Missing Family Finder results

[Tenn4ever]

I know the consensus is that there is a generation every 30 years on average (some say four generations in a hundred years).

However, sometimes a family has an anomoly such as my father's paternal line. There are only six generations between me and my gggg grandfather who was born in 1694 . (if you count me then I'm the 7th generation) That's over 300 years ago.

My gggg grandfather was born in 1694. His son, my ggg grandfather was born in 1741. His son, my gg grandfather was born in abt 1781. His son my great grandfather was born in 1823 per his Confederate pension application. His son, my grandfather, was born in 1877. (Yes, my great grandfather was fifty-four when my grandfather was born.) Great grandfather was married to a woman (my great grandmother) who was 25 years his junior . My own father was the youngest of ten children born in 1927 so my grandfather was fifty when my father was born . So, that's only six generations between me and my 1694 gggg grandfather. All of this has been documented with wills, census records, death certificates and pension applications.

Counting me..... only seven generations in 321 years. Just thought this was an interesting story. So, averating it out that's about 46 years per generation.

[Mau]

I just posted about the same topic elsewhere in the forum, but I am rephrasing it here for your convenience.

There are two separate issues that might make one's myOrigins results do not match apparent (known) ancestry. That is in addition to myOrigins referring to populations before genealogical times or choice and number of reference populations.

Do you know the exact heritage of all of your ancestors living 10 generations ago (approximately 300 years ago, at 30 years for each generation)? There were potentially up to 1024 of them... It is possible that you have received more of your DNA from those ancestors about whose ancestry you know less.

The second issue is that one does not receive DNA from all of the ancestors, as DNA is inherited in (small) segments/chunks. At certain genetic distance (number of genearations) one starts not receiving any DNA from some of her of his ancestors. You may want read the following references, before you continue to analyze your results in more detail.

• Autosomal DNA statistics http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics
• How much of your genome do you inherit from a particular ancestor? http://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-muc...ular-ancestor/
• How many genetic ancestors do I have? http://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-doe...ack-over-time/

The processes described above to some extent also explain why you and your sister have different results.

W. (Mr.)

P.S.
DNA analysis is exact . However, DNA inheritance is a process that intrinsically involves randomness. Thus drawing conclusions that are reaching many generations into the past cannot be exact in the same fashion as 2 + 2 = 4 ...

Drawing conclusions re: ethnicity from databases with incomplete reference populations and dissimilar dna inheritance amongst us all is inexact and misleading.

[dna]

Drawing conclusions re: ethnicity from databases with incomplete reference populations and dissimilar dna inheritance amongst us all is inexact and misleading.

No really

You would not be mistaken for being from Bantu, if you are from Vietnam , or an Australian Aboriginal if you are a European, etc.

The level of exactness is not what many expect. That's it

W. (Mr.)

[Mau]

@DNA...

No really

You would not be mistaken for being from Bantu, if you are from Vietnam , or an Australian Aboriginal if you are a European, etc.

The level of exactness is not what many expect. That's it

W. (Mr.)

No really smiley man?

Some people take these "results" and run with them as gospel.

I'm curious re: the discrepancies between FTDNA and 23andme. Both are running autosomal tests and coming up with vastly different interpretations and matches. At FTDNA I have yet to see a match with a person of color while at 23andme I have many. These may be algorhythmic differences (republican algorhythm vs dem algorhythm) or how would you explain it? We've discussed the differences of dna inheritance between 2 people. Teach me about vastly different conclusions from 2 different companies re: the same person.

[MerryB]

Don't know how accurate this is, but"the grapevine" once stated 23andMe tries to pinpoint ancestry at about 500 years ago, and FTDNA and Ancestry try to pinpoint much, much older ancestry. FTDNA and Ancestry both estimate one of my dna donors is mostly British Isles/western European with smidgeons of Scandinavian, central European, Mediterranean, and eastern European. 23andme estimates that dna donor as mostly British Isles/western European with smidgeons of Scandinavian, central European, Mediterranean (aka Italian, southern France, northern Africa), 'undifferentiated' African, and Native American. The various gedmatch admixture calculators give results that agree with both these scenarios. Given what is known about the dna donor's ancestry, either scenario could be correct.

[dna]

@Mau

My apologies, I meant to write: It is not exactly like that

[----] Some people take these "results" and run with them as gospel. [----]

The myOrigins results are not misleading and they are exact within the scope of the calculations. There are known deficiencies, and I tried to explain some of the inherent limitations.

When one knows nothing about own heritage, then myOrigins can offer very useful information. One does not need to be an adoptee, there are very many reasons people do not know more about their heritage than dates from lives of their parents.

[----] I'm curious re: the discrepancies between FTDNA and 23andme. Both are running autosomal tests and coming up with vastly different interpretations and matches. At FTDNA I have yet to see a match with a person of color while at 23andme I have many. These may be algorhythmic differences (republican algorhythm vs dem algorhythm) or how would you explain it? We've discussed the differences of dna inheritance between 2 people. Teach me about vastly different conclusions from 2 different companies re: the same person.

MerryB has explained the situation just above.

And FTDNA has at some point hinted that they would incorporate more reference populations and tweak the calculations. Would they then re-run calculations for everybody, or just new prediction process would only be used from some point going forward? I have no idea. Each of the two scenarios has its benefits, although I am inclined to suggest that myOrigins should be re-run for everybody using the new process, since that would be replacing good with better .

W. (Mr.)

[dna]

I know the consensus is that there is a generation every 30 years on average (some say four generations in a hundred years).

