Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Origins Results......

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Armando View Post
    The corridor was too narrow for them not to have mixed and migrations happen in stages as a group effort. Some people stay where they were born and leave descendants and some people move on leaving their relatives behind. The people that move carry the DNA of the relatives that they left behind.

    Native Americans from all over the U.S and the rest of America (that includes North, Central, and South) were separated from Asians 5,000 to 25,000 years ago yet the autosomal DNA of Siberians and Northeast Asians is detectable in us. Even if Native Americans in the Southeast U.S. had been separated for 10,000 years there would be a similar Fst distance between them and the South American natives as there is between Pima and Karitiana. The common DNA would be easily detectable. This would happen even with drift from the southeast U.S. natives exchanging admixture with only themselves. They still have the same ancestors as other Native Americans. We are all related.
    If you would like to use evolutionary terms, then you missed out the part about Bottle Necking due to external factors. And what about archaic humans? The ones that according to current Evolutionary Biology Theory, evolved and left Africa along with anatomically modern humans. Neanderthals (~250,000 yrs), Denisovans (>40,000 yrs), Cro-Magnon (43,000 yrs).

    What is particularly relevant about Cro-Magnon, is that he is theorised as being a hybrid of modern humans with Neanderthal. Polynesians and Australasians share a significant amount of DNA with Denisovans, and I believe also Neanderthal. Native Americans also have significant levels of archaic human DNA, most from Neanderthals, with a little contribution from Denisovans, according to current analysis.

    Obviously there will be more revelations, if DNA is sequenced from ancient remains, and once the technology to detect it improves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Armando
    replied
    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    How do we know where the waives of migrations would have met and mixed? or even if they walked everywhere that they travelled? Many populations could have been seperated by significant amounts of time. Have you heard of the Ainu, descendents of a people known for their sea faring abilities? They are one of, if not the first peoples of Japan. It is not extraordinary to postulate that communities had travelled together, each with own customs and culture, especially given the amount of archoelogical evidence.

    Theoretically, the people within the Hopewell cultural area - consisting of hundreds of thousands of square miles -could have only exchanged admixture with each other, the result? They wouldn't only have SNP markers for Amerindians but also the markers from where there people migrated from a.k.a their ancestors. The arrival of Europeans coincided with the introduction of rapid means of transportation, horses and eventually railways. They also bought disease that wiped out many of the aboriginal people.

    The founding of the United States brought political and racial issues, that caused Native Americans to be subdivided, forcibly moved from their lands, eventially encroaching onto the territory of other bands of Natives that, theoretically, could have been genetically quite different due to isolation. A lot of the people did succom to the governments tactics taking on the new way of life, embracing and mixing quite extensively. In the Confederate States , the now Southern United States, that was a very different story as I'm sure you know.

    On the archeological side of things, there are many cases of unusually large skulls and bones found in mounds associated with Southern and Eastern Indians, a lot reported with double rows of teeth. They were excavated from the earthworks of the Moundbuilders - which number in the hundreds - some are shaped like animals, some are astrolgically aligned clocks, measuring the seasons and times.

    In the more North Eastern regions, were Native's originally numbered far greater than today, many stone works have been found. These have been shown to predict solar events extremely accurately - the structure of the buildings having multiple stone slates each weighing several tonnes a piece for a roof, with woven slate as the walls. Many more stone strucutres can be found within the same regional area, of enourmous size and weight - they bare a similarity to the stone works in Ireland, and Stonehenge in England.

    In terms of who populated the region, the North Eastern area is a known trade route of the Hopwell culture, including the Moundbuilders, and many tribes speak of battling with giants. The general consensus among so called academics is - pretty much - that colonialists built them, as well as being formed by the retreating glaciers from the Ice Age.
    The corridor was too narrow for them not to have mixed and migrations happen in stages as a group effort. Some people stay where they were born and leave descendants and some people move on leaving their relatives behind. The people that move carry the DNA of the relatives that they left behind.

    Native Americans from all over the U.S and the rest of America (that includes North, Central, and South) were separated from Asians 5,000 to 25,000 years ago yet the autosomal DNA of Siberians and Northeast Asians is detectable in us. Even if Native Americans in the Southeast U.S. had been separated for 10,000 years there would be a similar Fst distance between them and the South American natives as there is between Pima and Karitiana. The common DNA would be easily detectable. This would happen even with drift from the southeast U.S. natives exchanging admixture with only themselves. They still have the same ancestors as other Native Americans. We are all related.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Aboriginal Pre-Colombus North Americans Admixture

    I don't see why you think that this is complicated. Whether it was one or two migrations doesn't change things. The groups involved in each migration would have had to have mixed and created left the autosomal SNP markers found in us today. That goes for Natives in all parts of America - North, Central, and South.

