Central America cluster really isn't absurd.

Where is your ancestry known ancestry from? Since you have a lot Iberian and a lot of Native American I assume your ancestry is from the southwest U.S. or Latin America or both.

I am Spanish with two Latin American grandparents and two European (1 Spanish 1 German/Austrian). I've got different results in 23andme, and dnaland and using Gedmatch.

THe Native Americans are all similar the difference is minimal between the A,B,C,D, etc. haplogroups, my maternal DNA is D4h3a6, and it's very rare I don't have any match to the present day except a Chinese woman from the D4h3b branch. So I don't think they have that much NA DNA in their databases. I didn't get any Finland/Siberian percentage before. I got some trace results from Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia (Pashto - Pathan) but not so much beyond background noise percentages.

In any case they've got enough material to give more deep ancestry information, most with the Native American clusters, they could give Ethnic related information. I would like to know if Maya or Cherokee.

All DNA ANcestry programmes give different results, for instance Gedmatch using Dodecad:

Gedrosia 9.41
Siberian 13.71
Northwest_African 1.39
Southeast_Asian 0.31
Atlantic_Med 26.37
North_European 26.20
South_Asian 1.62
Southwest_Asian 1.09
East_Asian 13.27
Caucasus 6.65

The very big problem beyond that are the trace results, they give more confusion that information.

[N202533]

The one thing that I have found to be fairly accurate with this update is the Native American percentage. The old MO had way too much Native American identified as European - Finland & Northern Siberia, Central Asia, and East Asia - Northeast Asian. Now the Native American amount is closer to what is reported at 23andme, AncestryDNA, and Gedmatch which all make more sense than the old MO for well documented genealogies. How much Finland & Northern Siberia did you get with the old MO? Your 23% New World, 7% East Asian, around 4% Central Asia are part of your current New World 38%.

You can see the old MO results of a living Sioux person and compare them to the old MO results of the ancient Anzick infant from Montana here

FTDNA, or any of the DNA companies, have enough Native samples from all over the Americas in order to differentiate between Natives from the Unites States and Natives from Mexico. Even geneticists that have more Natives samples than FTDNA are finding a lot of similarities between Natives in Canada and Natives in Mexico so there are obviously going to be a lot of similarities with Natives in the U.S. So the New World, North and Central America cluster really isn't absurd.

Where is your ancestry known ancestry from? Since you have a lot Iberian and a lot of Native American I assume your ancestry is from the southwest U.S. or Latin America or both.

If they can make difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish, they can do it about Sioux - Apache and Maya or Aztec for certain. Giving North and Central AMerica is nonsense, as it is that cluster about Eastern Europe that englobes 12 countries

[Armando]

If they can make difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish, they can do it about Sioux - Apache and Maya or Aztec for certain. Giving North and Central AMerica is nonsense, as it is that cluster about Eastern Europe that englobes 12 countries

There were enough unmixed Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish that were willing to be part of the reference populations. Most Sioux and Apache that aren't mixed are not willing to be part of the reference populations so there is no way to distinguish them so giving North and Central America is not nonsense. DNA results are based on comparing reference populations and if FTDNA doesn't have those reference populations they can't create them out of thin air. None of the other companies are able to distinguish Sioux, Apache, Maya and Aztec DNA because none of them have enough Native samples for their reference databases. FTDNA should not be expected to be able to do it when the competition can't do it.

The Eastern Europe cluster is nonsense since it should be relatively easy for FTDNA to find people from there that are willing to be part of the reference population and 23andme was able to distinguish them. So the Native American problem and the Eastern European problem are two completely different problems.

[Armando]

I am Spanish with two Latin American grandparents and two European (1 Spanish 1 German/Austrian). I've got different results in 23andme, and dnaland and using Gedmatch.

If you have Latin American ancestors then the country or countries that they are from should be where your Native ancestry is from.

THe Native Americans are all similar the difference is minimal between the A,B,C,D, etc. haplogroups, my maternal DNA is D4h3a6, and it's very rare I don't have any match to the present day except a Chinese woman from the D4h3b branch. So I don't think they have that much NA DNA in their databases. I didn't get any Finland/Siberian percentage before. I got some trace results from Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia (Pashto - Pathan) but not so much beyond background noise percentages.

