> being pale, dark blonde, blue eyed, tall, nordic italian. I think I must be quite celto-germanic since north italian is like Austria/France/Switzerland ethnically. MyHeritage says I'm 50% italian, 30% greek, 9% balcanic and only 9% north-western european. They say I am fully mediterranean. LMAO I took the gedmatch analysis, and indeed I understand now that MH considers swedish longobards as "italians" since they came in Italy during the middle ages. These are the *real* results: Caucasus 10.41 Southwest Asian 7.56 Mediterranean 28.14 Volga-Ural 5.63 South Baltic 5.70 Western European 25.40 North Sea 17.17 So now I have something that matches my phenotype with my genotype (half of my DNA is nordic). 89% southern european my ass
Autachyan Exactly, how can there be an Italian ethnicity? Tyroleans and Lombards in the north. Greeks in the heel. Normans in Sicily. And, stylishly well-dressed people all over. 😃
There is not italian ethnicity indeed! In the north we are celto-germanic (basically we are like swiss and french) and in the south they are arab-phoenician-greeks and some roman in both.
Each company is also using the data from those who have tested with them. They don’t cross-reference the DNA tests through other testing companies. This is why your ethnicity results can vary somewhat from company to company.
I found my ancestors living on the Mohegan Indian Reserve from 1664-until post Civil war. So of course, we had "Native high Cheekbones" and a propensity to marry into native mixed families that includes Cornplanter Chief Joseph Brant stretched out to its extremities. So when My sisters DNA showed ZERO native 1% Jewish and 1% Polynesian I was shocked. This explains the problem of ance-stors at 10 and 13 generations losing their Maternal DNA for a European(R1b) Male population that eventually overwhelmed their haplogroup.
My Cherokee ancestor was NOT a "princess"! Getting tired of hearing that crap. However, she was of high status in the Cherokee nation. Otherwise, they would probably not have convinced her that it was "fashionable" (at that time) for a high status Cherokee to marry a Celt. (She married my Scottish ancestor.)
@Steve Hanlon I'm R1b Western European (Saxon) however they stated on my old DNA test that I was mostly 60% or better Western Irish , more Irish than nearly half of the people now born in Ireland today. How Odd I thought, Im from people who crossed the Atlantic very shortly after the Mayflower on my Dads side and Pure Anglo-Saxon-Norman on my Moms side. So where did all these Irish get into my genealogy? I guess mostly in the Maiden names of the wives of which many are largely missing exceptions being Kavennah and Hayes, very Irish roots.
LMAO... Oh you are so right. My family had the same claims so I took the Autosome, Y-67 DNA, and the mtDNA tests from FamilyTree, Plus the AncestryDNA, 23andMe and National Geographic --- and you can guess what all those results consistently show: 0% not a trace of Native Blood. Well there goes that family myth :-)
What amuses me is the "updates" they provide. Originally, about 3 years ago they showed me as 18% Italian. I figured I was a quarter Italian so no surprise. Gradually that migrated after a few 6-month updates, and I am now 22% French and Portuguese. Sorry nonna, the Italian went away. There was also 3% from Benin in Sub-Saharan Africa originally. That too went across the ocean and is now 3% Native American from Mexico. (?). Can't wait for the next update which will probably show me as being 72% Chinese.😀
Have you seen the commercial where a dude and his family completely change the cultures they celebrate because of one genetic test? It told me they just didn't understand genetics but how humans engage in cultural practices. It also felt like it came from the point of view of a person you wouldn't want to emulate... I'm not going to use particular words here but hopefully you get my drift. Like people that make assumptions about people based on ethnicity or nationality.
I researched and found all this information prior to taking a DNA test. I know it is not be 100% accurate, but it at least gives you a general idea of where your ancestors are from.
You make an important point that you can have ancestry that these DNA tests do not reveal. People should not take these ethnicity estimates as gospel, but with a grain of salt. Thanks for posting.
John NY there is a huge difference between Gospel and a grain of salt. These DNA tests correctly identify close relatives. Ans less correctly identify distant relatives. Which makes the accuracy closer to Gospel than the grain of salt. If you had a person listed as your grandfather due to documentation, but the DNA test shows that he is not related, the DNA test may reveal an adoption or other circumstance.
