Ancestry ethnicity results updated - accuracy improved

[sugarfizzle]

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

[sugarfizzle]

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

[sallyyorks]

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

[brigidmac]

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 :

[sugarfizzle]

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

[Yonnie3]

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.

[sugarfizzle]

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

[Yonnie3]

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?

[davidft]

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.