RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: sugarfizzle on Thursday 13 September 18 03:21 BST (UK)
-
Ancestry has updated my ethnicity results, and they still do not fully represent what I have found out from my paper trail, but they are considerably improved.
Paper trail says English for as far back as I can trace, but I know that many years ago we were invaded again and again by different countries. One exception being an Irish 4G grandparents and presumably his ancestors, but as I have been unable to find out anything else about him, he could have been born there to English parents.
Previous estimate -
48% Western Europe
33% Great Britain
6% Irish
1% Scandinavian
5 other regions
Today's estimate
94 % England, Wales and North Western Europe
3% Ireland and Scotland
3% Norway
So, still open to further improvement, but the estimates are getting better. Presumably as the number of British testers increase, the estimates will improve further.
Remains a source for 'amusement' rather than to be taken seriously, but I could agree with most of it now.
Regards Margaret
-
I cant get on DNA page to see updates
Site experiencing problems....last upgrading did acknowledgeWelsh percentage ....before then it was included with Irish
-
Also being discussed here http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=800396.
-
I think they're reining we Brits in a little (getting us prepared for post-Brexit maybe :'() but it does correspond more to my known ancestry!
I'm now:
55% England, Wales and Northwestern Europe
(specifically North Wales; West Midlands and NW England)
45% Ireland and Scotland
I was:
64% Ireland/Scotland/Wales
15% Europe West
14% Scandinavia
5% GB
Traces from southern Europe and Finland/NW Russia
Gadget
-
I have a question for someone more knowledgable than me.
How far back to these tests go? I mean that someone with entirely English ancestry might have ancestry from Norwegian and Danish Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, etc.
-
When I asked Ancestery a question about regions they said its from 2000 years ago.
-
Yes I am not sure now what to believe with it.
MY tree has oooodles circa 7,000 people in after YEARS of working it the hard way and now the easier way with internet...
Approximately
IN MY estimation. and I am no good at Maths.
so will work it out properly later but
60% guestimate is actually LEICESTERSHIRE and close counties.
28% Scotland FIFE
10% Cornwall
1% Irish
leaving 2% floating ...ONE family now link now to France!
and I have One or Two maybe born in Ireland
xin
-
Hi all,
I'm new to this site. Just saw this thread and wanted to comment. Ive just recieved my updated dna results and its completely different!
I was 37 % Scandinavian now im just 3% norway! I have lost iberian peninsula at 15% and eastern europe and middle east at lower percentages the rest was Great Britain.
Now I'm 92% England,Wales and Northeast europe 5% Ireland and Scotland 3% norway.
Its amusing if you read the "can also be found in" section which basically says all these areas overlap in the results anyway.
Very disappointed its such a load of old cobblers :(
-
Redman45, Most of us agree it's a load of old cobblers. But I'm not really disappointed, mainly because ethnicity is not the reason why I had my DNA tested.
A lot of people are disappointed though, especially if it's their only reason for testing.
But the updates, though wildly different from previous estimates, seem a bit more realistic, perhaps.
Regards Margaret
-
So, still open to further improvement, but the estimates are getting better. Presumably as the number of British testers increase, the estimates will improve further...
It wouldn't make any difference how many people take the test or where they are from.
For the purpose of 'ethnicity', your test is not compared with other testers.
-
It wouldn't make any difference how many people take the test or where they are from.
For the purpose of 'ethnicity', your test is not compared with other testers.
Who are they comparing with?
-
So, still open to further improvement, but the estimates are getting better. Presumably as the number of British testers increase, the estimates will improve further...
It wouldn't make any difference how many people take the test or where they are from.
For the purpose of 'ethnicity', your test is not compared with other testers.
I think I might disagree with that, sallyorks, though I don't know for sure.
