New My Origins Results

[mikeinKS]

myOrigins cannot be proven to be accurate

I am like (apparently)many other people in that my origins have changed in a major way from the old myOrigins to myOrigins 2.0. And listen to the explanation that I received - "The myOrigins tool has new reference populations and refined matching algorithms based on new data to attempt to further break down your results. This does not mean that the previously reported percentages were incorrect, they were correct based on the information available at the time. The new myOrigins results are also correct based on the information that is now currently available. As more research is completed in the future you will likely continue to see these results refined over time...." This sounds like a politician, not the representative of a scientific organization. Worthless!

[DWFlineage]

My ancestry origins is more accurate

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!!!!

According to my origins at "Ancestry" I am 99+% British(includes Netherlands) and less than 1% Finnish/Northern Russia, and this matches up much better than FTDNA's origin of 98% British Isles and less than 2% East Middle East and less than 2% West Africa, and these last two origins could just be noise.

At least the 99% & 98% are close so the other really does not matter that much anyways, except I think the Finnish is accurate.

Best regards, Doug

[galdo]

Hey all.

My previous results were:

42% Western and Central Europe
41% British Isles
9% Southern European
8% Jewish Diaspora

New Results:

44% Western and Central Europe
34% British Isles
14% Southeast Europe
7% Sephardic Jewish

Trace results:

<2% East Middle East
<2% South Central Africa
<2% West Middle East

The update seems a little bit more accurate to me.

[Longnok]

[QUOTE=khazaria;438037]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.

Understood. The theory about Native American origins from Altai...

[Hans]

I called familytreedna today to ask about &quot;new&quot; myOrigins

My name is Hans Nielsen. I am 6'2", blonde, blue eyed. My father's family are from Denmark and Sweden. The new results say I am zero % Scandinavian and 86% British Isles. The old results said 59% Scandinavian and 29% British Isles.

I called to ask about the difference. I was told this is the latest "scientific" evidence. I asked to speak with a scientist and was told...... "They don't have phones".

Anyone else see a problem here?

[Irinijn]

More Feedback re: new MyOrigins

MyOrigins wasn't terribly accurate to begin with. The new profile is farther off the mark than previous.

Compared to genealogy traced back to Old Country where applicable:

I should be 6-8% Native American from Canadian / Northern US tribes, and now that has disappeared to be replaced with random various Asian and South American that they claim can be "background noise".

Should be upwards of 30-35% Scandinavian with recent emigres from Norway, Denmark and Sweden, am now at about 21%

Should be about 50% Great Britain, one parent half English, the other half Welsh, now dropped to 10%

Remainder of about 10% should be French which was admixed half and half (Metis) with Ojibwe, Cree, Salteaux, and Sioux which now is Western and Central Europe at over 60%.

Really not useful. I would encourage any adoptees to possibly consider some of the countries listed knowing they may be incorrect, but completely ignore FTDNA MyOrigins oercentages at this point, or take it with a hefty grain of salt.

[Irinijn]

MyOrigins wasn't terribly accurate to begin with. The new profile is farther off the mark than previous.

Compared to genealogy traced back to Old Country where applicable:

I should be 6-8% Native American from Canadian / Northern US tribes, and now that has disappeared to be replaced with random various Asian and South American that they claim can be "background noise".

Should be upwards of 30-35% Scandinavian with recent emigres from Norway, Denmark and Sweden, am now at about 21%

Should be about 50% Great Britain, one parent half English, the other half Welsh, now dropped to 10%

Remainder of about 10% should be French which was admixed half and half (Metis) with Ojibwe, Cree, Salteaux, and Sioux which now is Western and Central Europe at over 60%.

Really not useful. I would encourage any adoptees to possibly consider some of the countries listed knowing they may be incorrect, but completely ignore FTDNA MyOrigins percentages at this point, or take it with a hefty grain of salt.

[greerpalmer]

I understand I could be more British than both my parents (a high probability since it was both of their largest admix), but you can't be more British than both your parents combined. My Origins 2.0 has my mother at 40% and my father at 17% so even if I inherited ALL of their British markers, I still shouldn't be at 80%+.

As for the note on Asia Minor--I had that too, both parents showed 5% and I showed 4%. I interpreted my mother's 5% as Italian and my fathers 5% as Balkan. My mother did end up with 4% Southeast European, but my father's disappeared.

The noise is to be expected...fact is its not an exact science, its about interpreting based on sample populations. If they tested the whole world, they give us all more accurate number. Its an evolving field.

