My Origins Results......

[Taz85]

Your Jewish background might not be Ashkenazi. So far JD appears to be limited to Ashkenazis. Yes, it needs work

It's most likely not Ashkenazi. If I take what I know from Myorigins and take the calculators on gedmatch, most likely Jewish ancestry is from Ancient Turkey or Assryian

[Taz85]

My dad's results; he shows no JD in MO.

MDLP World
# Population Percent
1 South_and_West_European 42.75
2 Caucaus_Parsia 22.64
3 Middle_East 22.07
4 North_and_East_European 12.22

Dodecad World9 & Oracle 4

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Baltic 38.49
2 Southern 37.00
3 Caucasus_Gedrosia 24.50

1 50% North_Italian +50% Cypriots @ 0.591
2 50% N_Italian +50% Cypriots @ 1.476
3 50% French +50% Samaritians @ 1.500
4 50% C_Italian +50% S_Italian @ 1.605
5 50% Greek +50% Sicilian @ 1.684
6 50% Georgia_Jews +50% Aragon @ 1.838
7 50% French +50% Samaritians @ 1.956
8 50% C_Italian +50% S_Italian_Sicilian @ 1.984
9 50% Druze +50% Cataluna @ 2.024
10 50% Greek +50% S_Italian_Sicilian @ 2.031

Harappa & Oracle 4

1 Caucasian 33.48
2 Mediterranean 27.99
3 NE-Euro 18.41
4 SW-Asian 12.20
5 Baloch 7.93

1 50% cypriot +50% italian @ 2.977
2 50% sephardic-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.034
3 50% sephardic-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.069
4 50% ashkenazy-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.095
5 50% sephardic-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.182
6 50% ashkenazy-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.281
7 50% ashkenazy-jew +50% tuscan @ 3.533
8 50% druze +50% spaniard @ 3.597
9 50% druze +50% spaniard @ 3.799
10 50% lebanese-druze +50% spaniard @ 4.370

Dodecad K12b & Oracle 4

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 37.12
2 Atlantic_Med 31.21
3 North_European 13.36
4 Southwest_Asian 10.36
5 Gedrosia 5.24
6 Northwest_African 2.71

1 50% Cypriots +50% N_Italian @ 2.278
2 50% Cypriots +50% North_Italian @ 2.408
3 50% S_Italian_Sicilian +50% Sicilian @ 2.931
4 50% Sicilian +50% Sicilian @ 3.046
5 50% S_Italian_Sicilian +50% S_Italian_Sicilian @ 3.159
6 50% Ashkenazy_Jews +50% C_Italian @ 3.212
7 50% C_Italian +50% S_Italian_Sicilian @ 3.285
8 50% C_Italian +50% Sicilian @ 3.365
9 50% Ashkenazi +50% C_Italian @ 3.508
10 50% Sephardic_Jews +50% Tuscan @ 3.513

Vinnie, your Jewish ancestry also seems non Ashkenazi

[Couscous Nomad]

@vinnie &Taz85

I think Taz85 used Oracle not Oracle 4,notice the #Primary Population & Secondary Population that don't show up when running Oracle 4,on the other hand vinnie used Oracle 4.

[vinnie]

Vinnie, your Jewish ancestry also seems non Ashkenazi

My father's was likely ancient (especially given our y haplogroup), predating modern splits between Jewish groups. My mom's was probably more recent (as well as ancient), but not recent enough to show up in FF.

[kiiski]

His results are interesting, to say the least, since they provide a window into what may be the original genetic composition of people who are, or were, fully Native American. As we can see, that population already had North Circumpolar, which is European and mostly found in Finland, and Central/South-Asian-Eurasian Heartland combination, in addition to other components you would expect.

I wouldn't draw such definite conclusions based on this one result. It doesn't quite match what published research says about the genetic composition of Native Americans, either. For example, in Lazaridis et al. 2013 the "Ancient North Eurasian" component, that is shared by Europeans and Native Americans, is found throughout Europe and at a maximum in Estonians, Scots, Hungarians and Lithuanians. In addition to this, Finns and some other Uralic populations have more recent Siberian admixture (which isn't reflected in MyOrigins).

