Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Half Norwegian but 0% Scandinavian, WHY?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    Maybe they meant that matches go back 500 years. Otherwise, it does not make sense. They classify me as Ashkenazi but that could not be done on East European lines alone. I know that they know that I have a Levantine component (2000 years ago) Display of my Levantine and Italian components is preempted by my designation as Ashkenazi. In other words, if I were not Ashkenazi I could see my Italian and West Middle East components. This is why I need to go to Gedmatch.
    If I was not clear, MO could not identify me as Jewish if they did not know my ancient lines. I don't see why adna cannot go back to Viking times. At FF there is a Ydna Viking Project.
    Last edited by josh w.; 20 February 2018, 08:58 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Autosomal DNA can't tell you your ethnic origins in the Viking period because it is far beyond 6-10 generations and the chances of sharing centiMorgans with a 6x great-grandparent are slim, and even slimmer (non-existent) in the Viking Age.

      We all have pedigree ancestors and genetic ancestors. Read this link.

      Comment


      • #33
        Autosomal matching depends on detecting long pieces of chromosomes (millions of base pairs) that are identical between or among multiple people. From such long pieces, we can rely on the mechanics of meiosis and recombination to deduce relationships back several generations. If we are very lucky, we can sometimes (rarely) identify relatives as distant as about fifth cousins. Within that range, autosomal matching is found to be remarkably reliable.

        Admixture algorithms depend on a completely different set of assumptions: The method assumes the existence of relatively isolated populations that have existed over a long period of time, long enough so that they have accumulated a set of SNP's (mutations, in effect) that are unique to each such population. (We don't actually know that all of the "historical populations" we hope we can measure were ever in fact genetically distinct from each other—that's another of the hopeful assumptions!) The method also attempts to find that set of distinguishing SNP's for each population using statistical techniques applied to DNA samples from living people, who serve as proxies for their long-gone ancestors who belonged to the hypothetical historical populations. The algorithms depend on something like cluster analysis, principal components, or similar multivariate techniques to detect clusters ("reference groups") of people defined by their genetic similarity, and at the same time to detect the sets of SNP's that at once define the "populations" and provide the most reliable way to discriminate among them. But this is far from a simple exercise, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. Sample sizes have usually been small, and I strongly suspect they are generally too small to represent adequately the genetic diversity that was present in any real "historical population". It is clear, too, that the "populations" that emerge from the statistical analysis are not distinct enough to produce clear results in many cases. I'm sure the reliability of the algorithms isn't helped, either, by the fact that different vendors are now using very different sets of SNP's for autosomal testing! To the extent that admixture algorithms are being applied to data based on DNA samples that don't contain the same set of SNP's for which an algorithm was developed, we can't expect the results to behave as intended! At best, the admixture algorithms are a work in progress.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by John McCoy View Post
          Autosomal matching depends on detecting long pieces of chromosomes (millions of base pairs) that are identical between or among multiple people. From such long pieces, we can rely on the mechanics of meiosis and recombination to deduce relationships back several generations. If we are very lucky, we can sometimes (rarely) identify relatives as distant as about fifth cousins. Within that range, autosomal matching is found to be remarkably reliable.