Autosomal DNA and mtDNA are two very different things. Regardless, Ian Logan has two people from Peru with D4h3a6 at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_..._sequences.htm

You don't have a match with your subclade because not enough people with Native American mtDNA are getting an FMS test at FTDNA.

In any case they've got enough material to give more deep ancestry information, most with the Native American clusters, they could give Ethnic related information. I would like to know if Maya or Cherokee.

What gives you the idea that they have enough material? 23andme, DNA.Land, and the old Population Finder from FTDNA only used Pima, Mayans, Karitiana, Surui and Colombians. The previous version of myOrigins only used Karitiana and Surui. AncestryDNA only uses those plus a few more. Gedmatch mostly just uses those depending on the calculator. Sometimes fewer such as Eurogenes.

All DNA ANcestry programmes give different results, for instance Gedmatch using Dodecad:


Gedrosia 9.41
Siberian 13.71
Northwest_African 1.39
Southeast_Asian 0.31
Atlantic_Med 26.37
North_European 26.20
South_Asian 1.62
Southwest_Asian 1.09
East_Asian 13.27
Caucasus 6.65

The very big problem beyond that are the trace results, they give more confusion that information.

Instead of using Dodecad try using Eurogenes K13. Dodecad is a lot older and there are different versions of Dodecad so I can't remember which one had the better Native American calculator but the one you are using isn't one of them.

Also if you are going to say all Ancestry programs give different amounts please also provide the results from 23andme and AncestryDNA or at least DNA.Land which is free.

[N202533]

If you have Latin American ancestors then the country or countries that they are from should be where your Native ancestry is from.

That's one problem, they were from South America and the Familytree percentages are from North and Central America, and they were mixed with Spaniards too, so no pure Native Americans It will be difficult to now for certain their affiliation.

Autosomal DNA and mtDNA are two very different things. Regardless, Ian Logan has two people from Peru with D4h3a6 at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_..._sequences.htm

You don't have a match with your subclade because not enough people with Native American mtDNA are getting an FMS test at FTDNA.


What gives you the idea that they have enough material? 23andme, DNA.Land, and the old Population Finder from FTDNA only used Pima, Mayans, Karitiana, Surui and Colombians. The previous version of myOrigins only used Karitiana and Surui. AncestryDNA only uses those plus a few more. Gedmatch mostly just uses those depending on the calculator. Sometimes fewer such as Eurogenes.


Instead of using Dodecad try using Eurogenes K13. Dodecad is a lot older and there are different versions of Dodecad so I can't remember which one had the better Native American calculator but the one you are using isn't one of them.

Also if you are going to say all Ancestry programs give different amounts please also provide the results from 23andme and AncestryDNA or at least DNA.Land which is free.

Yes there are other companies that have D4h3's but no FamilytreeDNA. In DNA LAND the results are:

West Eurasian 58% Southwestern European 53% Southwestern European 47%
Sardinian 6%
Ambiguous 2.2%
Balkan 1.9%
Indus Valley 1.3%
Native American 39% Native American 30%
Amazonian 9.4%
African 2.5% North African 2.5%


In Gedmatch using Eurogenes K13:

Population
North_Atlantic 27.25
Baltic 3.66
West_Med 19.44
West_Asian 3.58
East_Med 1.71
Red_Sea 3.47
South_Asian -
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.77
Amerindian 37.74
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 2.19
Sub-Saharan 0.15

23andme

29% East Asian & Native American

23% Native American
6% East Asian

64% European
25% French and German
3% Italian
30% Iberian
3% Ashkenazi
3% Eastern European

Middle Eastern and North African

4% Middle Eastern

3% Unassigned

[NCroots]

Indus Valley 1.3%

You're the only other person I've seen with Indus Valley in their DNA.Land results. I show 2.1% Indus Valley. I know the reference population is Burusho, Pathan, and Sindhi, but not sure how that fits with a person who is primarily English & German.

[N202533]

You're the only other person I've seen with Indus Valley in their DNA.Land results. I show 2.1% Indus Valley. I know the reference population is Burusho, Pathan, and Sindhi, but not sure how that fits with a person who is primarily English & German.

