Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asia Minor?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Asia Minor?

    I just got my results back this morning and most of the admixture results made sense based on my family tree:

    93% European--
    35% Western and Central European
    29% British Isles
    27% Scandinavian
    2% Eastern Europe

    This fits with my known French (Canadian)/Welsh/Danish background.

    But I also received 7% Asia Minor, which does not fit anything I know, and also no Amerindian, which I would have expected to be found. Are these populations sometimes confused with one another?

  • #2
    Originally posted by owen1218 View Post
    But I also received 7% Asia Minor, which does not fit anything I know, and also no Amerindian, which I would have expected to be found. Are these populations sometimes confused with one another?
    A mixup between New World and Asia Minor doesn't happen often. Amerindian ancestry is sometimes partially misassigned by the current version of MyOrigins to the categories East Asian and occasionally Finland and Central Asia. This is supposed to be corrected next month.

    On rare occasions, an Anatolian Turk from Asia Minor or a Finn from Finland will score 1 or 2 percentage points of "New World" in MyOrigins. Afshar explained how it happened to him at http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=37526 and I believe I saw another Turkish case like his on another forum, but it's not the norm because usually FTDNA categorizes the Turks' northeasternmost portion of their ancestry as "East Asia". Several Finns mused about their supposed "New World" ancestry in a Finnish-language forum.

    You should check what your Amerindian and Siberian scores are in Eurogenes K36 at GEDmatch. Note that there are only a handful of other GEDmatch calculators that accurately reflect genuine Amerindian ancestry as some of the calculators give noise values that cannot be relied upon, plus scores under 1% or 2% are iffy in most cases and most calculators. MDLP World-22 is also worthwhile for this purpose.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by owen1218 View Post
      I just got my results back this morning and most of the admixture results made sense based on my family tree:

      93% European--
      35% Western and Central European
      29% British Isles
      27% Scandinavian
      2% Eastern Europe

      This fits with my known French (Canadian)/Welsh/Danish background.

      But I also received 7% Asia Minor, which does not fit anything I know, and also no Amerindian, which I would have expected to be found. Are these populations sometimes confused with one another?
      Asia Minor has been showing up in a lot of people with Germanic and/or British Isles ancestry but doesn't show up at all when they get a 23andme test which is more accurate than FTDNA for people with a very good genealogical paper trail.

      How far back do most of your records go? Which is the most recent brick wall that you have?

      If I were you, I would test with the other companies and also upload to Gedmatch.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have six generations fully documented on my mother's (French Canadian) side, which is almost certainly where any non-European ancestors would be found. All were born in Canada. My mother and her siblings all have black hair and features similar to eastern Canada First Nations people, and there are both family histories of First Nations ancestry (despite embarrassment about this) and documented mixing (though beyond six generations).

        On my father's side I am missing seven grandparents six generations back, but they almost certainly would have been Welsh or Danish.

        I do have ancestry traced to the Near East it is extremely distant and unreliable, dating back to the 13th century.

        I tested with Eurogenes K36 and my results were only wonkier. A minor trace was found for American Indian (0.90) and unexpected new ancestries cropped up including Italian (5.84) and Iberian (12.72). Basque (5.19) cropped up also, which is interesting because my grandmother claimed such ancestry though there is no documentation for it. I'm not sure what the equivalent for Asia Minor is on K36 but I received 0 for Near Eastern.

        Given all this mess I think I will eventually retest with some of the other companies.

        Comment


        • #5
          Owen, since you are not getting more than 2% Native American at Gedmatch then your ancestor's Native American DNA has been diluted so much that you don't have any in your DNA. On average autosomal DNA halves every generation. By 8 generations it is normally lost completely especially if the Native American ancestors at 8 generations were already mixed. It doesn't help that the northern North American Native DNA is a bit different from southern U.S. and Mexico. That's not to say there isn't an affinity, because there is and there are plenty of Canadian First Nation people that get very large amounts of Native American at 23andme and at Gedmatch.

          I have never liked Eurogenes K36 for the very reason that is gives false amounts of Italian, Iberian, and Basque.

          23andme is the best for identifying Italian and Iberian. Basque DNA can't be identified as a separate component in any ethnic calculator because the Basque share so much DNA with Iberians and French. When a person is 100% Basque they do plot in their own group in PCA graphs but there aren't enough AIMs to create a separate component.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Armando View Post
            Asia Minor has been showing up in a lot of people with Germanic and/or British Isles ancestry but doesn't show up at all when they get a 23andme test which is more accurate than FTDNA for people with a very good genealogical paper trail. ...

            If I were you, I would test with the other companies and also upload to Gedmatch.