Thankful to have done geneology research the old fashioned way for decades. The documentation became even more useful after getting dna's vague/broad results. For instance, a Western Europe conclusion doesn't tell me much. Ancestry.com does list the Western Europe possibilities but from that alone how do I know exactly what one is relevant to me? At least this dna test doesn't say; however, documents compiled over the years such as ship's logs and census records do narrow the conclusion. Summary: my research gave me more precise information, the DNA results confirmed I'm on the right track.
Especially as they use such vague terms such as middle eastern, European, African ect. The middle east and north Africa were conquered by turks and arabs, so don't have any real meaning today. European is too vague also as we know eastern or western, British and iberia ect are different ethnicities.
Andrew Fishburn no we don’t know that. Mideast is Mideast Europe is Europe Africa is Africa and if you do not know the origins of Russia you are lost and misleading people. Then you get into the aches of races and some involuntary mixing in early history. Stop teaching what the communist schools of evolution have indoctrination acted you in.
Petro Krasnov There are many ethnicities within Britain and Europe. What I said is perfectly true and backed up by genetics. No communist indoctrination here.
The most surefire thing you can get from a DNA test is your haplogroup. At least with that, you can determine a general region you're from based on the sub-clade. Saying that you're specifically 70% x and 30% y, however, is rather tricky.
In medical school, we had to learn genetics and genetic counseling. We had a small group session with several hypothetical cases. One of the cases was designed to teach us how to identify spontaneous genetic mutations. The patient in the case had a genetic disease that no one else in the family tree had. So we all nodded sagely and said it was a spontaneous mutation. Our prof smiled and said, in his posh British accent “Yes, well, in your career, you’ll deal with cases like this, and you’ll come to realize that there’s no way the man this woman is married to is the father of this child, so you’ll lie through your teeth and call it a “spontaneous mutation”, because it’s a lucky man who knows his own father.”
Studies into non paternal events have found anywhere from 1% to 15+% of named fathers are not the biological father. If you have done genetic genealogy for any length of time, you'll find out about it.
Took the ancestry test years back and it said I had 10% Spanish...not possible since my nearest Spanish ancestor was 1200. A short time later the results updated and surprise...no Spanish. But I didnt really take the test for the ethnicity results...I took it to connect with others researching same lines and in that respect it has been very useful. Have probably contacted at least 50-60 and found a few surprise kin. Historically speaking...folks moved around so trying to pinpoint ethnicity is very difficult. For example if you ancestors are from the British isles they likely came from English (Germanic), British (Irish and Scottish), French, Scandinavian, etc.
Did a DNA test on my granddaughter at her birth (2008) in order to help pediatrician's awareness of genetic diseases as I did not know her father. Showed 6% Native American, which made sense as my mother-in-law was NA, so NA on maternal side confirmed. Retook granddaughter's DNA in 2020 (different company) and WHOA, NA was determined to be 0.1% The whole thing makes me crazy. Glad I have so much paper genealogy on granddaughter's maternal side...The paternal side will remain a mystery until granddaughter turns 18 and her mother tells her who her father is. There is a long discussion we could have about keeping birth secrets.
I’m picturing a few guys in a warehouse puffing on cigars, randomly picking out Ping-Pong balls from one of those bingo rotary things, and just assigning whatever to whomever.
While that is a funny image, I know just enough about math to be able to say it isn't the case. For instance, if that were the case, I would expect vastly differing results from my brothers and I. They weren't.
My 23andme was too accurate in line with my knowledge of my background / heritage, all from having no evidence on me except my saliva... it told me I was half one ethnicity / half another ethnicity, the exact ethnicities I always knew, then it did a further break down... It was too scarily accurate
@@africanfitnessconcept I expect you to have learned a little about science now that it's a year later. Just the level of ignorance you're spitting is scary. Oh, I was born in 1996 in Cape Town, South Africa, and my name is as it is in my username. You may now access my files and know my ethnicity breakdown, origins, health insights, intelligence estimate, and physical traits (yes, they can determine that by your DNA, the more advanced companies usually do it)! After taking a DNA test, you can download your raw DNA data in which you can then upload it to other genealogy sites for further insights and analysis, and believe it or not, it is still equally accurate even if you're not using your real name or birthday!!
