New My Origins Results

[DNA_Anon]

Your question mirrors a lot of peoples, including mine. A lot of people seem to suddenly have an increase of British Isles DNA results in their new MyOrigins.

Hi Anizio

Thanks, yes the changes are a bit strange. Interesting that other people have had big changes.I would have expected makeup to be a fair bit from scandinavia and/or central Europe as well as a some Iberian or one of those ancient pathways - via celtic areas.

My old results are:

British Isles 71%
Scandinavia 22%
Southern Europe 3%
Asia Minor 5%

New Results
British Isles 87%
Scandinavia 0%
Finnish (trace) <2%
SE Europe 6%
Iberia 4%
Asia Minor 0%
N Africa (trace) 2%

So some of the new results make sense, especially mediterraneoan stuff. However the almost complete disappearance of 20% Scadinavian to British makes little sense to disappear altogether. I would have thought that as analysis improves over time, British Isles would reduce and there would be greater certainty over other components.

I have also had some changes in mediterranean/Asia Minor but that makes some sense and also an increase in Iberia/north African (also makes some sense). Even have trace Finnish now which I believe could be consistent with a Scandinavian pathway.

Basically the problem is that I don't know enough about how their analysis/interpretation works. I am concerned too much of it is based on locations of people now (in their database) rather than on the underlying historical DNA. Alternatively it could be a change in intereptation of clusters.

But I reckon over time British Isles should decrease. Just hoping its not just being marketed to the USA to tell people where in Europe they came from. Those of us who know some of our history in Europe are interested in where we came from too. Especially the UK which has multiple waves since the ice ages

cheers Anon

[wombat]

MyOrigins 2.0 kinda of went in a worse direction for Eastern Europeans in a way

It seems that they tried really hard to make anyone from the huge region be able to score near 100% Eastern European if their ancestry is all from that region but in so doing they now took even in MORE boundary areas and seem to filter even more to bias towards Eastern European purely. So they started with a base category that really only fully peaks in Latvians and Lithuanians (and close for a few Belarusians and Russians) and tried to pack it so it could take in a huge area with genetic diversity and get most of them to be able to also peak.

While perhaps this is better in some cases it also leaves a very huge region with virtually no substructure at all, even less than with MyOrigins 1.0 and almost no hints for many as where at all in the entire region the ancestry comes from. For those very mixed that may be fine and maybe it's better this way but for those more from just one area with all the clues removed it's sort of a disappointment. Oddly enough even the old Geno 2.0 with basic ancient components could let one easily tell often enough someone who was mostly Polish from mostly Latvian from mostly Romanian from mostly Hungarian from mostly Russian. With MyOrigins 1.0 you could still get some hints as to that and still often tell it apart. With MyOrigins 2.0 a great many people from all of those countries might score basically identically now with now hint whatsoever.

And on top of that, as it was, it often hid minor ancestries one might have from the region, especially if you were Baltic, but now it just wipes any hint of any other ancestry you might have away (other than for Finnish). But if you are Eastern European it really tends to hide if you had a bit of say German or Dutch of Swedish or Balkan, it all just gets called 100% Eastern European now, totally, as it was the old MyOrigins often didn't reveal any of that for Baltic people, in particular. Old Geno 2.0 could pick up Oceanian but now it seems they try to make even eastern Eastern Europeans be able to score as near 100% Eastern European as possible so they seem to try to bias so towards Eastern European and filter out as much Asian signals as possible from Mongols that even other stuff gets erased too.

So while I guess they have a region that now maybe can come in solidly Eastern European by percentage it encompasses such a vast area now, with even wide fringes taking in much of Germany, Austria, even some of Scandinavian and averaging away small bits of even farther Western European that it gives people largely from Eastern Europe no details at all now (other than for possible Finnish). So man people just get 100% Eastern European from across such a huge area now and so many still don't get any hints of their German or even more exotic bits shown now if they are from this region. So I'd say the update is basically useless for Eastern Europeans and in some ways worse than before. For many people with largely Eastern European ancestry it does them no good whatsoever and even less good.