Ideally there should be one calculator for ancient events like these, and another one that reflects historical population movements in the last few hundred years (presumably most FTDNA customers are more interested in the latter). In practice it's hard to fully separate ancient and recent events, but the current MyOrigins seems to not even try.

[Rafael Fernandes]

Josh and Rafael, having read your comments, I think I should clarify my previous ones. To me the real issue is not whether I have or have not any Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry; this is totally irrelevant to me, as the many Ashkenazi "cousins" I've found both on Family Finder and Gedmatch came out totally unexpected. Still, it seems I'm the one to be blamed for this misunderstandig, as I mixed percentages of Middle Eastern ancestry up with having surprisingly many Ashkenazi cousins. The issue here is the sharp differences in ancestry estimates between PF and myOrigins, from 14.38% to 1% Middle Eastern ethnic ancestry. I should add that the same thing has happened with my Native American percentage. PF gave me an astonishing high estimate of NA ethnic ancestry (36.4%); myOrigins has brought it down to 31% (23% Beringian Expansion plus 8% Asian Northeast. Anyway, I've decided to give FTDNA the benefice of the doubt; perhaps they're right now, and I really am 66% European (Mediterranean Basin, the whole of it), 31% NA, 1% Middle Eastern, 1% African and 1% unassigned). It makes sense, as I'm South American

As I said previously, the fact that your Middle Eastern ancestry has fallen from the older program to the new one may be due to the fact that the older one's ability to measure Southern European ancestry was more limited. Population Finder was identifying many people from Southern Europe -- specially those of Italian or Greek ancestry -- as being as much as 50% Middle Eastern, for lacking samples that accurately represented their ancestry. In the case of people with Southern European blood, this may mean having inflated results in both the North European and Middle Eastern clusters because these are the ancestral components closest to the Southern European one. It was frequent to see a South Italian, for example, being guessed as 50% Western European and 50% Middle Eastern, or a Portuguese person being guessed as 80% Western European and 20% Mozabite. My results went through the same as yours, albeit less dramatically; my Middle Eastern percentage has fallen from 24% in PF to 16% in myOrigins, and I have little doubt that this is because of myOrigin's greater accuracy.

[robe3b]

As I said previously, the fact that your Middle Eastern ancestry has fallen from the older program to the new one may be due to the fact that the older one's ability to measure Southern European ancestry was more limited. Population Finder was identifying many people from Southern Europe -- specially those of Italian or Greek ancestry -- as being as much as 50% Middle Eastern, for lacking samples that accurately represented their ancestry. In the case of people with Southern European blood, this may mean having inflated results in both the North European and Middle Eastern clusters because these are the ancestral components closest to the Southern European one. It was frequent to see a South Italian, for example, being guessed as 50% Western European and 50% Middle Eastern, or a Portuguese person being guessed as 80% Western European and 20% Mozabite. My results went through the same as yours, albeit less dramatically; my Middle Eastern percentage has fallen from 24% in PF to 16% in myOrigins, and I have little doubt that this is because of myOrigin's greater accuracy.

Quite so, Rafael. The 14.38% Middle Eastern ancestry estimate from Population Finder was in fact my only Italian g-grandfather contribution to my genome; he was Northern Italian, from Genoa. On the contrary, it seems PF correctly identified what it called my Spanish-Basque-French ancestry, which added up to 49.4% of my ethnic makeup. 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.

[josh w.]

As I said previously, the fact that your Middle Eastern ancestry has fallen from the older program to the new one may be due to the fact that the older one's ability to measure Southern European ancestry was more limited. Population Finder was identifying many people from Southern Europe -- specially those of Italian or Greek ancestry -- as being as much as 50% Middle Eastern, for lacking samples that accurately represented their ancestry. In the case of people with Southern European blood, this may mean having inflated results in both the North European and Middle Eastern clusters because these are the ancestral components closest to the Southern European one. It was frequent to see a South Italian, for example, being guessed as 50% Western European and 50% Middle Eastern, or a Portuguese person being guessed as 80% Western European and 20% Mozabite. My results went through the same as yours, albeit less dramatically; my Middle Eastern percentage has fallen from 24% in PF to 16% in myOrigins, and I have little doubt that this is because of myOrigin's greater accuracy.