On my mother's side, the family tree showed pure French-Canadians all the way up to France and French came up in my DNA test. On my father's side it was supposed to be Irish, and yup Irish came up with some Scandinavian. Totally accurate and confirming the family tree for my case.
Did Ancestry dna. My dad was over 1 half French Canadian. I have all the ancestors and their birthplace and names going back to France. I received 0 French ancestry. I have 19 percent northwest Europe centered mostly in England and Channel Islands and 24 percent scottish, 15 percent irish 8 percent wales. Where did the French go?
@@chongtak will I would but she has passed on. I know I am genetically related to the other French relatives but I think most came from Brittany. There lies the answer.
@@terryannmaes5538 I just saw in another video that a lot of results about French ancestry were rounded to other Europeans because DNA tests are illegal in France and they don't have a lot of data. Some 100 % French claimed that their results showed South English Ancestry. I hope I am clear explanation. I am not a native English speaker
You're welcome. Glad to help. Hope you'll watch the others on our channel. And if you have a question or a video suggestion, don't hesitate to reach out.
Thank you! This is the best video on the subject that I've seen. There are so many things to consider in the comparative analysis of DNA. The key is to remember that the results received are estimates and ideas of where to look further in your own personal search. They are not the absolute, totally comprehensive answer they sometimes appear to be. :)
Can you explain what you mean further? The ethnicity results are not set in stone. If they tell you that your ancestors are from Europe or Africa then your ancestors (at least the portion whose DNA you have) were from Europe and Africa, but if you already knew you were African-American then you probably knew this origin of your ancestors already. If they say your ancestors were from Belgium and Senegal, then I would take a step back and start to ask how they got so specific. I haven't been convinced that the country level ethnicity results are accurate.
Family History Fanatics most AA have a large admixture due to slave owners and slaves having children which would make us more than just African and from my admixture my non African ancestors are French/German , Scottish and Spanish. Also in slavery their were mixtures of slaves Fri. different areas and it goes on. It helps us understand our history . Not all if us arrived off if the Mayflower and have a papertrail from then to now. Please consider that before responding. Alot of AA doesn't know where they're from (genealogically). So this gives us something to go on and start the hunt for who we are and from whom we descended.
Many groups the world over have similar mixing, by force or by choice. As you pointed out, a lot of mixing took place even from populations in Africa between slaves. Our point is always, DNA can trace ethnicity back to the continental level accurately. DNA will identify close relations with confidence. When attempting to identify specific regions, countries or cities, DNA accuracy drops dramatically.
Family History Fanatics can’t trace my heritage back accurately because I don’t know my father. Zero information about him. Not everyone has this ability to trace stuff back
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been telling people this over and over! (Mainly that we can’t be assured to find dna of one particular ancestor who was 9 or 10 generations back, and that genes from Native American tribes who no longer exist as a distinct tribe might not be distinguishable.) I’m going to show this to a lot of people!
Thank you, ive been trying to tell people this for ages, but couldn't put it into words as well as you have...Now I can just tell them to come here ....So glad and thank you for a very informative video......
I hope as millions of more people are tested that the ethnicity results can become "accurate" but I'll wait until the statistics show they are before I recommend the results.
I enjoyed watching your video and I have a small remark to make about people's expectation from these DNA results, ... Personally think that the actual DNA test is very accurate and will give very similar technical results regarding haplogroups etc.. ...but the problem is how to put the results into a geographical/ethnic context and this is where DNA Labs differ in their interpretations. If we look at your results they identify you are 99-100 percent European and that should be sufficient for most people who are curious to find out if they have other ethnicities in their DNA.....however those who want more precise locations within western Europe ...that could be problematic and difficult to establish. Maybe as more people take the tests and the reference samples are bigger and more accurate ....maybe then the interpretation of the results would be closer than they are now.