    The results of the >20,000 year old Mal'ta boy shows that he was related to the ancestors of Native Americans. This does not change the theory that the migration(s) was/were through the Bering Strait starting about 14,000 years.
    How do we know where the waives of migrations would have met and mixed? or even if they walked everywhere that they travelled? Many populations could have been seperated by significant amounts of time. Have you heard of the Ainu, descendents of a people known for their sea faring abilities? They are one of, if not the first peoples of Japan. It is not extraordinary to postulate that communities had travelled together, each with own customs and culture, especially given the amount of archoelogical evidence.

    Theoretically, the people within the Hopewell cultural area - consisting of hundreds of thousands of square miles -could have only exchanged admixture with each other, the result? They wouldn't only have SNP markers for Amerindians but also the markers from where there people migrated from a.k.a their ancestors. The arrival of Europeans coincided with the introduction of rapid means of transportation, horses and eventually railways. They also bought disease that wiped out many of the aboriginal people.

    The founding of the United States brought political and racial issues, that caused Native Americans to be subdivided, forcibly moved from their lands, eventially encroaching onto the territory of other bands of Natives that, theoretically, could have been genetically quite different due to isolation. A lot of the people did succom to the governments tactics taking on the new way of life, embracing and mixing quite extensively. In the Confederate States , the now Southern United States, that was a very different story as I'm sure you know.

    On the archeological side of things, there are many cases of unusually large skulls and bones found in mounds associated with Southern and Eastern Indians, a lot reported with double rows of teeth. They were excavated from the earthworks of the Moundbuilders - which number in the hundreds - some are shaped like animals, some are astrolgically aligned clocks, measuring the seasons and times.

    In the more North Eastern regions, were Native's originally numbered far greater than today, many stone works have been found. These have been shown to predict solar events extremely accurately - the structure of the buildings having multiple stone slates each weighing several tonnes a piece for a roof, with woven slate as the walls. Many more stone strucutres can be found within the same regional area, of enourmous size and weight - they bare a similarity to the stone works in Ireland, and Stonehenge in England.

    In terms of who populated the region, the North Eastern area is a known trade route of the Hopwell culture, including the Moundbuilders, and many tribes speak of battling with giants. The general consensus among so called academics is - pretty much - that colonialists built them, as well as being formed by the retreating glaciers from the Ice Age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Armando
    replied
    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    Thanks for the information Armando, I appreciate it. Where this is becoming a bit complicated, is when it comes to South Eastern Indians. The evidence for a dual migration ancestry, of modern Native American's from Siberia, is building. As the Lake Baikal remains have proven - from DNA analysis - conclusions are yet to be drawn, as to how the peopling of the Americas actually happened.
    I don't see why you think that this is complicated. Whether it was one or two migrations doesn't change things. The groups involved in each migration would have had to have mixed and created left the autosomal SNP markers found in us today. That goes for Natives in all parts of America - North, Central, and South.

    The results of the >20,000 year old Mal'ta boy shows that he was related to the ancestors of Native Americans. This does not change the theory that the migration(s) was/were through the Bering Strait starting about 14,000 years.

    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    There is a lot of so called "conspiracy theories", about ancient giants, the Smithsonian cover up, double rows of teeth and such. But there is also many legitimate stories, from people claiming Native American ancestry, that nothing is showing up in their DNA. Could it be that those people are getting "false positives"? As in, their Native American ancestors DNA, is showing up under other ancestral portions, adding to their already recent ancestry from those areas - akin to how Mal'ta boy is more closely related to Europeans and South Asians, than modern East Asians?
    I think it has more to do with the fact that they had too few Native American ancestors and the few that they had was so many generations ago, more than 7 or 8 generations, that the Native American DNA has become so diluted it is not within detectable levels. When a person with 100% NA marries a person with 0% NA the child receives 48%-52% NA. If that child grows up marries another person with 0% NA their child receives 22%-28% NA. If that happens over and over then after 7 or 10 generations, sometimes less then that, the DNA is undetectable. 7 generations at 35 years per generation is 245 years. That takes us back to 1769. The people that claim to have Native American ancestry but aren't finding it in the results of Dodecad globe13, Eurogenes, or AncestryDNA either have the ancestor from pre-1769 or the ancestor never really existed.