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Viewing-Ethnicity-Results-from-AncestryDNA-US-1460088591488-2556?ui-force-components-controllers-recordGlobalValueProvider.RecordGvp.getRecord=1&r=4
Reference panel
The AncestryDNA® reference panel is a database of 3,000 DNA samples from people selected for their deep regional roots and documented family trees. To determine your ethnic breakdown, we survey your DNA at over 700,000 locations and determine how much ethnicity you share with the people from our panel in each region.
Regards Margaret
-
For the purpose of 'ethnicity estimates', they compare your test with their 'reference' samples. These are the very small number of stock samples they hold, and they are not samples from other customers.
-
Hi Margaret,
Yes i suppose they are more accurate in a way I'm mainly English, Welsh and Irish.
-
For the purpose of 'ethnicity estimates', they compare your test with their 'reference' samples. These are the very small stock samples they hold, and they are not samples from other customers.
Agreed, but the 3000 people they compare you to are other customers. As their database increases I think it possible, though again I don't know for sure, that their 3,000 people might change, or that they will look at them again more closely.
They have obviously re-examined them recently to change the estimates so dramatically.
Either way, I am not particularly interested in the ethnicity estimates, as I have said, and never will be.
It is the matches I am interested in. As a lot of people do it for ethnicity, if that improves further and if it becomes more reliable a lot more people might get tested, over 10 million with Ancestry at present.
That means more matches for me, and more matches for you, and maybe increased accuracy of ethnicity for those that are interested.
Regards Margaret
-
There are two main changes Ancestry have made. First, the reference panel that they compare your DNA has been increased from 3,000 to 16,000. Second, the way in which they do the calchas changed. Previously, they made comparisons at individual locations, but now they examine longer strands of DNA.
There’s a really good blog article by Donna Rutherford here: http://donnarutherford.com/finally-the-ancestry-dna-update-weve-all-been-waiting-for/ (http://donnarutherford.com/finally-the-ancestry-dna-update-weve-all-been-waiting-for/) which includes links to Ancestry’s omen article and longer technical paper.
-
For the purpose of 'ethnicity estimates', they compare your test with their 'reference' samples. These are the very small stock samples they hold, and they are not samples from other customers.
Agreed, but the 3000 people they compare you to are other customers. As their database increases I think it possible, though again I don't know for sure, that their 3,000 people might change, or that they will look at them again more closely.
They have obviously re-examined them recently to change the estimates so dramatically.
Either way, I am not particularly interested in the ethnicity estimates, as I have said, and never will be.
It is the matches I am interested in. As a lot of people do it for ethnicity, if that improves further and if it becomes more reliable a lot more people might get tested, over 10 million with Ancestry at present.
That means more matches for me, and more matches for you, and maybe increased accuracy of ethnicity for those that are interested.
Regards Margaret
They have 43 'regions' and the world wide reference samples of 3,000 divided by 43 gives an average of 69 samples per region. It wasn't that long ago that these reference samples were as low as about 25 for a 'region' such as England or Scotland . That means your sample was probably only being compared to about 25 samples for each 'region'.
These small numbers of reference samples are from people who ancestry claim to know the 'ethnicity' of. But the problems with that as I see it are ...
Most people, no matter how good they are at genealogy, cannot trace most of their ancestry back further than about the mid to late 17th century. Not comparing myself to professional genealogists, but in my own tree, I cannot trace ancestors on most lines back before the start of industrialisation. A period that saw a great deal of migration and inter marriage within the British Isles. Some I cannot even find before the 19th century. The records either never existed in the first places, have not survived over time or are not available.
Even if you could, by magic, get back 2,000 years, even that far back, people still moved around and intermarried. They were displaced by wars, famines and so on and so they migrated to another area, often nearby yes but different to dna 'regions'. The Romans conquered half of Europe and moved armies around for example. During the Norman Conquest, especially 1069 in the north of England, more displacement and so on
We cannot really ever know how accurate these 'reference' samples are and we are not party to these samples trees. Someone whose test is used in these reference samples could have proven, by the company, ancestors in parish records in the 17th century in a certain 'region' but that not does mean they were originally from that specific place, if you could trace them in paper records further back they could have come from somewhere in another 'region'.
