Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why So much differences between Origins v1 & v2

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

  • Why So much differences between Origins v1 & v2

    ........................................Origin old vs:-------->Origin new vs:
    West & Central Europe......43% -----------------> 100%
    British Isles.........................34%---------------------> 0%
    Southern Europe................18%---------------------> 0%
    Middle Eastern.....................5%---------------------> 0%

    Somebody has an explanation?

    When it's so different, you are coming to wonder about the reliability of these results. The British Isles, Southern Europe & ME clusters had been absorbed by a new Western & Central Europe population Cluster?
    Last edited by FredH; 6 April 2017, 02:45 AM.

  • #2
    With this new upgrade i'm considering the test for ancestry very inaccurate.

    Old was:
    88% european
    8% native american
    3% west african
    2% northeast asian

    Now is:
    81% european
    11% native american
    3% west african
    2% middle eastern
    1% jewish
    1% southeast asian
    1% south american

    I can't understand how they take part of the european dna and they just put all over the rest of the world

    Comment


    • #3
      I have the same problem. My Southern Europe was totally absorbed by this new West Central Europe which means nothing. I know it's wrong, according to what I know about my family and other dna tests in my family.

      The non-European part though is more accurate in my case, I wasn't satisfied with the previous results.

      Comment


      • #4
        I went from...

        OLD

        100% European
        64% Western and Central European
        18% British Isle
        9% Finland and Northern Siberia
        9% Scandinavian

        to..

        NEW
        99% European
        54% British Isles
        35% Scandinavian
        10% Southeast Europe

        Trace Results
        <2% South America
        <2% West Middle East


        Ancestry is 7/8th's English and 1/8th Polish.

        ???
        Last edited by Raven; 6 April 2017, 04:21 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FredH View Post
          ........................................Origin old vs:-------->Origin new vs:
          West & Central Europe......43% -----------------> 100%
          British Isles.........................34%---------------------> 0%
          Southern Europe................18%---------------------> 0%
          Middle Eastern.....................5%---------------------> 0%

          Somebody has an explanation?

          When it's so different, you are coming to wonder about the reliability of these results. The British Isles, Southern Europe & ME clusters had been absorbed by a new Western & Central Europe population Cluster?

          I think I might have an explanation, although I'm no expert on this subject... more westerly Central Europeans (Swiss, Southern Germans, Alsatians, etc.) are an ancient mix of Southern Europeans, Scandinavians, and Celtic peoples, etc. And there is a presence of very old Middle Eastern (Early European Farmers) in virtually all Western Europeans. I think that the new algorithm is better at identifying these genetic components as being part of modern populations rather than separate recent admixtures.

          Comment


          • #6
            The old myOrigins had too many people with southern European making them think they had a Spanish, Italian, or other southern European ancestor in a genealogical time period when they actually didn't. The new myOrigins doesn't have that as often but at the same time it overestimates the Iberian in people with ancestry from Spain.

            23andme is still better not only identifying northern vs southern European ancestry but also identifying a lot of other ancestry.

            Comment


            • #7
              this new MyOrigins update looks like they left something out of the formula, a lot of people has wild results, but I see people with more of a mixed genetics have very good results..but I can't see my British going from 25% to 92%....unless the results they presented us with before were totally wrong...when do you start believing the results...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FrenchMelissa View Post
                I have the same problem. My Southern Europe was totally absorbed by this new West Central Europe which means nothing. I know it's wrong, according to what I know about my family and other dna tests in my family.

                The non-European part though is more accurate in my case, I wasn't satisfied with the previous results.
                West and Central seems to be very southern type Germans now with the other types shifted to British & Irish or Eastern European. Maybe.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NCroots View Post
                  I think I might have an explanation, although I'm no expert on this subject... more westerly Central Europeans (Swiss, Southern Germans, Alsatians, etc.) are an ancient mix of Southern Europeans, Scandinavians, and Celtic peoples, etc. And there is a presence of very old Middle Eastern (Early European Farmers) in virtually all Western Europeans. I think that the new algorithm is better at identifying these genetic components as being part of modern populations rather than separate recent admixtures.
                  This doesn't explain why 34% of British Isles disappeared.
                  I think I understand why I am getting "a pure" 100% West. Central Europ.
                  My feeling is that FTDNA chose my DNA sample as a part of the West.&C Europe reference cluster , in this case of course, if you run the grouping program on my DNA sample it is identified as 100% to this cluster because it belongs to this cluster only. I don't appreciate that if it is the case.
                  Last edited by FredH; 7 April 2017, 02:08 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hello folks,
                    I am brasilian. I dont know any diferent ascendency in my roots then portuguese one, maybe spanish(not yet prooved, just by oral tradition). by the genetics test I knew subsaharian and idian one, but other then these I never heard about in my family. In my case, previous FTDNA gave: 79% european - 45% IBerian; 23% British isles; 11% eastern/west europe. Now, European: 72% - BRITISH ISLE 42%!!!!!!!!!!; Southeeast europe??????-26%; Iberian - 4%?????. By this score, I am british descdent?????????Someone here could explain me. Portuguese descendents never ever have this score. What could explain this??????someone would know?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Iberian vs. British Isles?

                      Originally posted by jvarela View Post
                      Hello folks,
                      I am brasilian. I dont know any diferent ascendency in my roots then portuguese one, maybe spanish(not yet prooved, just by oral tradition). by the genetics test I knew subsaharian and idian one, but other then these I never heard about in my family. In my case, previous FTDNA gave: 79% european - 45% IBerian; 23% British isles; 11% eastern/west europe. Now, European: 72% - BRITISH ISLE 42%!!!!!!!!!!; Southeeast europe??????-26%; Iberian - 4%?????. By this score, I am british descdent?????????Someone here could explain me. Portuguese descendents never ever have this score. What could explain this??????someone would know?
                      I'm just speculating but if your ancestors came from the northern Atlantic coast of Portugal their DNA may be very similar to British DNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti...rian_Peninsula

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X