    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    I know the number of kind of "transitional period" people's DNA is low - for example those crossing the Bering Land Bridge - and this would effect the way population calculations are made. I'm sure the accuracy would increase with greater sample sizes.

    There are still many unknowns, yet to be uncovered.
    Apart from the fact that they all crossed the land bridge I am sure there is some DNA not yet identified that would show up if Native American populations in the U.S. were to agree to testing but most of the DNA would be the same that has shown up in other wide ranging NA populations such as the Maya, Pima, Columbian, Karitiana and Surui. Therefore there would not be a huge change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    A couple pictures

    I figured this would be best posted here. One picture is of my father, the other is me.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Can of Worms

    Thanks for the information Armando, I appreciate it. Where this is becoming a bit complicated, is when it comes to South Eastern Indians. The evidence for a dual migration ancestry, of modern Native American's from Siberia, is building. As the Lake Baikal remains have proven - from DNA analysis - conclusions are yet to be drawn, as to how the peopling of the Americas actually happened.

    There is a lot of so called "conspiracy theories", about ancient giants, the Smithsonian cover up, double rows of teeth and such. But there is also many legitimate stories, from people claiming Native American ancestry, that nothing is showing up in their DNA. Could it be that those people are getting "false positives"? As in, their Native American ancestors DNA, is showing up under other ancestral portions, adding to their already recent ancestry from those areas - akin to how Mal'ta boy is more closely related to Europeans and South Asians, than modern East Asians?

    I know the number of kind of "transitional period" people's DNA is low - for example those crossing the Bering Land Bridge - and this would effect the way population calculations are made. I'm sure the accuracy would increase with greater sample sizes.

    There are still many unknowns, yet to be uncovered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Armando
    replied
    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    Having just received the my origins results, as my first autosomal ethnicity test, the results seemed to look about right, for what was expected. See below.

    Europe 57%: 24% British Isles; 19% west and central; 12% Scandinavian; 2% Finland and Northern Siberia
    Africa 43%: 41% West African; 2% East African
    New World 1%: 1% Native American

    Although, there is an anomaly, in that the total adds up to 101%! I also ran the raw data through Dodecad Globe 13 and received the following -

    Northern European: 28.52%
    Mediterranean: 18.73%
    West Asian: 5.15%
    South West Asian: 1.57%
    South Asian: 2.18%
    East Asian: 0%
    Siberian: 0.02%
    Arctic: 0.15%
    Australasian: 0.08%
    West African: 37.65%
    East African: 2.49%
    PaleoAfrican: 1.43%
    Amerindian: 2.04%

    So, as is, myorigins seems to be lumping Native American into Finland and Northern Siberia category. I believe this is due to the fairly recent Mal'ta boy DNA, which was found to be part of an ancestral population of some Native Americans, and also a huge stretch of northern Eurasians.

    The European component also has changed quite significantly, along with the complete addition of several Asian components.

    Once GEDmatch is back up, I will use their highly regarded calculators, for more scientific insight into the human journey.
    Originally posted by Zaru View Post
    I highly doubt that Finland is being confused with NA ancestry.

    Here is a breakdown on why I am concluding this: For example, IBD (identity by descent) and PCA plots are the two best ways to identify ethnicity. IBD is assumed from a sample who claims to have 4 grandparents from the same "ethnicity". In the case of FTDNA they have plenty of Finnish samples that are IBD, but not Native American samples, those are quite thin. So we cannot make that assumption. Each one of the utilities at GedMatch has its own sampling database and methodology, so it is not a like comparison to MyOrigins. In either case, you have a difference of 1% between the two, which happens to total the amount of the Finnish component, but that is more likely to be coincidental than fact. If not, then you would have to say that everyone who has the "Finnish" component actually has NA ancestry. That is extremely unlikely, particularly in the case of the hundreds of actual Finns that are in the database.

