Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disappointed

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

  • Disappointed

    I know I shouldn't be ... but I'm disappointed at my results

    British 93%
    Scando 5%
    Middle Eastern 2%

    Not at all what I hoped for. I'm a Celt with a little bit of other stuff in the mix. My family is from Lancashire with a Scottish mother so can't expect anything else? Any ideas on the Middle Eastern? Could this be an indication of Roman origins? .... I hope.

    (submitted earlier in wrong section)

  • #2
    Originally posted by Standisher View Post
    I know I shouldn't be ... but I'm disappointed at my results

    British 93%
    Scando 5%
    Middle Eastern 2%

    Not at all what I hoped for. I'm a Celt with a little bit of other stuff in the mix. My family is from Lancashire with a Scottish mother so can't expect anything else? Any ideas on the Middle Eastern? Could this be an indication of Roman origins? .... I hope.

    (submitted earlier in wrong section)
    Middle Eastern 2% could be a false positive. It has happened to other people with northern European ancestry. Are there people in your match list with ancestry besides northern Europe? If so, are they mixed? If you don't have any then it is likely a false positive. Have you tested at AncestryDNA or 23andme? They don't have false positives as often as myOrigins.

    Comment


    • #3
      They changed the result

      I looked today and the result had changed to:-

      69% British and Irish
      13% Scandinavian
      16% Western and Central Euopean
      2% Middle Eastern

      I'm a little concerned that the results changed in a few days. When is a result a result and when does it become purely conjectural and a moveable feast? False positives are a worrying idea. I rather trusted that labs work on the numbers rather than rule of thumb. I used FTDNA.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have read about several people having their FTDNA myOrigins results changing shortly after receiving the results. I have no idea why that happens. If you are concerned you should also get tested elsewhere.

        The false positives are due to the AIMs (Ancestry-informative markers) that exist in multiple populations but since the calculator assigned those SNPs to a population that shares ancient ancestry with you then you are given that population. The calculators use comparisons of AIMs to determine which population they belong to and the calculators can't be 100% precise due to the way DNA mutates and recombines and because the reference databases still aren't big enough. Even so FTDNA has more of a problem with this than other companies.

        MyOrigins will be getting another update. http://www.ancestorcentral.com/11th-...tic-genealogy/

        Comment


        • #5
          I understand about getting tested elsewhere. I have the feeling this is letting FTDNA 'off the hook'. The question for me is around the trustworthyness of the test. How reliable is FTDNA in the first instance and what is the value of testing with them? I may go elsewhere.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Standisher View Post
            I understand about getting tested elsewhere. I have the feeling this is letting FTDNA 'off the hook'. The question for me is around the trustworthyness of the test. How reliable is FTDNA in the first instance and what is the value of testing with them? I may go elsewhere.
            The autosomal DNA tests themselves are highly reliable. Any kind of admixture utility is just someone's statistical guess work. There might be something to the 2% Middle East. Rather than saying it is wrong, I'd upload my results to GEDmatch and get busy comparing with others and analyzing the results.

            Most people have some lines that are different than they realize. If pre-conceived notions are always right, why test at all?

            Jack Wyatt

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
              The autosomal DNA tests themselves are highly reliable. Any kind of admixture utility is just someone's statistical guess work. There might be something to the 2% Middle East. Rather than saying it is wrong, I'd upload my results to GEDmatch and get busy comparing with others and analyzing the results.

              Most people have some lines that are different than they realize. If pre-conceived notions are always right, why test at all?

              Jack Wyatt
              It's not someone's statistical guesswork. It the programs that are used that are assigning the AIMs to specific populations based on the K and reference populations used. The Middle Eastern could have something to it but a large number of people are getting it at FTDNA that don't get it at other companies and FTDNA has problems with other populations compared to other companies so the track record at FTDNA isn't as good. I haven't found Gedmatch to be anymore helpful with this specific component. Matches that weren't expected would be evidence that it is not misassigned AIMs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Standisher View Post
                I understand about getting tested elsewhere. I have the feeling this is letting FTDNA 'off the hook'. The question for me is around the trustworthyness of the test. How reliable is FTDNA in the first instance and what is the value of testing with them? I may go elsewhere.
                The only way they are going to improve it is if people let them know that results that don't make sense are showing up. They don't read this forum much so this isn't how to go about doing that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I appreciate the comments from people who know much more than me and I try to remember that DNA testing isn't just for experts ... it's for people like me. If people are to have confidence in genetic testing then it has to be correct first time. Going to Gedmatch and analysing is beyond my level of knowledge and that isn't what I paid for. My relationship with the company is a contract for a service. Is this an evidence based test verifiable by a third party or is it not?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Standisher View Post
                    I appreciate the comments from people who know much more than me and I try to remember that DNA testing isn't just for experts ... it's for people like me. If people are to have confidence in genetic testing then it has to be correct first time. Going to Gedmatch and analysing is beyond my level of knowledge and that isn't what I paid for. My relationship with the company is a contract for a service. Is this an evidence based test verifiable by a third party or is it not?
                    I understand what you are saying. However, say if you go back eight generations, you have 256 possible lines. The chances are that something completely unexpected happened with a few of those lines. There is no way to get an easy answer about your ancestry without someone doing some serious digging. I sure Armando will disagree with me, but I feel confident that there is a reason for two percent Middle East in your "My Origins". I would have to be able to analyze a GEDmatch kit to see what the connection is, if any, but I don't see that Family Finder has been proven wrong yet.

