New My Origins Results

[Longnok]

Credibility Loss

From reading many of the responses, it appears FTDNA has lost credibility in their "scientific" process. The Origins variability is significant between many results.

Interestingly enough, my results now make more sense. Beforehand, I had zero western/central European. Now, I have 41%. I have thoroughly researched family history documentation going back 10 generations with an account of each generation detail of physical location along with physical documented land plots. Merchant records of the ship passengers is also included.

My wife, on the other hand, while her results are consistent, show one of those <2% North/Central American. It's not possible--she's 100% Russian. Yes, they note values <2% as possibly "noise", but how can noise show up in results when there is no possible way it should exist?

[margalita]

Weird

Okay, prior to my new updated results I had about 70% Western Europe which made sense to me since I have 4 grandparents from Germany and one line I can trace back to the 1700's. Suddenly I have 0% Western European and 57% British Isles. My Eastern European doubled to 23% and Southeast Europe doubled to 12%. I know for a fact that I am not 57% British Isles. Something is wrong here.

[Simon]

This origines reboot is not accurate for me, I'm afraid. It's not just my paper trail that counters what's reported, but also tests done on Ancestry and the variety of tools on Gedmatch. I do realise no tool is infallible, but these are way off base.
Before: 97% British Isles and 3% Scandinavian.
Now: 80% BrIsles, 10% South East European(?),5% West/Central European (plausible)and 5% Siberian. Siberian--????

I don't recognise these results, and I must question how they arrived at them- a reference paper would be most welcome.

[LLK]

From reading many of the responses, it appears FTDNA has lost credibility in their "scientific" process. The Origins variability is significant between many results.

Interestingly enough, my results now make more sense. Beforehand, I had zero western/central European. Now, I have 41%. I have thoroughly researched family history documentation going back 10 generations with an account of each generation detail of physical location along with physical documented land plots. Merchant records of the ship passengers is also included.

My wife, on the other hand, while her results are consistent, show one of those <2% North/Central American. It's not possible--she's 100% Russian. Yes, they note values <2% as possibly "noise", but how can noise show up in results when there is no possible way it should exist?

Probably a mistake is a consequence of the genetic proximity of indigenous peoples of Siberia and North and Central America. With small percentages, She probably inherited from Siberian ancestry something characteristic of their genetic cousins from North and Central America.

[mikemc]

My new results are improved

I noticed that my results in regards to the British Isles have improved from 39% to 57% and the takeaway was from my west and central Europe % from 39% to 28%. I have traced all my lines back as far as they can go and over half, maybe 70% go back to the British Isles so the 57% seems spot on to me. I think they have nearly resolved the BI% issue as far as separating the German from the Saxon more accurately as well as the Scandinavian. There are other populations to consider such as the Picts in Scotland, the and the original Britons that may not show up on the radar of any other population except the British Isles. I think those "original populations" are now being more represented than the Saxon or Scandinavian. I know that I have no traces of Scandinavian in my paper trail wich used to be 8% on my my origins 1.0 results and is now at 0% where it belongs.

My Native American now comes up more as background noise, but I understand from other posts I have read that NA can "wash out" more than other markers.

So overall, I see my origins 2.0 as a vast improvement for me at least.

[LLK]

Does anyone know what historical period is involved with MyOrigins? Is this the result for about 1500 or closer to 1000?

[Longnok]

Probably a mistake is a consequence of the genetic proximity of indigenous peoples of Siberia and North and Central America. With small percentages, She probably inherited from Siberian ancestry something characteristic of their genetic cousins from North and Central America.

I get that, considering the historical migration into North America. She, also, had another trace (<2%) of Siberia in her result this time. That trace is understandable. If the Siberian was 4%, it would be believable considering Russia's long historical record.

FTDNA is doing themselves a disservice by making what appears to be significant adjustments in Origins 2.0, without providing, at least, some sort of white paper on defending the variability between results. Entertain us plebes with the scientific jargon. They may be surprised out our ability to comprehend the information.

As someone who joined this year, FTDNA appears to have very weak business acumen, which is understandable considering several of them come from the university/research and/or bench environment. My observations are based on watching the work dynamics during my wife's 20+ years in biomedical/genetic research at a university level.

[daniel]

How can my solid 2/3 Eastern Europe turn into 2/3 solid British Isles. Makes no sense.

[Hans]

I don't get it.

Its more like myDestination than myOrigins.

My gg grandfather, Rasmus Nielsen came directly from Denmark to the USA. So, it's not the right destination either.