            I am very new to genetic genealogy. After getting my FTDNA results this weekend, I have been reading about FTDNA's shortcomings in identifying German lineage. However, most of what I read indicates that German bloodlines have registered as either British Isles or Scandinavian. Can you tell me more about how Asia Minor has been showing up in a lot of people with Germanic and/or British Isles ancestry (or direct me to where I can read more about it)?

            My own DNA results pretty closely matches my research into my family history except that it shows I am 11% Asia Minor (along with 74% British Isles and 16% Southern Europe). I know through various sources that I am one-eighth German, but that did not show up at all in my FTDNA results. I'd love to understand this better.

            Thank you for your help.

            Comment


            • #7
              Personal, I think that Asia Minor in some cases can be Native American. When I phased with my daughter that Caucaus turned into Native American at approximate 5%. I get above 1% and above for Native American unphased on almost every calculator. I suggest MDLP K23B due to they have the most Native American samples. The problem continues to be that Northern Europeans have affiliation with Karitiana, and there are papers on that. However, when you get to minor admixture studies it does not show or places it in another category such as Asia Minor. 23andme is already very conservative, 0.2% Native American? No, I have documented Choctaw and Cherokee at soon as 3 generations on the Dawes rolls and Dawes Commissions in Oklahoma.

              You can find that study here.

              http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...rican-indians/
              Last edited by BlackWolf; 15 February 2016, 12:10 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tfshortell View Post
                I am very new to genetic genealogy. After getting my FTDNA results this weekend, I have been reading about FTDNA's shortcomings in identifying German lineage. However, most of what I read indicates that German bloodlines have registered as either British Isles or Scandinavian. Can you tell me more about how Asia Minor has been showing up in a lot of people with Germanic and/or British Isles ancestry (or direct me to where I can read more about it)?

                My own DNA results pretty closely matches my research into my family history except that it shows I am 11% Asia Minor (along with 74% British Isles and 16% Southern Europe). I know through various sources that I am one-eighth German, but that did not show up at all in my FTDNA results. I'd love to understand this better.

                Thank you for your help.
                As far as directing you to read more about it - it hasn't been talked about a lot because it isn't as common as the Germans being given more British Isles or Scandinavian or vice-versa. I've seen it in people with well documented ancestry back 6 generations, just like the OP, and also Dr. Ann Turner has mentioned seeing it also in a post in another forum. A few other people have posted about it here. A search of the forum should show the posts.

                It has been showing up at rates of a few percent to 10 percent in them. If you look at your matches in myOrigins some of them most likely show it also at low amounts but if you look at their trees they don't have anyone in them that would cause this. You probably don't have matches that would be from a region you would expect Asia Minor to show up. One-eighth German isn't enough to be the cause of the 11% Asia Minor. So it's from a mix of all of your ancestry.

                I have no idea why it happens with FTDNA myOrigins but not with the other companies or the Gedmatch. But the other companies, especially 23andme provide ethnicity results that are closer to known genealogies. All of the companies and calculators have different reference populations and different methodologies. FTDNA has the lowest number of reference populations and I don't think that the methodology is as good as the competition. Here is a link to the FTDNA methodology which also contains the reference populations - https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-methodology/

                The last time I provided a link to the 23andme methodology the link was deleted so you'll have to do a search of 23andme Ancestry Composition Guide.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  Personal, I think that Asia Minor in some cases can be Native American.
                  That hasn't been shown to be a reproducible in people that have Native American DNA show up elsewhere

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  When I phased with my daughter that Caucaus turned into Native American at approximate 5%.
                  Caucaus and Native American are two completely different populations.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  I get above 1% and above for Native American unphased on almost every calculator.
                  You probably mean every Gedmatch calculator right. Your 23andme results didn't show it according to post #19 at http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=37047 and I don't think you ever mentioned having it show up in myOrigins.

                  You are the only person that I have seen with more than 3% Native American at Gedmatch but less than that at 23andme.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  I suggest MDLP K23B due to they have the most Native American samples.
                  My Native American and that of everyone else that has a significant amount of NA, way over 2%, only has a difference of 2% between calculators, no matter which Gedmatch calculator is used, 23andme and AncestryDNA are also normally within 2-3% of each other. So a person with 20% at 23andme will have about 23% at AncestryDNA. FTDNA myOrigins is the only one that under reports for everyone by a large amount.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  The problem continues to be that Northern Europeans have affiliation with Karitiana, and there are papers on that.
                  That isn't the cause of Asia Minor showing up in people with mostly European ancestry and especially not the people born and raised in Europe with only European ancestry.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  However, when you get to minor admixture studies it does not show or places it in another category such as Asia Minor.
                  There is no reproducible data out there that can correlate "missing" Native American DNA as being confused for Asia Minor in myOrigins.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  23andme is already very conservative, 0.2% Native American? No, I have documented Choctaw and Cherokee at soon as 3 generations on the Dawes rolls and Dawes Commissions in Oklahoma.
                  That can't be used to correlate "missing" Native American DNA being confused for Asia Minor in myOrigins. You have so much European ancestry that if you are getting Asia Minor that is where it is from.