                    If you know what the results were supposed to be, why bother with testing?

                    Jack Wyatt

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Standisher View Post
                      I appreciate the comments from people who know much more than me and I try to remember that DNA testing isn't just for experts ... it's for people like me. If people are to have confidence in genetic testing then it has to be correct first time. Going to Gedmatch and analysing is beyond my level of knowledge and that isn't what I paid for. My relationship with the company is a contract for a service. Is this an evidence based test verifiable by a third party or is it not?
                      It is evidence based. The AIMs that are being assigned as Middle Eastern really do exist in Middle Eastern people but since DNA from the Middle East, and from Asia Minor which is probably what you have, also made it's way into Europe from the Bronze Age http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15...ms9912_F1.html then that is most likely why you have those AIMs in your DNA.

                      Middle Eastern - Asia Minor is showing up in a lot of people's ancestry at FTDNA but not elsewhere that it looks to be a case of misassigning AIMs and nothing else.

                      The only way to tell if it is from a more recent ancestor is if it consistently shows up with the competitor's test and/or you have relative matches with a very large amount or exclusively Middle Eastern.
                      Last edited by Armando; 16th November 2015, 11:30 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Armando View Post
                        It is evidence based. The AIMs that are being assigned as Middle Eastern really do exist in Middle Eastern people but since DNA from the Middle East, and from Asia Minor which is probably what you have, also made it's way into Europe from the Bronze Age http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15...ms9912_F1.html then that is most likely why you have those AIMs in your DNA.

                        Middle Eastern - Asia Minor is showing up in a lot of people's ancestry at FTDNA but not elsewhere that it looks to be a case of misassigning AIMs and nothing else.

                        The only way to tell if it is from a more recent ancestor is if it consistently shows up with the competitor's test and/or you have relative matches with a very large amount or exclusively Middle Eastern.
                        My research has uncovered two population flows within the past three hundred years that can cause anomalies in admixture. I have found evidence that middle men brought women enslaved by the Barbary Pirates to the American Colonies. Most of them are from non-African mtDNA haplogroups and come from the areas that the Barbary Pirates preyed upon. Secondly, some back migration occurred from the Colonies/USA to Europe during the 18th Century and in particular to Great Britain as a result of the American Revolution. These two factors could very well account for the two percent ME.

                        Jack Wyatt

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ... I'm done with this thread. TY for comments

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
                            My research has uncovered two population flows within the past three hundred years that can cause anomalies in admixture. I have found evidence that middle men brought women enslaved by the Barbary Pirates to the American Colonies. Most of them are from non-African mtDNA haplogroups and come from the areas that the Barbary Pirates preyed upon. Secondly, some back migration occurred from the Colonies/USA to Europe during the 18th Century and in particular to Great Britain as a result of the American Revolution. These two factors could very well account for the two percent ME.

                            Jack Wyatt
                            If that were the cause then Germans wouldn't be getting it also at FTDNA. Additionally, it should be enough for it to show up at 23andme in those people but it doesn't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Armando View Post
                              If that were the cause then Germans wouldn't be getting it also at FTDNA. Additionally, it should be enough for it to show up at 23andme in those people but it doesn't.
                              I have found plenty of cases where someone has a German ancestor in the early 1800's which I can tie to woman of a particular haplogroup who was enslaved in North Carolina in the early 1700s. You know that there was a group of Germans that got stuck in America for a while in the 1780s. Some of them may have had time to find a bride to take back with them who had ancestry in the North Carolina human trafficking ring. I can come up with all kinds of scenarios. The important thing is that I can show that it happened.

                              I think some of the descendents of the enslaved women had enough language and customs handed down that returning to Europe was a real possibility to them. I can show cases of back migration to all parts of Europe.

                              Jack Wyatt

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X