Exactly. People's expectations (and how much emphasis they put on these ethnicity/admixture results) needs to change. That happens by sharing the message and educating people.
One thing that I found when I focused specifically on one parent and did the research and necessary paperwork, it proved ethnicity better than any DNA test. Since the parent and family I was searching pretty much all originated from the same place in Germany going way back to early 1600's. Do the work it helps. Also, countries and boundaries have changed through time. That is important to remember.
Good advice. One reason paper research will show this is beyond your 3rd Great Grandparent, there are some people who you are not related to. That's just how DNA works.
@ladeirose S , Kind of disagree with your 1st part of your comment. You are probably or might be right on your family but doubt your correct on many other people ancestry. God but think you are 100% so right on your last part on what you said on how boundary lines change and also lost countries like Yugoslavia now. My 1 parent family side is from northern Italy and my other parent family is from southern Italy. When I did my DNA, I was very surprised to find out like I am 16% French in me and with a few other things. So now I think it explains on why many people told me my whole life that I don't look 100% Italian like I was always told. And I know for a fact I was not adopted etc... cause way too many other similarities with many other family members. Lots of these especially older Italian people in my family flipped out from this. I do know they are going by on what other older family ancestors told them. And after doing research on this makes sense to me in my case. The French and France use to own or control especially northern Italy. Think that happen during or before Napolean days. And also seen on old maps that showed France was much bigger back than what we know it as today or past 100 or 1,000 years and covered big part of northern Italy. And from last I read on it is, don't think France owned it but France even actually controlled big part of southern Italy even down in Naples's area.
I did both Ancestry and 23andMe. I have a fair amount of paper record. 33sndMe was quite accurate. I am not sure I would trust it for trace ancestry but if they shade a part of a country in a dark shade you can be sure you have ancestors from that country.
I knew about my family history and my DNA results were right even down to the quite small part of Britain and Europe both sides of my family were from.
Yes, I think if you take it as a list of your ethnicities and mostly this or that, the tests are pretty accurate. If you try to be literal that you are 18 or 33 percent of something, you may notice a lot more descrepancies. His results were similar at a macro level.
Well, Finland DOES belong to what is called Scandinavia, but the language is more related (or at least has common roots with) to Turkish and Hungarian. So it's not a Scandinavian language. Maybe that makes Finland NOT Scandinavian?
Mine didn't. According to my genealogy my family have been in England at least 500 years. We have a Saxon surname. DNA claimed we were Irish. Tried a different company and it said we're Irish and Scottish. I have a couple of Irish and Scottish ancestors in my genealogy but the vast majority of us are English. I would understand if I had mostly broadly northwest European but I didn't get any of that. My DNA matches were mostly English and our family trees match up. Researching further I found we are related to the Cheddar Man, pre-Celtic English. My best guess is when invaders came, my ancestors stayed in England and others left for Scotland and Ireland? The DNA doesn't match.
@NA Phiri Our family with the Saxon surname has genealogy dating us back to London in the 16th Century. While yes, he could have changed his surname, I doubt all of the women married into the family in that time were Scottish or Irish. We've been in the Greater London area for a very long, long time and other parts are mostly Devon and Somerset. I've matched a lot of our family tree with other peoples family tree. My first thought was that someone had slept around but the names match up. There aren't enough Irish and Scottish people marrying into the family for us to be mostly Irish and Scottish. We're not a grand family from a line of important people. Mostly just generations of working class, some craftsmen and some artisans. We have court records, church records, newspaper, guilds, census etc... If my family is matching up with other families, where is this mostly Scottish and Irish? What are we saying here? Most of London and southwest England are Irish and Scottish immigrants? Forgive me but Devon and Somerset aren't exactly known for drawing in immigrants with the vast wealth of their moors and tiny Exmoor ponies. I would expect at least some broadly northwestern European but we have none. And I expect lots of English and maybe a bit of Irish and Scottish. Both of these testing companies are out of whack.
