Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Origins Results......

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

  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by Lappen View Post
    Hi, I just want to share my myOrigins results in this thread. My results and my mother´s differs a lot and i would like to have some ideas about how it´s possible. My mother is of mostly north-Swedish heritage and my father of only Saami.

    My results:

    Finland and Northern Siberia 59%
    Western and central Europe 30%
    Scandinavia 4%
    Northeast Asia 7%

    My mother´s results:

    Scandinavia 88%
    Finland and Northern Siberia 8%
    Western and Central Europe 3%

    How is this possible? My father should have little or no "Western and Central Europe" at all due to the fact that he´s of only Saami heritage.
    This result shows that their methods are far from perfect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lappen
    replied
    Strange results

    Hi, I just want to share my myOrigins results in this thread. My results and my mother´s differs a lot and i would like to have some ideas about how it´s possible. My mother is of mostly north-Swedish heritage and my father of only Saami.

    My results:

    Finland and Northern Siberia 59%
    Western and central Europe 30%
    Scandinavia 4%
    Northeast Asia 7%

    My mother´s results:

    Scandinavia 88%
    Finland and Northern Siberia 8%
    Western and Central Europe 3%

    How is this possible? My father should have little or no "Western and Central Europe" at all due to the fact that he´s of only Saami heritage.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    Correction ^: I meant South Asian, assumed to be Indian; not South Indian. And all of the above is from Ancestry.com; not FTDNA.

    Ciao! (is that how it's spelled?)
    I saw while Googling that there was a Portuguese presence on the Pee Dee River (My NC connection was along that river). This has been attributed to mixed bloods., i.e. Melungeons. But since I don't have Native American or African in my DNA, either this is a false trail for me, or there were indeed at least a few pure Europeans among them. Since early Portuguese explorers had colonial outposts in India, that could explain where my <1% South Asian came from. On the other hand, my 4% Iberian could have come with the English colonists, or some other way.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 20 June 2014, 11:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Correction ^: I meant South Asian, assumed to be Indian; not South Indian. And all of the above is from Ancestry.com; not FTDNA.

    Ciao! (is that how it's spelled?)

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    I am still confused by the 20% Southern Europe that FTDNA gives me. Ancestry only gives me 4% Iberian and 1% Italy/Greece. Even that confuses me. FTDNA gives me 48% Scandinavian, while Ancestry only gives me 28% Scandi. And on and on. Anyway, I'm more interested in my family tree over the last few centuries than I am about ancient deep DNA.
    OK, now that I went over to check my post office box and went to the grocery store, I'll get back to this. If I assume that there was no NPE with my maternal grandfather, born in Austria circa 1891, then I'll ascribe those trace percentages of Italy/Greece (Balkans?), Caucasus (Avars?), South India (Gypsies?) and East Europe (Slavs?) to him. The South Indian could also be connected to the British in India and brought to North America in the 1700s. As for the trace 4% from Iberia, that requires more thought. It is not Mestizo; I have no Native American or African in my genetic makeup. That Iberian could conceivably have snuck in with my direct maternal line in the Carolinas. I have one thread that is blank from down there, although some people on Ancestry have inserted a, most likely phony, Anglo name in their trees. Portuguese are reported to have settled down there in Colonial times.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 20 June 2014, 06:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MoberlyDrake
    replied
    I just received my mother's results at 23andMe last week. It's very reasonable given her known ancestry. MyOrigins is way off on my family members (I have one double cousin who is 10% Jewish Diaspora, though neither her brother nor the rest of us are Jewish. That's just about equal to one great-grandparent?)

    So, how did they do it? The key may be that 23andMe states "The results reflect where your ancestors lived 500 years ago" How do they manage to restrict it to the last 500 years? That is precisely the time frame that most genealogists are interested in.

    Here are Mom's results:

    23andMe:

    37.4% British and Irish
    15.4 % French and German
    2.9% Scandinavian
    38.6% Broadly Northern European
    1.5 % Italian
    1.2% Broadly Southern European
    < 0.1 North African
    < 0.1 Unassigned


    MyOrigins:

    72% European Coastal Islands
    19% North Mediterranan Basin
    9% European Northlands


    Ancestry.com's DNA test shows her as:

    36% Great Britain (range 7% to 65%)
    33% Europe West (range 6% to 60%)
    17% Ireland (range 2% t0 33%)
    6% Scandinavia (range 0% to 19%)
    4% Italy/Greece (range 0% to 10%)
    3% European Jewish (range 0% to 6%)
    <1% Europe East (range 0% to 4%)

    If I were to guess based on known ancestors:

    25% UK (with a little Dutch from New Amsterdam ancestors) - one grandparent was basically Colonial American mix
    75% French and German (with a little Swiss)