FWIW this is what we have pieced together for my mom using paper and also all DNA tests together for a couple hints:

maybe 7.8125% (to give a rough estimate) German (Baltic Germans traced back so far that have not turned into something else as far back as we have managed each of the lines to this point)

3.125% mix of Scottish/English and who knows what else but probably mostly German or perhaps Scandinavian (we just have a Barklai/Barclay/Berkeley surname appear on a Baltic German line at this level but who knows if the line had taken some Baltic German/Scandinavian or other non-Scottish/English wives along the way before this level or not, I suspect it's going to have at least bit of non-Scottish/English mixed in, wouldn't be surprised if a lot)

1.5625% probably Polish

3.125% possibly mixed Dutch and South Pacific (Geno 2.0 gives Oceanian and we have traced one Baltic German line that split to half Latvian and then part of that Latvian side to an ancestor whose marriage record says that she is the daughter of the guy running the Hollander Krug (Netherlands House/Tavern/Inn) and considering that my mom has a couple ultra Dutch DNA matches, this is on the strictly maternal line and our mtDNA is not ancient Latvian-type and the Geno 2.0 Oceanian and the Dutch exploring the South Pacific and all we sort of suspect maybe some sailor trader's kids ended up in this tavern just outside a major trading city in Latvia and something with the tavern and inn and went on and we got some outside of Latvian input to our ancestry) and a trace of Latvian

9.375% greater Jelgava region Latvian

25% Valmiera region Latvian (I believe every line traced at least to the late 1700s, most to at least mid-1700s, many to early 1700s and a few into the 1600s including one to as far back as 1649)

as much as 50% Nereta region Latvian (although one out of wedlock and some DNA matching ties to this one family with crazy rumors and some others with relations to that line opens a slight chance to maybe 3.125% French and South Pacific and then the Dutch and South Pacific plus a trace of Latvian becomes mixed Dutch and Latvian instead)

So that would be around 83%-87% deeply ethnic Latvian for centuries. But also a mix of other stuff, some not from Baltics or Eastern Europe in general.

On Geno 2.0:
51% Northern European basic ancient component
29% Mediterranean basic ancient component
17% Southwest Asian basic ancient component
2% Oceanian

23andme:
pre-phased:
can't find it at the moment

phased:
Eastern European 90.3%
Scandinavian 3.6%
Broadly Northwestern European 4.7%
Broadly Southern European 0.6%

Geno 2.0 NG/MyOrigins 1.0:
96% Eastern Europe
2 or 3% Finland and Northern Siberia

MyOrigins 2.0:
100% Eastern European

Eurogenes K13:
54% Baltic
33% North_Atlantic
6% West_Med
3% East_med
1% West_Asian
1% Oceanian

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Lithuanian @ 5.697521

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Estonian +50% Lithuanian @ 4.948126

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Estonian +25% Lithuanian +25% Lithuanian @ 4.948126

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Estonian + Estonian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 4.948126
2 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Southwest_Finnish @ 5.096645
3 Estonian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 5.103139
4 Belorussian + Estonian + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 5.133492

[wombat]

Which one is right than? Let me get this straight, on my old origins I had:
90% European
70% Southern European
20% Scandinavian
10% North African

Update:
92% European
70% Iberian
15% Southeast Europe
7% Scandinavian
8% North African

How can there be such a huge mistake between Scandinavian and southeast European?
My father on his original results had 26% Scandinavian and now he's got none?
My mother on her original results had 18% Scandinavian and now she's got 8%?
There's a huge discrepancy here, something is wrong, or someone was deceiving the public originally.
This is a great way to deter people away from these tests, wait until I post these huge changes on my page and people will become even more skeptical about DNA testing.
Great way to advertise.

Weird, you are the second person I've seen he seems to have had some Scandinavians turn into Southeastern European!

[wombat]

My old result: Eastern Europe - 74%, 18% Western & Central Europe, 2% Finland & Northern Siberia and 6% Jews.

Currently: 96% Eastern Europe and 4% from various groups: Jews, Southern Europe, Central Asia and North and Central America.

My dad old score: 80% Eastern Europe, 20% Western & Central Europe.

My father new score: 100% Eastern Europe.

My grandfather old result:86 % Eastern Europe, 8% Southern Europe and 6% Finland & Northern Siberia.

My grandfather new score: 99% Eastern Europe and 1% from various populations: Finland and Siberia

As for me, the new algorithm is a joke. The results are not specific to the old, but it is a completely different story. I understand differences in the level of statistical error or similar populations (Finland, Siberia and North America), but the difference of 20% raises a lot of doubts for me as a scientist. We need to wait for methodological clarification from FMT DNA and reference populations.

My old results basically corresponded to my paper knowledge. The new ones are detached for me.