The people of north western Europe are basically the same ethnicity. North France, Belgium, England, Ireland Scotland and Wales are the same people. They have been mixing and intermarrying for thousands of years. Yet ancestry claim they can split those peoples up into ethnic 'regions'. To be fair they are probably under a great deal of pressure from their customers who demand it, especially in the USA
Yes the 'matches' are worth pursuing, assuming the tree you match with is accurate, but the ethnicity part of the test isn't really to be taken seriously
-
There are two main changes Ancestry have made. First, the reference panel that they compare your DNA has been increased from 3,000 to 16,000. Second, the way in which they do the calchas changed. Previously, they made comparisons at individual locations, but now they examine longer strands of DNA.
There’s a really good blog article by Donna Rutherford here: http://donnarutherford.com/finally-the-ancestry-dna-update-weve-all-been-waiting-for/ (http://donnarutherford.com/finally-the-ancestry-dna-update-weve-all-been-waiting-for/) which includes links to Ancestry’s omen article and longer technical paper.
Even if the reference samples are now higher in number, and I suppose this must be an improvement of sorts, but this is still a USA companies idea of what makes someones ethnicity 'Irish' or 'English' etc. They are subjective opinions and also I am sure the companies are very much influenced by their American customers ideas about European history and by their demands to split North Western Europeans into boxes of 'regions', but these companies regions are loosely based on modern political maps
You see blogs where testers talk about having 'Celt', 'Viking' or 'Anglo-Saxon/Germanic' ancestors when these terms bear no real relation to ethnicity at all.
-
sallyorks, I repeat
'Either way, I am not particularly interested in the ethnicity estimates, as I have said, and never will be.'
Have you had your DNA tested? You appear to be very knowledgeable about how ethnicity estimates are created. Why if you don't believe in something do you study it to such great extent? (Rhetorical question, no answer required!!)
I haven't really studied ethnicity estimates and how they are calculated, as I have very little interest in it, but if they can improve the estimates in any way at all, it can only be to the good, for reasons I have already given - more matches for all who are interested in genealogy.
My studies are restricted to topics that interest me though I do try to read widely, including some topics that don't interest me. However, as I get older I find it harder than I used to to study anything at all!!
I'll read Donna Rutherford's blog this evening, sounds interesting, JaneyH_104.
I quoted the '3,000' figure from ancestry, but thought something must have changed to dramatically improve the estimates. Presumably the extra 13,000 added to their reference panel are from customers with whom they compare our DNA.
Regards Margaret
-
sallyorks
"Yes the 'matches' are worth pursuing, assuming the tree you match with is accurate, but the ethnicity part of the test isn't really to be taken seriously"
Why assume the match's family tree is accurate? I certainly don't, you have to do your own research before deciding whether a match is valid or not.
If you see this recent thread -
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=800323.0
One match has ancestry in all lines from countries other than England, with appropriate surnames. He had one family originating from a small cluster of villages in Surrey, England.
My family is nearly all from SE England, bar one ancestor from Ireland. Only one family is from this same small cluster of villages in Surrey.
Given that there are 2 known illegitamicies from this area, I don't have to assume his tree is accurate. I can explore possibilities and time frames, look for other matches with same surnames, etc, etc.
I'll never have proof, but I will have an idea.
Regards Margaret
-
sallyorks
... you have to do your own research before deciding whether a match is valid or not.
We know that, but many who purchase these 'ethnicity tests' don't. According to Good Morning Britain, a show viewed by millions of people, you can now 'forget about tracing your family tree', because 'now all you need to do' is take a simple saliva test, and as a bonus, you might find out you are related to 'Robert the Bruce' (born 1274) ::) or that 'your ancestors', date unspecified, are actually from the middle east ::). There is even a DNA company representative on the programme backing this errant nonsense up
I don't know which is worse, the programme excerpt or the comments underneath
Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid get their MyHeritage DNA results live on Good Morning Britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDKM2PN-kmU
-
I think ethnicity updates are only done if membership is up to date .