[hollifer]

no scandinavian - i'm part swedish!

Like many here, the new results are disappointing and confusing. FTDNA should really provide documentation on how they analyzed.

My old results (approx):
70% Eastern European
20% Scandinavian
7% British Isles
3% Middle East (Turkey)
Smaller % Southern Europe

Now:
73% East Europe
15% West and Central Europe
10% British Isles
Trace
<2% Iberia
<2% Asia Minor

So, my mom is Polish all around with a bit Ukrainian. My dad is half Polish, half Swedish. My Swedish grandmother's parents were both Swedish, her dad came over from Stockholm. Many of my matches are Swedes!

Where is my Scandinavian ancestry? I suppose that shifted to BI and W/C Europe? I thought if anything, you would see an increase in Scandinavia since they invaded/populated the BI.

This accounts for my 75% East Europe ancestry which is still correct. West and Central Europe is a mystery. Perhaps a lone traveler that ended up in Poland an impregnated one of my ancestors?

Asia Minor actually does make a bit of sense as I've heard my surname may have Turkish origins.

I want my old mix back, which made a lot more sense.

[yelenadreams]

Very Disappointed in new Origins analysis

I used to be 100% European with 93% Eastern European and 7% Finnish.

Now I am only 93% European with 83% Eastern European, 5% Scandinavian and 7% Southeastern European. Fine except the missing 7% of what used to be European is now just a bunch of BS traces <2% each from bizarre places like North and Central America (impossible), Oceania (impossible), Siberian (possible), Finland (possible but used to be solid 7%) and Central Asia (highly unlikely).

I think FTDNA really needs to rethink all this traces BS. I know they qualify it as possible "noise" but that is not helpful at all and they should put it back into the more probable classifications.

Very disappointed. Origins need a reboot!!!!

[khazaria]

My wife, on the other hand, while her results are consistent, show one of those <2% North/Central American. It's not possible--she's 100% Russian. Yes, they note values <2% as possibly "noise", but how can noise show up in results when there is no possible way it should exist?

In defense of Family Tree DNA on this point, it should be noted that some Russians similarly show "Native American" / "Amerindian" estimates inside AncestryDNA and GEDmatch, when it reflects (as stated by others) very ancient shared ancestry from maybe 20,000 years ago.

I want my old mix back, which made a lot more sense.

I don't, because it gave my family false "Scandinavian" scores that actually reflect distant Polish ancestry, and under the new calculator are correctly assigned to "East Europe" for us. The new version is well-callibrated for people with Slavic, Albanian, and/or Jewish heritages. Sometimes there are tradeoffs. Northern European ancestries have been notoriously difficult for many calculators to perfectly separate.

[Hans]

I don't get it.

Its more like myDestination than myOrigins.

My gg grandfather, Rasmus Nielsen came directly from Denmark to the USA. So, it's not the right destination either.

[Daemien]

Weird results

My new results are quite bizarre.

Previously I had a quite generic report (~90% european, with basically all of it being south europe, and ~5% middle eastern, which was actually Italian), but it made sense.

Here is my new report:

- European 90%
Southeast Europe 31%
Iberia 27%
East Europe 25%
British Isles 7%
- Middle Eastern 4%
(rest are trace results)

Southeast Europe and Iberia make sense, as I'm part Italian and part Spanish/Portuguese. However, the 25% east Europe is completely bonkers. Although I should have *some* eastern European, probably from a German gggparent, 25% is way off the mark. 7% British Isles is probably wrong as well, as it should be lower.

For comparison, here is my 23andme report:

- European 94.5%
- Southern European 75.7%

- Iberian 25.1%
- Italian 18.9%
- Balkan 2.2%
- Sardinian 0.3%
- Broadly Southern European 29.3%

- Northwestern European 10.5%

- British & Irish 2.2%
- Broadly Northwestern European 8.2%

- Eastern European 1.8%
- Ashkenazi Jewish < 0.1%
- Broadly European 6.5%
- East Asian & Native American 2.6%
- Sub-Saharan African 1.7%
- Middle Eastern & North African 0.6%

[khazaria]

now just a bunch of BS traces <2% each from bizarre places like North and Central America (impossible), Oceania (impossible), Siberian (possible), Finland (possible but used to be solid 7%) and Central Asia (highly unlikely).

23andMe also hands out false 0.1% scores to many people in categories like Oceania, Sub-Saharan African, Native American, and Scandinavian. Such as Ashkenazi Jews scoring 0.1% Oceanian or 0.1% Native American.