Not sure if we fully understand the changes from PF to MO. Given the various migrations from the Near East and North Africa to southern Europe (Phoenicians, Moors--migrations might have begun before written history), there should be some sign of this migration among Mediterranean Europeans. Sephardic Jews might be subsumed under Northern Mediterranean with no mention of the Near East.

[josh w.]

Not sure if we fully understand the changes from PF to MO. Given the various migrations from the Near East and North Africa to southern Europe (Phoenicians, Moors--migrations might have begun before written history), there should be some sign of this migration among Mediterranean Europeans. Sephardic Jews might be subsumed under Northern Mediterranean with no mention of the Near East.

It may be a function of when the admixture took place with earlier admixture being less apparent. Ashkenazis do not show a Northern Mediterranean component with MO even though it is quite evident in Dodecad and Eurogenes. Perhaps founder effects and genetic drift in Ashkenazis contributed to the MO oversimplification. MO and PF were not intended to give a complete picture--more like the #1 hunch from Oracle. The Oracle estimates derive from the full composites in Dodecad and Eurogenes

[John McCoy]

I suspect the underlying problem, or one of them, is that MyOrigins is still using very small numbers of samples for individual "populations". That is, a small number of samples does not seem sufficient to capture and represent the gene frequencies of the entire population of, say, Italy. While the samples surely capture some of the existing variation in their target populations, it seems to me that the small sample sizes will inevitably introduce a very large component of statistical noise into the percentage figures. The changes reported here, from the Population Finder to MyOrigins, are telling us something about the magnitude of the noise component. Maybe MyOrigins is more accurate in some sense, maybe not, and the magnitude of the discrepancy between the two algorithms should not be expected to affect everybody in the same way.

Is MyOrigins constructed in such a way that new reference samples can be added to the existing ones as they become available? An algorithm that adjusts itself as new data are added would seem to be the way forward.

[robe3b]

It may be a function of when the admixture took place with earlier admixture being less apparent. Ashkenazis do not show a Northern Mediterranean component with MO even though it is quite evident in Dodecad and Eurogenes. Perhaps founder effects and genetic drift in Ashkenazis contributed to the MO oversimplification. MO and PF were not intended to give a complete picture--more like the #1 hunch from Oracle. The Oracle estimates derive from the full composites in Dodecad and Eurogenes

As far as I'm concerned, my MO results are consistent (with the exception of the NA component estimate) with those of Gedmatch ancestry calculators, namely Dodecad's World9 and Eurogenes' K13. The Italian (or Sardinian) component is always present; conversely, the Middle Eastern component almost never shows up.

Eurogenes K13 4-Ancestors Oracle

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Cataluna @ 9.677
2 French + Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian @ 9.686
3 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 9.808
4 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Valencia @ 9.867
5 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 9.922
6 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Portuguese + Sardinian @ 9.940
7 Irish + Karitiana + Sardinian + Tunisian @ 9.961
8 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Aragon @ 9.976
9 Algerian + Irish + Karitiana + Sardinian @ 9.979
10 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Extremadura @ 9.979

World9 4-Ancestors Oracle

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 S_Italian + French_Basque + Pima + MEX30 @ 2.184
2 S_Italian_Sicilian + French_Basque + Pima + MEX30 @ 2.195
3 S_Italian + Pima + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.234
4 S_Italian_Sicilian + Pima + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.239
5 S_Italian + Colombians + French_Basque + MEX30 @ 2.258
6 S_Italian_Sicilian + Colombians + French_Basque + MEX30 @ 2.278
7 C_Italian + Pima + MEX30 + Aragon @ 2.295
8 S_Italian + Colombians + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.303
9 S_Italian_Sicilian + Colombians + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.316
10 C_Italian + Colombians + MEX30 + Aragon @ 2.353

The Italian component was missing on PF; MO seems to have corrected this discrepancy.