What it means is that you probably are almost 100% Eastern European and can now directly read that off. OTOH since so many over the entire region now get that it gives you no hints at all as to what part in that huge region. Before your results were unlikely to be say Baltic unless you had a full Western European grandparent. Now they could be Baltic, they could be Polish, they could be Hungarian, they could be Romanian, etc, but who knows? Everyone scores so similarly now.

Before you didn't get 100% since you were not Baltic so you had some differences compared to the average Baltic (and some Belarusian and a few Russians) in what they were looking for so you got that other component to add some more western and southern elements since you had a bit less ancient hunter gatherer and a bit more farmer and so on.

Now they added so much fringe to the region they can score more people fully from the region but it also now shows barely any structure, no hints. And that can also blend in recent ancestry and call it all Eastern European now. So maybe you were actually say 80% Baltic and 20% far Western European, but now it needed to take in so much of Germany and Austria and so on to get more people in Eastern Europe to be able to score that fully it expanded the region to fully include many types of Germans and many other people.

[wombat]

I hate to criticize FTDNA, but they went from best match to my ancestry (75% German, 25% English) to the worst. They now have me 0% Central European(Germany, France) and 67% England These results are absolutely trash. So now the best results to my actual ancestry are at GenMatch.

It seems that Germany had three main types of people and they now heavily bias one type towards the English to whom they are most similar and heavily bias another type to Eastern European (who they shouldn't be THAT close to).

So it may mean that your German ancestry was more of the type most similar to what the English share in their deep ancestry.

[wombat]

I wish I had saved my original results! The new results are pretty different than the first ones. They completely took away my Western European, and I know for a fact I am German. Unless I'm not... Considering I just recently found out I am part Rusyn after believing I was Hungarian my whole life, anything is possible.

Here are my results:


East Central Africa < 2%
Central Asia < 2%
Siberia < 2%
West Middle East < 2%
European 97%
British Isles 33%
East Europe 48%
Finland 5%
Southeast Europe 11%

probably it means your German ancestry was one of types (of the three main types) that was a bit more eastern leaning

still, i think it a shame they tried to hard to boost Eastern European scores across that region that they now expanded it to cover a large chunk of Germany

[wombat]

I just used it as a generic term since on the map the area that FTDNA highlights most of "East Europe" is roughly the greater Galicia area the traditional homeland of the Ruthenenians before they were assimilated by the Ukrainians, Poles, etc.

I also study ethncities and populations over time, but thats separate from DNA stuff. Basically I can find no basis in my tree for the addition of Eastern European and British DNA, and I am positive it is overstating the British DNA at the very least.

Their Eastern European component was actually not particularly Ruthenian, it peaked in the Baltic people and was next highest in Belarusians and certain Russians. It's now the same except they added in lots of extra to try to let the entire region now be able to near peak so it's really huge and pretty uniform now and sort of peaks in everyone from many Germans and Austrians to Baltic People to Russians to polish to Hungarians to Romanians, etc.

[GlennL]

new myOrigins puzzle

My new ethnic % results

British Isles 81%
West and Central Europe 18%

Old % results were

Scandinavia 46%
British Isles 37%
Southern Europe 17%

How can there be such a difference? Surely the new % for BI is not old BI plus Scandinavia?

[EBHIII]

Something Seems Off

Old:
British Isles 50%
Western and Central Europe 20%
Scandinavia 14%
Southern Europe 13%

Now:
West and Central Europe 66%
British Isles 16%
Scandinavia 16%

All I can figure is they've moved the genetic timeline further back to my British ancestors' continental progenitors.

[sandy028601]

the new my origins update

Hi my name is Sandy, like so many people out there i'm really confused by the new update on my Orgins ethic makeup page, i took the family finder DNA test back in 2015l and was completely amazed by the results then they were correct from what i was told by my family the ancestors were from the following orgins such as europe ie Germany Ireland norway scotland and England and Scandvaia western and central europe the following 2015 results was
europe 99% it from the new update its down to 98%
middle eastern is still at 2%in the new update
western and central europe was at 28% on the new update its at 0
britsh isles was at 9% it jumped to84% well my father's ancestors had came over from some areas from England.Scanadvia was at 55% from the new update its at 0 personally i think the new update could be confusing to others who had any of their tests done as for me it was saying that my DNA test was wrong.