          Admixture algorithms depend on a completely different set of assumptions: The method assumes the existence of relatively isolated populations that have existed over a long period of time, long enough so that they have accumulated a set of SNP's (mutations, in effect) that are unique to each such population. (We don't actually know that all of the "historical populations" we hope we can measure were ever in fact genetically distinct from each other—that's another of the hopeful assumptions!) The method also attempts to find that set of distinguishing SNP's for each population using statistical techniques applied to DNA samples from living people, who serve as proxies for their long-gone ancestors who belonged to the hypothetical historical populations. The algorithms depend on something like cluster analysis, principal components, or similar multivariate techniques to detect clusters ("reference groups") of people defined by their genetic similarity, and at the same time to detect the sets of SNP's that at once define the "populations" and provide the most reliable way to discriminate among them. But this is far from a simple exercise, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. Sample sizes have usually been small, and I strongly suspect they are generally too small to represent adequately the genetic diversity that was present in any real "historical population". It is clear, too, that the "populations" that emerge from the statistical analysis are not distinct enough to produce clear results in many cases. I'm sure the reliability of the algorithms isn't helped, either, by the fact that different vendors are now using very different sets of SNP's for autosomal testing! To the extent that admixture algorithms are being applied to data based on DNA samples that don't contain the same set of SNP's for which an algorithm was developed, we can't expect the results to behave as intended! At best, the admixture algorithms are a work in progress.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by John McCoy View Post
            Autosomal matching depends on detecting long pieces of chromosomes (millions of base pairs) that are identical between or among multiple people. From such long pieces, we can rely on the mechanics of meiosis and recombination to deduce relationships back several generations. If we are very lucky, we can sometimes (rarely) identify relatives as distant as about fifth cousins. Within that range, autosomal matching is found to be remarkably reliable.

            Admixture algorithms depend on a completely different set of assumptions: The method assumes the existence of relatively isolated populations that have existed over a long period of time, long enough so that they have accumulated a set of SNP's (mutations, in effect) that are unique to each such population. (We don't actually know that all of the "historical populations" we hope we can measure were ever in fact genetically distinct from each other—that's another of the hopeful assumptions!) The method also attempts to find that set of distinguishing SNP's for each population using statistical techniques applied to DNA samples from living people, who serve as proxies for their long-gone ancestors who belonged to the hypothetical historical populations. The algorithms depend on something like cluster analysis, principal components, or similar multivariate techniques to detect clusters ("reference groups") of people defined by their genetic similarity, and at the same time to detect the sets of SNP's that at once define the "populations" and provide the most reliable way to discriminate among them. But this is far from a simple exercise, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. Sample sizes have usually been small, and I strongly suspect they are generally too small to represent adequately the genetic diversity that was present in any real "historical population". It is clear, too, that the "populations" that emerge from the statistical analysis are not distinct enough to produce clear results in many cases. I'm sure the reliability of the algorithms isn't helped, either, by the fact that different vendors are now using very different sets of SNP's for autosomal testing! To the extent that admixture algorithms are being applied to data based on DNA samples that don't contain the same set of SNP's for which an algorithm was developed, we can't expect the results to behave as intended! At best, the admixture algorithms are a work in progress.
            Agree. My comments about possible Viking related components was in regard to admixture calculations not matches.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nygaard View Post
              Hello Lani, my mother is as scandinavian as you can be.her mother and father can trace there ancestry back to denmark and norway for more than 400 years.and my dna have me with"only 23% scandinavian dna"
              Wow,that's very strange. But it does make me feel better. Have you taken any other tests?

              A poster named "Spruithean" Post #18 I think on the second page of this thread recommended two "good reads" in shedding light on this kind of result and I found them excellent. I will post titles here, but you can go to the link on post 18:

              Genetic Genealogy using GEDmatch

              Understanding Patterns of Inheritance: Where Did My DNA Come From? (And Why It Matters.)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                Maybe they meant that matches go back 500 years. Otherwise, it does not make sense. They classify me as Ashkenazi but that could not be done on East European lines alone. I know that they know that I have a Levantine component (2000 years ago) Display of my Levantine and Italian components is preempted by my designation as Ashkenazi. In other words, if I were not Ashkenazi I could see my Italian and West Middle East components. This is why I need to go to Gedmatch.
                Here is what one FT responder wrote to me:
                "Anyone who contributed DNA to your genome back farther than five generations will have a greatly diminished overall contribution to your genome that is is most likely too insignificant to be detected or influence your ethnic percentage estimate."

                That is why I thought he meant the results don't go back more than several generations. Isn't that what you get out of this statement? Not that it applies just to matches, but that it would apply to percentages also?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by spruithean View Post
                  Autosomal DNA can't tell you your ethnic origins in the Viking period because it is far beyond 6-10 generations and the chances of sharing centiMorgans with a 6x great-grandparent are slim, and even slimmer (non-existent) in the Viking Age.