However, sometimes a family has an anomoly such as my father's paternal line. There are only six generations between me and my gggg grandfather who was born in 1694 . (if you count me then I'm the 7th generation) That's over 300 years ago.

My gggg grandfather was born in 1694. His son, my ggg grandfather was born in 1741. His son, my gg grandfather was born in abt 1781. His son my great grandfather was born in 1823 per his Confederate pension application. His son, my grandfather, was born in 1877. (Yes, my great grandfather was fifty-four when my grandfather was born.) Great grandfather was married to a woman (my great grandmother) who was 25 years his junior . My own father was the youngest of ten children born in 1927 so my grandfather was fifty when my father was born . So, that's only six generations between me and my 1694 gggg grandfather. All of this has been documented with wills, census records, death certificates and pension applications.

Counting me..... only seven generations in 321 years. Just thought this was an interesting story. So, averating it out that's about 46 years per generation.

That is true, when one takes a look at the line determined by the youngest children, it could be easily well over 30 years per generation.

E.g. reading from my family tree:
W. born in 1915
J. born in 1879, father at 36
F. born in 1836, father at 43
M. born in 1787, father at 49

On the other hand, the oldest mothers in our tree were 46 years old when their youngest child was born.

W. (Mr.)

[Doublemartini]

But is your paper record borne out by the DNA Tenn4Ever? My family shows my father born 1915, grand-father 1841, 2xGF 1802,3xGF 1779,and 4GF born before 1741 before the trail goes cold. However the DNA suggests that my surname is likely very different to the one passed down that I bear, suggesting a non-paternity event somewhere, even though the paper trail substantiates the family history. Where was that break?

[Mau]

@Tenn...

My apologies, I meant to write: It is not exactly like that The myOrigins results are not misleading and they are exact within the scope of the calculations. There are known deficiencies, and I tried to explain some of the inherent limitations.

When one knows nothing about own heritage, then myOrigins can offer very useful information. One does not need to be an adoptee, there are very many reasons people do not know more about their heritage than dates from lives of their parents.

MerryB has explained the situation just above.

And FTDNA has at some point hinted that they would incorporate more reference populations and tweak the calculations. Would they then re-run calculations for everybody, or just new prediction process would only be used from some point going forward? I have no idea. Each of the two scenarios has its benefits, although I am inclined to suggest that myOrigins should be re-run for everybody using the new process, since that would be replacing good with better .

W. (Mr.)

I would argue that the name "myorigens" is misleading as it should then read "myftdnareferencepointaccordingtoftdna".

With regard to reference points in time and inexact and incorrect migration theories that fly in the face of mounting evidence that does not support either the Bering Strait theory or the Out of Africa theory, it casts doubt on the whole process of interpretation of ones results according to the Euro-centric companies running the show.

[Tenn4ever]

But is your paper record borne out by the DNA Tenn4Ever? My family shows my father born 1915, grand-father 1841, 2xGF 1802,3xGF 1779,and 4GF born before 1741 before the trail goes cold. However the DNA suggests that my surname is likely very different to the one passed down that I bear, suggesting a non-paternity event somewhere, even though the paper trail substantiates the family history. Where was that break?

Yes, dna has been proven back to the ggg grandfather b. 1741. The dna is back to the person....not to his surname. His supposed surname is unique in that everyone who carries that it in this country descended from the same man b. 1694. However, the consensus is that the dna connects to this 4th great grandfather but his surname is/was something different then the surname that was passed down from him.

[jimjwilliamson]

That is true, when one takes a look at the line determined by the youngest children, it could be easily well over 30 years per generation.

E.g. reading from my family tree:
W. born in 1915
J. born in 1879, father at 36
F. born in 1836, father at 43
M. born in 1787, father at 49

On the other hand, the oldest mothers in our tree were 46 years old when their youngest child was born.

W. (Mr.)

Same boat here for part of the line:
My 2xG Grandfather b.1819
My G Grandfather - b. 1875 56 years and he was not the youngest
My Grandfather b. 1923 48 years (and he wasn't the youngest)

[suemae]

Missing Family Finder matches

My dad's Family Finder results have been missing (except for 2 pages of "new since"), for several weeks!

It was my understanding the engineering department was working on this and they would be available by today. I'm waiting ... and checking ... and

Happy news. I just noticed they look like finally correcting this. I had been missing most of my matches since 4/29...Today looks like I have matches showing back to that date on all three of my kits. All of you check if you have not been getting any. I had contacted customer service twice...to no avail. Thanks Darren, your update to the tech flaw looks like on its way to being corrected!

[DmHagen]

suemae - Happy to hear your FF matches are returning.

Unfortunately, I still don't see the old FF matches, but have about 3 pages of "New Since". I'll keep checking.

[DmHagen]

I'm now seeing the pink banner, which I have decided means they are working on our problem. So, thanks to Darren, the engineering department is apparently working on dad's missing FF matches. Guess I'm cautiously optimistic!

[DmHagen]

So much for being cautiously optimistic!

My father's FF matches prior to about March 15, 2015 are still missing! He now has a grand total of 5 pages of "New Since" but they cannot be accessed (for haplogroup, email address), or used with chromosome browser. Basically useless.

The Notifications project feature is also not working. The "Add Photo", "Add Question", "Add Comment" features are missing. I cannot respond to a question, nor add a comment. Again, basically useless. Example: I left a comment on one of Dad's projects about two weeks ago, received a response/question from the Project Administrator and cannot answer her question! I can type it in, but poof, nothing appears.

This is so disappointing and makes me