[Hans]

New myOrigins makes no sense

My father's family is from Denmark and Sweden. According to the new myOrigins I am zero % Scandinavian. It now says I am 86% British Isles. If you add all the % up it's now over 100%.
The last results showed me at 59% Scandinavian and 29% British Isles. My given name is Hans Nielsen. I have documentation back to the early 1700's in Denmark and Sweden. Now how in the heck can they re-analyze results so differently?

[Hans]

Same problem as you

Hi my name is Sandy, like so many people out there i'm really confused by the new update on my Orgins ethic makeup page, i took the family finder DNA test back in 2015l and was completely amazed by the results then they were correct from what i was told by my family the ancestors were from the following orgins such as europe ie Germany Ireland norway scotland and England and Scandvaia western and central europe the following 2015 results was
europe 99% it from the new update its down to 98%
middle eastern is still at 2%in the new update
western and central europe was at 28% on the new update its at 0
britsh isles was at 9% it jumped to84% well my father's ancestors had came over from some areas from England.Scanadvia was at 55% from the new update its at 0 personally i think the new update could be confusing to others who had any of their tests done as for me it was saying that my DNA test was wrong.

My first reaction was that they somehow switched my results too.

[Hans]

Makes ya crazy, huh?

My new ethnic % results

British Isles 81%
West and Central Europe 18%

Old % results were

Scandinavia 46%
British Isles 37%
Southern Europe 17%

How can there be such a difference? Surely the new % for BI is not old BI plus Scandinavia?

Myy old Scandinavian results were 59% and old British Isles results were 29%. Now it's zero Scandinavian and 86% British Isles.

[GlennL]

Myy old Scandinavian results were 59% and old British Isles results were 29%. Now it's zero Scandinavian and 86% British Isles.

Its more like myDestination than myOrigins.

[LLK]

What it means is that you probably are almost 100% Eastern European and can now directly read that off. OTOH since so many over the entire region now get that it gives you no hints at all as to what part in that huge region. Before your results were unlikely to be say Baltic unless you had a full Western European grandparent. Now they could be Baltic, they could be Polish, they could be Hungarian, they could be Romanian, etc, but who knows? Everyone scores so similarly now.

Before you didn't get 100% since you were not Baltic so you had some differences compared to the average Baltic (and some Belarusian and a few Russians) in what they were looking for so you got that other component to add some more western and southern elements since you had a bit less ancient hunter gatherer and a bit more farmer and so on.

Now they added so much fringe to the region they can score more people fully from the region but it also now shows barely any structure, no hints. And that can also blend in recent ancestry and call it all Eastern European now. So maybe you were actually say 80% Baltic and 20% far Western European, but now it needed to take in so much of Germany and Austria and so on to get more people in Eastern Europe to be able to score that fully it expanded the region to fully include many types of Germans and many other people.

Thanks for your opinion :-) I suppose you are right with Germany. My great-grandparents: 1 Ukrainian (Cossacks and Ruthenians), 2 Poles (Polish south), 3 Poles (bourgeoisies from cities with a high percentage of Germans), 4 Jews, 5 Poles (townspeople with high percentage of Germans), 6 Poles (with a high percentage of Germans), 7 Poles (peasants), 8 Poles (burghers and noblemen very mixed). Besides, my great-grandparents had nineteenth-century Hungarian and German ancestors (Ukrainian and two Poles).

The old results were very good. After my father I had a high percentage (18%) in Central and Western Europe. My father had just a lot of German roots. In turn, after the Jewish mum 6%. Most of my genetic relatives are Jews - from Cohen's and Levy's line. So everything was OK.

In my opinion is that 18% of Central and Western Europe came into Eastern Europe, ie my ancestors were partly from Germany, which are now included in the Eastern Europe cluster. The bigger problem I have with my Jewish roots. They fell from 6% to> 2%. I counted the longest common blocks and with my Jewish relatives, and they are at least 5.5% in total. New ones emerged: Central Asia and Southern Europe. It seems to me that 6% of the Jewish population has been blown up by Jewish, Central Asian, Southern Europe, and probably Eastern Europe. On the other hand, in the DNA.Land I have 10% of the Jewish genes (too much for the papers). The Jews had a very complicated story, which is sure to be reflected in their genetics. The question of how I have some trace of North and Central America, is probably a mistake, or one of my Jewish ancestors (I also have ancestors among the Iberian Jews) joined a woman who came from the colony. This is unlikely, but it is possible.

Basically, the new results have darkened the image and I think the new algorithm for Eastern Europe is a bad idea. In principle it is not a cluster and just mix everything with everything