[josh w.]

I suspect the underlying problem, or one of them, is that MyOrigins is still using very small numbers of samples for individual "populations". That is, a small number of samples does not seem sufficient to capture and represent the gene frequencies of the entire population of, say, Italy. While the samples surely capture some of the existing variation in their target populations, it seems to me that the small sample sizes will inevitably introduce a very large component of statistical noise into the percentage figures. The changes reported here, from the Population Finder to MyOrigins, are telling us something about the magnitude of the noise component. Maybe MyOrigins is more accurate in some sense, maybe not, and the magnitude of the discrepancy between the two algorithms should not be expected to affect everybody in the same way.

Is MyOrigins constructed in such a way that new reference samples can be added to the existing ones as they become available? An algorithm that adjusts itself as new data are added would seem to be the way forward.

Yes, I also hope that the algorithms also respond to recent complaints about MO 'misses'.

To amplify on my last post. From the White Paper authorship, I might be incorrect but it appears that the Admixture pattern is computed by the Harrapa World program and then in a second step the best fit to the admixture pattern is estimated by an Oracle like program.

[vinnie]

To amplify on my last post. From the White Paper authorship, I might be incorrect but it appears that the Admixture pattern is computed by the Harrapa World program and then in a second step the best fit to the admixture pattern is estimated by an Oracle like program.

Do you mean to say they may literally be using Harrapa World? Is there a relationship between its developer and FTDNA?

I find it odd that my mother has no European Coastal Plain in her MO. Harappa shows over 15% N.European and over 1% "American", which is believe is essentially N. Euro; every calculator at Gedmatch shows some N.E. for her.

[josh w.]

As far as I'm concerned, my MO results are consistent (with the exception of the NA component estimate) with those of Gedmatch ancestry calculators, namely Dodecad's World9 and Eurogenes' K13. The Italian (or Sardinian) component is always present; conversely, the Middle Eastern component almost never shows up.

Eurogenes K13 4-Ancestors Oracle

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Cataluna @ 9.677
2 French + Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian @ 9.686
3 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 9.808
4 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Valencia @ 9.867
5 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 9.922
6 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Portuguese + Sardinian @ 9.940
7 Irish + Karitiana + Sardinian + Tunisian @ 9.961
8 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Aragon @ 9.976
9 Algerian + Irish + Karitiana + Sardinian @ 9.979
10 Mayan + North_Amerindian + Sardinian + Spanish_Extremadura @ 9.979

World9 4-Ancestors Oracle

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 S_Italian + French_Basque + Pima + MEX30 @ 2.184
2 S_Italian_Sicilian + French_Basque + Pima + MEX30 @ 2.195
3 S_Italian + Pima + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.234
4 S_Italian_Sicilian + Pima + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.239
5 S_Italian + Colombians + French_Basque + MEX30 @ 2.258
6 S_Italian_Sicilian + Colombians + French_Basque + MEX30 @ 2.278
7 C_Italian + Pima + MEX30 + Aragon @ 2.295
8 S_Italian + Colombians + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.303
9 S_Italian_Sicilian + Colombians + MEX30 + Pais_Vasco @ 2.316
10 C_Italian + Colombians + MEX30 + Aragon @ 2.353

The Italian component was missing on PF; MO seems to have corrected this discrepancy.

My comments about admixtures referred to World or Eurogenes per se. Do they show any Middle Eastern component

[josh w.]

Do you mean to say they may literally be using Harrapa World? Is there a relationship between its developer and FTDNA?

I find it odd that my mother has no European Coastal Plain in her MO. Harappa shows over 15% N.European and over 1% "American", which is believe is essentially N. Euro; every calculator at Gedmatch shows some N.E. for her.

The lead author of the White Paper also developed Harrapa World. I suspect that MO might be derived from the Harrapa World program rather than be Harrapa World per se. Of course, they had to do a new data analysis for MO but within Harrapa World there have been new data analyses with changes in geographical regions..