In DNA Land they've got just few reference populations in some cases, not enough to get deep ancestry information. The problem is that tiny amount could be background noise or as the updated Familytreedna My Ancestry Origins refer as "trace results", so we can't be sure about that. In my case the previous results from FamilyTreeDNA matched the DNa LAnd in that cluster, and in some Gedmatch programmes I get also a small amount of Sout Asian. Using HarappaWorld I get a good percentage of Baloch (4.57%) for instance or in Dodecad I get Gedrosia, but in the last case the Gedrosia is present in a lot of people from Europe, because refers to a very old migration.

[curious1]

I bought an mtDNA Plus and a FF test for an acquaintance, she came back as U2 and, as her family's been in Switzerland for who knows how many millennia, her U2 admin figured she's U2e and grouped her as such. Her FF was a surprise as it gave her a lot of Southern Europe rather than Scandinavia. Or, as U2 is Cro Magnon, maybe that's about right. That's a pretty ancient haplogroup, isn't it?

Her old myOrigins with 99% European:

56% Southern Europe
39% Scandinavia
4% British Isles followed by 1% Central Asia.

New, still 99% European but the missing 1% is now unaccounted for:

48% West/Central Europe
25% Southeast Europe
16% British Isles
10% Scandinavia

See that originally she had no West/Central Europe; now that region's where she maxed out at. And that odd non-European 1% is entirely gone, not even any "statistical noise" guesswork.

Her old map showed the Southern Europe blob covering the entire Med and North Africa. That's gone now, too. Her first map only had the three blobs on Southern Europe/Med/North Africa, the Isles, and Scandinavia. Both West/Central and Eastern Europe were entirely blank, which I thought was surprising.

Wish she'd get interested in this, I think she's got some interesting genetics.

[Lordh]

Confused :-(

Hey everyone! I'm new to the forums and to the whole genealogy world. Always been very interested.

Like everyone else, I'm very confused with my result changes, as I was not expecting that to happen.

My old results were:

68% European
-45% Southern European
-23% Western and Central European.
19% Native American
8% East Asian
And 5% African (3% East Central, 2% West)

NEW RESULTS:

64% European
- 53% Iberia
- 6% British isles
- 5 Southeast Europe
28% Native American
3% East Asian
And bunch of traces that don't equate to nothing... all ~2%, yet shows as 0%. All that makes 95%... That's still 5% that I'm missing .

So my European percentage went down 4% points and my 23% Central/Western European is gone. Now I apparently have 6% British? Was not aware of that. As my ancestors are from Spain and Italy.
Second, my 5% African also vanished. Now shows as 0% African.

And my Native American went up to 28% which I'm assuming it took some of the 8% East Asian I previously had, but still show 3% Siberian Asian.

So confusing. Where's my Central European? African? And 5%?

[LLK]

East Europe

I suppose so much difference between new and old results. I have read the descriptions of genetic clusters at: https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...tion-clusters/

Probably the error lies in the large difference in dating between individual clusters. For example: the East Europe cluster embraces the Slavs, but also influences the Vikings, the Celts, and even the peoples of the steppes and the Near East. It reaches the second half of the Middle Ages, after dozens of migrations. For comparison: the Southeast Europe cluster basically ends in the Roman era. Between the East Europe and Southest Europe clusters there is a skyrocketing difference of almost 1000 years!

Clusters are probably very good for people who have a fairly uniform European background. People with ancestors from different parts of Europe are beginning to have problems. The same genes can, in my opinion, be attributed to the population of Southeast Europe or East Europe if they occur alongside the genes typical of Eastern Europe. Such a way of counting and the difference of 1000 years between clusters is the highway to many errors. The old results showed a better direction of migration. Very worrying at the end of the East Europe population description: "Genetic diversity in this region is high." This means that the cluster is undeveloped and will be de facto like a black hole. How do you have a mix of genes and at the same time you have genes from Eastern Europe then? There is a good chance that this cluster will absorb your results from other populations. You will still have 10% of Scandinavian evidence that your ancestors have arrived in the Viking Age, but now it will be part of East Europe and you will never know from FT. DNA, how percentage you have such an admixture.

[Filipe]

New results are totally wrong for me. Although the heavy presence of Italians in my family, somehow I got only 3% from Southeast Europe, they lowered my South Europe numbers from 79% to 24%(Iberia and Southeast Europe put together). Can't see 55% of difference as something possible reliable.