In terms of the Britishness, on one hand it is entirely possible for you to be more "British" than both of your parents. Remember you are not a combination of both of them entirely, you are a combination of half of each of them....so in theory you could have inherited their Britishness without inheriting their non-Britishness. BUT on the other hand, I am seeing enough skewed results (including my own, a Central Italian for over 400 years of history suddenly showing 6% British DNA) to conclude that for some reason British is being interpreted as an origin way more often than it should.

This is not unprecedented. In the old FTDNA MyOrigins, all Italians showed approximately 1/3 of their Italian DNA as being from "Asia Minor" - and this has entirely disappeared from the new MyOrigins. its all about how they interpret, and clearly they fixed some problems and created others.

[Sivsdotter]

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.

It's not correct if you have Saami ancestry. I get A LOT of Norway, when in fact it's Swedish and Saami. Both the Saami and the Norwegians have an influence from Siberia, the Norwegian simply to a lesser degree than the Saami. Apparently Saami and Swedish together is interpreted by American labs as *drum roll* Norwegian.

I more than doubled one region and two disappeared, one of which I know for a fact that my maternal grandfather came from. I know some of the family's history and for the most part this is way off the mark now.

I've also run my results through all the GEDmatch admixture tools and what comes up there echoes in the old results. These ones? Not at all.

I can't say I'm impressed with this interpretation at all. I already knew they didn't have proper reference groups for certain groups before but instead of getting a more precise result, it's off the charts wrong.

[greerpalmer]

I would be on-board with that assumption. My father's BI got split between 17% B.I and 20% Iberian.

I know early Y-Chromosome studies led scientists to believe there was a northeast Iberian connection to the Celts since R1b (off the top of my head) was so common in the ares, but since they have broken R1b down further to show more distance between the population as well as discovered its prevalent just about everywhere.

Sure enough, in the Iberian description it mentions this Ibericeltic connection.

My father is just under one/fourth cornish back to the 1700's. Based on the low rate of anglo, saxon and viking blood in the Cornish people, and the close proximity to Spain--I can justify this answer.

What I can't justify is how my results don't reflect any of this Iberian. I do show trace Sephardic...but my father does not.

[QUOTE=Avocadodiva;437943]

A lot of people seem to suddenly have an increase of British Isles DNA results in their new MyOrigins.

My answer is, this is a flaw in their interpretation model. People who should have no British, and had no British before suddenly do. And people who had British have their British DNA % increased now. QUOTE]

I administer both of my grandparents accounts. Both actually went DOWN rather significantly in British Isles. Their Western European % went way up.

Also, both had minor (20% or less) amounts of Southern Europe previously. Now, Grandpa has 2% Southeast Europe (Balkans?) and Grandma has 16% Iberian.

I'm wondering if the some of the British actually went to the Iberian now. I've heard there is a little it of Gaelic crossover there.

But they seem to be in the minority in seeing BI% go down.

[curious1]

My old myOrigins:

British Isles: 59%
Eastern Europe: 13%
Western/Central Europe: 11%
Finland/Northern Siberia: 9%
Scandinavia: 6%
Middle Eastern: 2%

My new myOrigins still gives me 98% European, but with an entirely new mix and with the errant non-European 2% listed as possible "statistical noise." FTDNA didn't use that phrase before, did it? That's what you saw the other companies use. I've read that elsewhere, anyway, and I know I never saw "statistical noise" used on any of my FTDNA test results.

British Isles: 13%
Eastern Europe: 5%
Western/Central Europe: 56%
Scandinavia: 20%
Iberia: 4%

Notice Finn/Northern Siberia is gone and I've got some new Iberia. My British Isles was decimated and reallocated to West/Central Europe and Scandinavia.

I've read a lot of comments from customers who seem to be in shock over their new results. I've got some questions, but I'm still OK with what FTDNA does, I'm good with the analysis it gives me going by my family history and what paper trail I've been able to access. There's worse companies out there.

[NCroots]

I've read that many people are displeased with the MyOrigins 2.0, but I have to tell you I am absolutely thrilled! The update is much more accurate for my son & I.

[cbeck]

As much as I would like to have a multi ethnic background most of my ancestors were Colonial Americans from the British Isles. The British isles estimate went up to 93 % from 55% which honestly makes a lot of sense. I found only a handful of ancestors originating outside of British Isles. I also received a 4 percent southeast Europe for which I have no explanation other then adopted grandfather perhaps. The North American Indian traces fits my verbal history now and has only been identified commercially by ftdna. To be quite honest in my opinion most Americans should have a small admixture component of NA relative to Europeans.

[sandy028601]

the new my origins update

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

it makes me nuts but we ought to remember that no matter what the update results are we know where we come from

[georgian1950]

it makes me nuts but we ought to remember that no matter what the update results are we know where we come from

I am not so sure about that, at least when one gets more than five or so generations back.

Jack