    I have similar admixture to yours so I have made similar assumptions that you are making now, it's natural to do so. Try and send your raw data for analysis to someone like Davidski for a full analysis (for a fee). He can break your ethnicity down very nicely using IBD/IBS and PCA plotting. He also has a sizeable database including Native Americans. He will also analyze your x chromosome.
    A reason for the difference between Globe13 and MyOrigins is due to the fact that when they made MyOrigins they removed Maya, Pima and Columbian as reference populations. These are populations that most other calculators use such Globe13, Eurogenes, 23andme, AncestryDNA and I assume Doug McDonald's. MyOrigins only kept Karitiana and Surui and all of the SNPs found in Maya, Pima and Columbian populations, but not in Karitiana and Surui, were reassigned to other groups and in some cases this is Finland and Northern Siberia. For the reference populations see https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-methodology/ If you notice Mal'ta boy is not used as a source so he has nothing to do with the difference.

    There is a very large number of people that had significant amounts of Native American that were very close to each other in different calculators, up to 50%, but now have less NA but much more East Asian and in many cases Finland and Northern Siberia in their results.

    You do not have to say that everyone who has the "Finnish" component actually has NA ancestry in order to explain many of those people all of the sudden showing up with Finnish and Northern Siberian. The explanation is extremely simple - Northern Siberians and the Native Americans share autosomal SNP markers since Native Americans descend from Siberians from when Siberians went to America over the Bering Strait. With Maya, Pima and Columbian populations out as source populations MyOrigins can't assign the SNPs found in those populations and your results to Native Americans so they are assigned to other populations. This does not mean that your 1% Finnish and Northern Siberian is definitely from your Native American ancestry but it could be.

    The source populations that Dodecad globe13 and Eurogenes are very similar. You can see the spreadsheets of their source populations online. They also use populations from Human Genome Diversity Project and International HapMap Project, among others, just as MyOrigins did and other calculators do.

    Dodecad globe13 - Click on spreadsheet at http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/10/...alculator.html

    Eurogenes - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...WUUY4Z0E#gid=0

    A comparison of 9 people's NA results - https://www.dropbox.com/s/f4wiwm6rhs...omparison.xlsx

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Alright, thanks. Each day I learn a little bit more about how this stuff works. I will look into what other options are available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaru
    replied
    Finland might not = Native American.

    Originally posted by MeteorMan View Post
    Having just received the my origins results, as my first autosomal ethnicity test, the results seemed to look about right, for what was expected. See below.

    Europe 57%: 24% British Isles; 19% west and central; 12% Scandinavian; 2% Finland and Northern Siberia
    Africa 43%: 41% West African; 2% East African
    New World 1%: 1% Native American

    Although, there is an anomaly, in that the total adds up to 101%! I also ran the raw data through Dodecad Globe 13 and received the following -

    Northern European: 28.52%
    Mediterranean: 18.73%
    West Asian: 5.15%
    South West Asian: 1.57%
    South Asian: 2.18%
    East Asian: 0%
    Siberian: 0.02%
    Arctic: 0.15%
    Australasian: 0.08%
    West African: 37.65%
    East African: 2.49%
    PaleoAfrican: 1.43%
    Amerindian: 2.04%

    So, as is, myorigins seems to be lumping Native American into Finland and Northern Siberia category. I believe this is due to the fairly recent Mal'ta boy DNA, which was found to be part of an ancestral population of some Native Americans, and also a huge stretch of northern Eurasians.

    The European component also has changed quite significantly, along with the complete addition of several Asian components.

    Once GEDmatch is back up, I will use their highly regarded calculators, for more scientific insight into the human journey.
    You cannot make that assumption because different atDNA tests have different samples and methodologies. In looking at your breakdown there is not much difference between your NA percentage in MyO v. the Gedmatch utility that you site. I highly doubt that Finland is being confused with NA ancestry.

    Here is a breakdown on why I am concluding this: For example, IBD (identity by descent) and PCA plots are the two best ways to identify ethnicity. IBD is assumed from a sample who claims to have 4 grandparents from the same "ethnicity". In the case of FTDNA they have plenty of Finnish samples that are IBD, but not Native American samples, those are quite thin. So we cannot make that assumption. Each one of the utilities at GedMatch has its own sampling database and methodology, so it is not a like comparison to MyOrigins. In either case, you have a difference of 1% between the two, which happens to total the amount of the Finnish component, but that is more likely to be coincidental than fact. If not, then you would have to say that everyone who has the "Finnish" component actually has NA ancestry. That is extremely unlikely, particularly in the case of the hundreds of actual Finns that are in the database.