                  Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                  The ANE (Ancient North Eurasian), which the part of the study he cites is about, in Europeans is just that. When using MDLP K13 'Ultimate' the Native American is still at the same level as it is in other calculators and yet ANE is at 13.72.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No true, if DNA My Origins was "accurate" there would ne no reason to change, besides this fact, I am cousin to a Choctaw with 37% NA at Gedmatch.

                    I highly doubt Asia Minor ancestry, but being some of the Altalic ancestry is identical and found in Turks mixed with Near Eastern I can see the confusion in minority admixture being given another ancestry due to algorithms.

                    I also triangulate with Clovis Anzick with my daughter on unphased, her unphased, and the phased kit as well as the Choctaw person and a Native haplogroup C1b with a Grandmother. DNA, in regards to autosomal, is not perfect in regards to admixture.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Also,

                      The fact is 23andme and FTDNA is not phased at Gedmatch. Yet both, show on several calculators above 1% Native American and on Oracles as Pima and Mayan.

                      This matches my known ancestry at Gedmatch far better than anything from the two DNA companies

                      When I run the phase admixture it moves up to 5%. I get over 1% on the following. World 9, MDLP 23b, Harrappa, PUNTDNAL, Gedrosia, Eurogenes K13, K9b and on phased I am over 3% on all of them.

                      I attribute the lower amounts due to lack of North American Indian samples and algorithms designed to be highly conservative against Northern Caucasoids....(taking out the ANE WHICH BTW is the highest in Karitiana South American Indians is simply "guessing" lol and it is WRONG, I have several full African and Native American cousins at Gedmatch and have triangulated with several of them)

                      But that being said, I am interested in the new Family Tree My Origins, hopefully it will be more like Gedmatch results and not the extremely conservative pan generic results of a medical company like 23andme

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Armando View Post

                        The ANE (Ancient North Eurasian), which the part of the study he cites is about, in Europeans is just that. When using MDLP K13 'Ultimate' the Native American is still at the same level as it is in other calculators and yet ANE is at 13.72.
                        Actually, you need to really read the article Armando.

                        From article: So, properly speaking, the authors discovered “Amerindian” admixture in Northern Europeans but because of fear of coming across as light-minded, they decided to call it “Northeast Asian.” Science has definitely lost its steam over the past centuries. Imagine if, upon seeing the evidence of the earth’s triple motion, Copernicus would not have proceeded to write Commentariolus but instead concluded: “I do not of course think that the Earth can possibly rotate around the Sun.” This kind of safe judgment on the part of the astronomer would have likely stalled the evolution of scientific thinking in Europe by a couple of centuries.

                        Also from Article: “A complication in computing this statistic is that Native American, Siberian, and East Asian populations are not all equally genetically related to West Eurasian populations, as we can see empirically from 4 Population Tests of the proposed tree (Yoruba, (French, (East Asian, Native American))) failing dramatically whether the East Asian population is Han, Chukchi, Naukan and Koryak. The explanation for this is outside the scope of this study (it has to do with admixture events in Europe, as we explain in another paper in submission). In practice, however, it means that we cannot simply use a European population like French to represent West Eurasians in Equation S3.2, since if we do this, Equation S3.2 may have a non-zero value for a Native American population, even without recent European admixture. To address this complication, we took advantage of the fact that east/central Asian admixture has affected northern Europeans to a greater extent than Sardinians (in our separate manuscript in submission, we show that this is a result of the different amounts of central/east Asian-related gene flow into these groups). To quantify this, we computed the statistic f4(San, West Eurasian; Pop1, Pop2) for West Eurasian = Sardinian and West Eurasian = French, and for 24 Siberian and Native American populations (Pop1 and Pop2) (Figure S3.2). Figure S3.2 shows a scatterplot for all 190=20×19/2 possible pairs of these populations. Within non- Arctic Native populations, and within Arctic populations (East Greenland Inuit, Chukchi, Naukan and Koryak), the statistics are close to zero, consistent with their being (approximate) clades relative to West Eurasians. In contrast, there are deviations from zero when the comparisons are between non-Arctic Native and Arctic populations, with non-Arctic Native populations showing consistent evidence of being genetically closer to West Eurasians.”