Because mine updated automatically but some matches come up as 'this person has not updated their ethnicity profile :
-
I think ethnicity updates are only done if membership is up to date .
Because mine updated automatically but some matches come up as 'this person has not updated their ethnicity profile :
I had to update mine initially, now it 'appears' to update them any time I look at them, though they haven't changed since my original post in September. New match's results obviously are up to date, older match's only if they have done the original update available in September.
So, not dependent upon membership as such - they might not have updated their ethnicity since September but could still be accessing and using their DNA data.
The discrepancies now seem huge between those who have updated and those who haven't, another reason to largely ignore them.
Regards Margaret
-
I think it's (dna story) a tweek-knob as in the paint program. Every time I happen to look at it, it's a bit different. I don't believe it's data is based on genetics at all. It's a colored-lite show. For one, my family has been American-based for hundreds (400) of years with immigrants coming in every other generation. Yet, for the longest time the paint-program kept indicating I'm not English but Irish-Welch-Scottish-Norwegian-Swedish-Iberian. Now it says I'm part French-check-german-polish-baltic. Other gene-browsers say I'm 1% Italian and not Iberian. Shouldn't American be it's own race by now? How long ago was the Norman invasion? The Anglo-Saxon invasion? And didn't King Henry from Sweden invade England? And then how about the Romans? Back then wasn't it customary for the invaders to force all the child-bearing women to have their children to pacify the population?
And to top off all the above, 10,000 years ago, the population could easily walk the coast to Africa because the ocean level was 400ft lower than today. The inhabitants of Britain became an isolated population after the glacial ice-melt, not before. England became unique due to inbreeding in my opinion.
-
Jvankort.
You say your family have been in USA for 400 years. Ethnicity is not about testing the past 400 years, but many hundreds, even thousands of years.
Assuming that originally there were only Native Americans in USA, your ethnicity estimates are supposed to be a reflection of where else in the world your ancestors were from.
A high proportion of my more distant matches at Ancestry are American, they all have Great Britain, Ireland or Scotland ethnicity, presumably because that's were they originated from.
America will never be a race as such, any more than England or any other country.
2 different classifications of race -
"The world population can be divided into 4 major races, namely white/Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid."
"The mid 20th century racial classification by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, divided humanity into five races:
Caucasoid (White) race.
Negroid (Black) race.
Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) race.
Mongoloid (Oriental/ Amerindian) race.
Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) race."
"England became unique due to inbreeding in my opinion."
Not sure exactly what you are implying, but as you said before, England has been invaded again and again in years gone by. That's why so many of us have a bit of Scandinavian or Iberian.
However, I still believe there is a long way to go before the estimates become accurate, if ever.
Regards Margaret
-
7,000 or so years ago, this is what the population of England looked like: https://blog.insito.me/slicing-cheddar-man-down-to-size-43798bf764fa
I've always been curious as to who has his y-dna today?
It didn't take very long to evolve into what we have today in England. Scientists should be able to tell us how many generations it takes to create a new group or race. With guinea pigs and pigeons I think it's around 16 generations or so?
-
7,000 or so years ago, this is what the population of England looked like: https://blog.insito.me/slicing-cheddar-man-down-to-size-43798bf764fa
I've always been curious as to who has his y-dna today?
It didn't take very long to evolve into what we have today in England. Scientists should be able to tell us how many generations it takes to create a new group or race. With guinea pigs and pigeons I think it's around 16 generations or so?
In my opinion you are not helping your case by posting that.
That case was widely derided on here (and in the press) after the television programme related to it had been shown. There is a thread on here somewhere if you want to search for it to see what was said.