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    I am still confused by the 20% Southern Europe that FTDNA gives me. Ancestry only gives me 4% Iberian and 1% Italy/Greece. Even that confuses me. FTDNA gives me 48% Scandinavian, while Ancestry only gives me 28% Scandi. And on and on. Anyway, I'm more interested in my family tree over the last few centuries than I am about ancient deep DNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • kiiski
    replied
    Originally posted by Svein View Post
    Even if Norwegians have been in relative isolation, there are admixture from various groups. In myOrigins I have a large component from The British Isles (European Coastal Islands), even if I know of no such ancestry. It could be pretty old, perhaps going back to the vikings, who brought back Irish slaves.
    It's also possible that Scandinavian admixture in their British Isles reference population is causing it to overestimate British Isles ancestry in some Scandinavian customers. The MyOrigins components are estimates based on similarity and for most people it will be misleading to translate them to direct ancestral contributions - especially when dealing with populations that share much recent ancestry.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    Ahem! I got my results back from Ancestry.com today. And my origins percentages there are much different! From them I got the following: European = 98%, West Asia = 1%, and Asia = 1%. Europe is broken down to: Europe West = 33%, Scandinavia = 28%, Ireland = 17%, Great Britain = 14%, and traces in Europe = 6%. NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO NORTH MEDITERRANEAN/SOUTHERN EUROPE AT ALL!!! FTDNA gives me 20% Med/So. Eur. So I no longer think there was an NPE involving my maternal grandfather. However, as my father was 3/4 Norwegian, 28% seems a mite small.
    I looked at my Ancestry results a bit more. They break down that 6% traces in Europe to: Iberian Penn. = 4%, Italy/Greece = 1%, and Europe East at less than 1%. West Asia is 1% Caucasus, and Asia is less than 1% South Asia (where did that come from?). Welsh is lumped with Irish at Ancestry, and I know I have some Welsh in me.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 19 June 2014, 02:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svein
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    However, as my father was 3/4 Norwegian, 28% seems a mite small.
    Even if Norwegians have been in relative isolation, there are admixture from various groups. In myOrigins I have a large component from The British Isles (European Coastal Islands), even if I know of no such ancestry. It could be pretty old, perhaps going back to the vikings, who brought back Irish slaves.

    Many Norwegians also have a Finnish component, such as my father and my maternal uncle in myOrigins. This and other admixture will have the "Scandinavian" % down.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Ahem! I got my results back from Ancestry.com today. And my origins percentages there are much different! From them I got the following: European = 98%, West Asia = 1%, and Asia = 1%. Europe is broken down to: Europe West = 33%, Scandinavia = 28%, Ireland = 17%, Great Britain = 14%, and traces in Europe = 6%. NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO NORTH MEDITERRANEAN/SOUTHERN EUROPE AT ALL!!! FTDNA gives me 20% Med/So. Eur. So I no longer think there was an NPE involving my maternal grandfather. However, as my father was 3/4 Norwegian, 28% seems a mite small.
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 19 June 2014, 12:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Fox
    replied
    Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
    Can I have the old Population Finder back please.....
    Amen to that!

    Leave a comment:


  • Armando
    replied
    Originally posted by rdegnen View Post
    A friend from Puebla, Mexico, who is mostly of not entirely Indigenous, got these results. Population Finder 98.8% Native American-Maya. Origins results; New World-Bering Expansion 63%, East Asian-Asian Northeast 21%, European-North Circumpolar 10%, Central/South Asian-Eurasian Heartland 7%. All his ancestry is Mexican. Family oral tradition says Azteca.
    Originally posted by robe3b View Post
    Thus, the only remaining issue to be resolved is the sharp decrease in my Native American estimate (36.4%, according to PF, 31% as stated by myOrigins). Thanks for your help.
    The sharp decrease in the Native American component has happened to all Latin Americans with Native American ancestry. Maya, Pima and Columbian reference populations were not included in myOrigins. They only used Karitiana and Surui as reference population for Native Americans.

    Our Native American ancestry is now divided up mostly into, from most to least, New World-Bering Expansion and East Asian-Asian Northeast. European-North Circumpolar shows up at a very low percentage, mostly around 2-3%. Central/South Asian-Eurasian Heartland doesn't show up most of the time.

    See section 6 Table of reference populations https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-methodology/

    The one thing I wonder is how Asians would have been affected if they had left Maya, Pima and Columbian as reference populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    The original statement is ambiguous. It says that the groups were selected because they were unadmixed. In other words, the lack of admixture within the groups was presumed rather than measured. On what basis was this presumption made, certainly not on prior research with the reference populations. Did they simply mean that the groups were homogeneous, even though the defining SNPs were selected from diverse (admixed) ancestry.
    Or is the key 'relatively' unadmixed, e.g. 3 vs 6 source populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    The unadmixed conclusion is surprising. There have been admixture studies of many of the reference group populations and they all show admixture, e.g. Diaspora Jews, Italians, Irish.
    The original statement is ambiguous. It says that the groups were selected because they were unadmixed. In other words, the lack of admixture within the groups was presumed rather than measured. On what basis was this presumption made, certainly not on prior research with the reference populations. Did they simply mean that the groups were homogeneous, even though the defining SNPs were selected from diverse (admixed) ancestry.
    Last edited by josh w.; 16 May 2014, 07:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X