    I have similar admixture to yours so I have made similar assumptions that you are making now, it's natural to do so. Try and send your raw data for analysis to someone like Davidski for a full analysis (for a fee). He can break your ethnicity down very nicely using IBD/IBS and PCA plotting. He also has a sizeable database including Native Americans. He will also analyze your x chromosome.
    Last edited by Zaru; 10 July 2014, 10:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Family History

    As an addition to my original post, here are some details of our family's history. Mother's side, as far as we know - from genealogical ancestry records - is White British. Father's side is African American, and has a traditional oral history of both Cherokee and Choctaw.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Mixed English-American

    Having just received the my origins results, as my first autosomal ethnicity test, the results seemed to look about right, for what was expected. See below.

    Europe 57%: 24% British Isles; 19% west and central; 12% Scandinavian; 2% Finland and Northern Siberia
    Africa 43%: 41% West African; 2% East African
    New World 1%: 1% Native American

    Although, there is an anomaly, in that the total adds up to 101%! I also ran the raw data through Dodecad Globe 13 and received the following -

    Northern European: 28.52%
    Mediterranean: 18.73%
    West Asian: 5.15%
    South West Asian: 1.57%
    South Asian: 2.18%
    East Asian: 0%
    Siberian: 0.02%
    Arctic: 0.15%
    Australasian: 0.08%
    West African: 37.65%
    East African: 2.49%
    PaleoAfrican: 1.43%
    Amerindian: 2.04%

    So, as is, myorigins seems to be lumping Native American into Finland and Northern Siberia category. I believe this is due to the fairly recent Mal'ta boy DNA, which was found to be part of an ancestral population of some Native Americans, and also a huge stretch of northern Eurasians.

    The European component also has changed quite significantly, along with the complete addition of several Asian components.

    Once GEDmatch is back up, I will use their highly regarded calculators, for more scientific insight into the human journey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanica
    replied
    Originally posted by Gemmy42 View Post
    I don't see on their staff page any Dr. McDonald. Given that you're saying he is working for them, and give other details(that he's done this "for free"): how would you know that unless you are too? A "customer" and an EMPLOYEE too. The fact that you pay SO CLOSE attention to terminology that other companies are using, such that you know when they change it also tells me that you're spying on the competition. I hate this deceptive crap that people pull on these sites, where they "evalutate" the companies they work for. Guess what? The second independent lab came back with results that reflected what is in my family tree. THEY DID IT RIGHT! YOUR COMPANY IS RIPPING PEOPLE OFF! Of course, you already know that, that's why you're trying to defend their reputation in this forum. I want my money back, caiche?
    Lots of people test with more than one DNA company, because they understand that the results are open to interpretation and they want to see as many interpretations as possible. It doesn't mean they secretly work for a DNA company and are "spying on the competition". Paranoid much?

    Originally posted by Gemmy42 View Post
    I said what I had to say.
    Good, then you can go away now.

    Leave a comment:


  • EastAnglian
    replied
    Originally posted by Gemmy42 View Post
    I said what I had to say. If you don't like it, TOUGH! I've been ripped off by the site, sold a bag of good and told, "If you don't like crap we gave you for your hard earned money and misplaced trust in our abilities and integrity, too bad! "Go interpret your own results"! Yeah? Well THAT'S WHAT I PAID YOU FOR!
    I think My Origins is okay for people who know what their ancestry is but not for others looking to learn what it is, for these individuals the product is next to useless. Its far too generic and unspecific.

    The chronological timeframe isn't particularly helpful for those using the product for genealogy, I don't really understand pin pointing FF matches on a map when the timeframe is such a long time ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gemmy42
    replied
    I said what I had to say. If you don't like it, TOUGH! I've been ripped off by the site, sold a bag of good and told, "If you don't like crap we gave you for your hard earned money and misplaced trust in our abilities and integrity, too bad! "Go interpret your own results"! Yeah? Well THAT'S WHAT I PAID YOU FOR!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mudgeeclarke
    replied
    Count to Ten, and take a deep breath ...

    ... Gemmy42, before you dig yourself deeper into this hole - take a few moments to research. These folks here who are constant and significant contributors (and have the smart genes I didn't get) give great, free advice - or will point you in the right direction. Their only agenda is to be good community members. Everyone can have a bad day and get emotional. Been there, done that. The trick is to know when to stop, and consider. Now is good time for you to do that.

    R-Z57. U3b2a
    Last edited by Mudgeeclarke; 1 July 2014, 05:04 AM. Reason: Can't change the mini signature, so put it below.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X