                  We all have pedigree ancestors and genetic ancestors. Read this link.
                  This is another fantastic link! In addition to the great links you sent about Genetic Genealogy Using Gedmatch and Patterns of Inheritance. Not exactly light reading, but hugely helpful. Why doesn't FTDNA have these on their webpages?

                  Question: If this is true, how come the brainiacs at Oxford Univ. were able to use atDNA to construct the phenomenal new "DNA Map of Britain and Ireland" published in journal Nature last year (I think):
                  http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-...-british-isles

                  Those results go back to Celts, Ango-Saxons, Romans, AND Vikings! Why is their autosomal test so different? And doesn't that just prove that atDNA CAN go back to ancient times?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                    Agree. My comments about possible Viking related components was in regard to admixture calculations not matches.
                    Wonderfully detailed info from John McCoy, but my frontal lobe imploded half way through. However, I will study it at length to try to understand. (perils of being a liberal arts person in a genetics forum)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                      If I was not clear, MO could not identify me as Jewish if they did not know my ancient lines. I don't see why adna cannot go back to Viking times. At FF there is a Ydna Viking Project.
                      You were clear. I just didn't understand it correctly. This is all a bit beyond my level of expertise.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Lani Friend View Post
                        Wonderfully detailed info from John McCoy, but my frontal lobe imploded half way through. However, I will study it at length to try to understand. (perils of being a liberal arts person in a genetics forum)
                        Indeed it does cause ones brain to implode. I frequently have to refer back to many sources just to make sure my brain hasn't flushed it all away.

                        Genetic Genealogy is a rapidly advancing field and it has come a very long way from what it once was. Back when I first tested my Y-DNA, my Y-chromosome terminal SNP (mutation) was entirely unknown. The one thing I find I enjoy with this hobby is that there is always a plethora of new information and new findings on the horizon.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Cause for hope

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            [QUOTE=Lani Friend;448771]Wonderfully detailed info from John McCoy, but my frontal lobe imploded half way through. However, I will study it at length to try to understand. (perils of being a liberal arts person in a genetics forum)[/QUOTE ]

                            Please read the McCoy article again (He put it very well if one has a stat background) There are two very different stat approaches, match analysis and admixture analysis. The 500 year limit does not apply to an admixture analysis such as MO. Admixture analysis can go back to ancient times.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Lani Friend View Post
                              You were clear. I just didn't understand it correctly. This is all a bit beyond my level of expertise.
                              In his blog, R Khan of MO stated that they deliberately withheld providing the specific components because the full picture would confuse Jewish viewers. Apparently there had been a few complaints from those who just wanted to know if they had a Jewish background. The full picture can be seen at Gedmatch

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                John McCoy Post

                                John McCoy's very well-explained post clarifies the differences betw admixture and match analysis. (I just had to force myself to reread it multiple times, reminding me of why I lasted 2 weeks in statistics class.)

                                It was the following quote from a FamilyTree staff member that confused me (this from someone who answers the questions sent in on the contact page):

                                "Anyone who contributed DNA to your genome back farther than five generations will have a greatly diminished overall contribution to your genome that is most likely too insignificant to be detected or influence your ethnic percentage estimate."

                                From this quote, it sounds like the results don't go back more than several generations, or they don't influence the MO percentages which from all the posts on this thread is clearly incorrect. I think now that his response just isn't correct, or I'm reading it wrong.

                                I have since read about the new "DNA Map of Britain and Ireland" (developed by Oxford Univ., published in the 2017/2018 issue of journal Nature and avail online) which uses atDNA to analyse BI population origins going back to the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans, and the Vikings (and the poor Danes who, in spite of their length tenure in the east, apparently left nothing behind but place names according to the results).

                                This shows how far back atDNA can go. I assume FT tests can do the same...? Am I right?

                                FamilyTree needs to have a whole separate page offering in its "scientific papers" section or in the FAQ section that explains all this. They don't do near enough to educate people.

                                I so appreciate the time and effort made by everyone who took the time to answer my questions!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X