                        What this means is that Karitiana-like autosomal admixture in Patterson et al. (2012) is the same as Reich’s autosomal “First American” component. This component is found in South, Central and North America, in the American Arctic and Subarctic populations as well as in Paleoasiatic populations on the Siberia side. Reich et al. agree that the presence of the First American component in Paleoasiatic populations represents a back-migration from the Americas. This explains well why the Chukchi and Naukan Z scores in Patterson et al. (2012) are lower than but close to the Karitiana scores. The European case should be no different. It’s also noteworthy that in both Europe and North America the “Amerindian,” or “First American” component is diluted by the “European” and “Asian” components. Around the Bering Strait, there are two separate Asian components found at increasing frequencies as one moves out of America. As I argued, it is illogical to postulate a founding migration to the Americas carrying the “First American” component, for which there is no evidence in Asia, followed by two more waves out of Asia, each one of which absorbing the “First American” component but then also passing it back to Paleo-asiatic peoples. It’s much more parsimonious, especially in the light of Patterson et al. (2012), to envision a migration out of America bringing 1) the Amerindian component with deep roots in the southern areas of the New World to Asia and Europe and 2) Asian components with roots in the northern parts of North America.

                        In Conclusion: You are incorrect, there is an Amerindian component in Eurasians and Siberians not accounted for in tests. That can also be seen in Dodecad Globe 4. Minor admixture algorithms will take this component out of admixture analysis but in reality it can be Deep roots or it can be modern admixture. Since both a portion of Turkish genes comes from Altalic the same location where Native Americans come from original it is only natural they share some genetic similarity.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                          Actually, you need to really read the article Armando.
                          How credible do you think the author of the article you posted to is? I went to the site and looked at the various articles he's posted.

                          Here's an example of one - http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...human-origins/. The title of the article is "New Fully Integrated Model of Modern Human Origins," with this subtitle, "Fully Integrated and Multidisciplinary Model of Modern Human Origins: Out-of-America, with ultimate origins from an East Eurasian hominid, and into Africa with admixture with extinct African archaic hominins."

                          Out-of-America is a radical departure from the strongly supported theory that anatomically modern humans came out of Africa. This is supported by the great majority of population geneticists and anthropologists. In fact, before looking at this site that you linked to, I never heard of "Out-of-America" before as a serious alternative to Out-of-Africa.

                          While maybe this blogger is on to something that could overturn existing theories, I think we should take his ideas with more than a grain of salt. I haven't taken the time to read the various posts on his website, but I suspect that he is trying to link West Asian DNA and Native American DNA to support his Out-of-America theory.

                          In other words, beware of him having an agenda. If he is writing from an agenda, he may be misrepresenting what he thinks is evidence to support that agenda.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Maddi,

                            Actually, this has been known for a long time. ANE the so called "ghost population" is actually an American Indian element. What you don't hear is that ANE reaches it's highest amount in Karitiana Indians. It's not really an ANE, that is just the name given because according to the popular history it "must be something else" and I would add....what it really is, an Mongol-Amerindian element.

                            And here is the point Maddi, THEY ALL have agendas.

                            I myself am highly skeptical of the My Origins creator, but, I am willing to keep an open mind on the subject. Of course this was all "hush hush" just a few years ago. Most so called amateur experts think you can actually ascertain ancestry from genetics past the continental level. As if there is a "Spanish" or "English" genepool. Please, even those populations are highly admixed within last 500 years.

                            It is known that admixture happened in Eurasia and in ancient Swedish DNA and also with MA 1 there was Native American admixture.

                            All I know, is after phased with my daughter the Native American at Gedmatch went up past 3% to 5% on many calculators and that matches more my known ancestry though still about 5% less than what I expected
                            Last edited by BlackWolf; 15 February 2016, 09:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
                              And here is the point Maddi, THEY ALL have agendas.
                              To say that "THEY ALL have agendas" doesn't help us determine scientific truth at all. We have to look at the evidence and come up with what the evidence supports as a reasonable theory.

                              My point was that he may or may not have an agenda, since he's promoting a theory which is opposed to the widely accepted Out-of-Africa theory. This is why I suggested that we take his views with more than a grain of salt.

                              Perhaps he's on to something that will be a new revolutionary theory that explains the development of anatomically modern humans. More power to him, if that's the case. However, I think the Out-of-Africa theory has strong evidence behind it, which is why it's so widely accepted. Just the fact that the yDNA and mtDNA haplotrees are both rooted in Africa is something that is strong evidence for Out-of-Africa. I don't know how the blogger you linked to deals with that and still maintains an Out-of-America theory.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X