Mine matches up with my tests, they coinside with my family story.. I did 23 and Ancestry. Pretty darn close. I dont understand dna. My question is my great great parents thru my mother thru her fathers mother was half Irish and have English because her mother was Ireland 🇮🇪 her father from England 🇬🇧 . So I am 9% English and Irish my Aunt was half and same English and Irish. So this adds up. But how can I distinguish from my matches who were related to my great greats???? Help, please and thank you!
Thank you for the video. I talked about doing a DNA test with my mom to better understand my biological father's side of the family. I know my mom is my biological mom, and kinda the sad story of why I'm here, but I was hoping to confirm some things with a DNA test (like if my grandmother on my bio-dad's side really is native american). But your video has definitely helped me be better prepared going into this with my expectations. I wish more people would see this video- it feels like a LOT of people really misunderstand what DNA testing is all about. Although I know not everything (every ancestor) will show up, it is definitely something I still want to do. Thank you.
Definitely do a test. Test your Mom as well. Then in your matches look for those that match you but not your mom. These would be on your father's side and connecting with them might help you understand your bio-dad more.
Thank you for your reply! My mom had actually gotten me a DNA kit since I discussed it with her, but I had wanted the 23&me since that one actually has a medical side to it as well. Not knowing the family history also means not knowing the family medical history- which means things have been a bit frustrating to help get diagnoses or just getting better ideas of what medical issues I could be facing in the future. However, my mom had gotten me an AncestryDNA kit. It is likely cheaper than the 23&me kit, but I likely should do a comparison test with my mom with the same testing company, shouldn't I? Thanks again for your reply and your videos.
Great video and definitely a subject that needs a lot of coverage. DNA can be extremely useful for everyone but is so misunderstood, especially now when the testing is still being refined and new population sets are being tested.
A lot of DNA passed around through war, invasions, occupations throughout history and pre-history. Scandinavian (aka Vikings, aka Norman's=William the Conqueror. Add British, Irish, Scandinavian and Ancestry matches the others in the example above. Great video and explanations.
I think you’re complicating it more than you need too. I don’t think most people are that worried about every percent matching up perfectly. I took the two largest percentages and now if someone asks me what ethnicity I am, I just say my ancestry is mostly British and German. I don’t say, well I’m British and German, but I also have a little Scandinavian, Spanish, Italian, middle eastern, and about 12 various other ethnicities in me. I’m not trying to tell someone all of my ingredients, just what I am largely coming from. The ancestry dna kits work just fine.
An ancestry test by many of the popular companies today will break down where they say you are from based on country/region. The problem here is that this is based on modern samples of people from these countries. A lot of people from a lot of countries already have some genetic mixture, large autosomal studies in fact show that a lot of southern Europeans have some African type admixture and that many eastern Europeans and especially Russians have east Asian admixture as well. The problem with the simple ancestry tests you take is that if a person from a certain region matches their samples for that region (meaning that if a person from Spain that was part of the sample test took the test himself) he would come out saying he is 100% from that region. Which at least at face value is a true statement for today where people are and what a lot of the genes in that region are like, but it really isn't broken down on a racial or ethnic level as some readers of their ancestry imagine it is. For example I see people look at their results and see things like Iberian peninsula 40% and they assume that this means they are 40% southern European and that their next assumption is that this is a special kind of white people. Yet actual DNA analysis on people from southern Europe shows a plethora of genetic mixture within the population, which isn't shown on a simple ancestry test. This is why people taking ancestry tests need to understand exactly what they are looking at, and stop projecting their racial/ethnic assumptions as they do so. i.imgur.com/IuSFMHs.jpg
This is what people don't understand about modern dna testing. They are only going to show if you match the population they are using for Iberian or Europe West. They aren't looking at deep ancestry or admixture in these populations.
@@jackieblue1267 what you don't understand is that dna from old bones is compared with dna from modern day people from the region of where the bones were discovered.
@AJR - Companies like 23&Me, Ancestry don't use dna from ancient samples like Yamnaya, Rathlin, Hinxton etc samples etc. They use modern population samples. They are mainly geared to US populations who are trying to find their ancestry in the last few hundred years. You can get your results from 23&Me and Ancestry etc and download your results and run them through third party resources which can allow you to compare your dna to old samples and find out how much Yamnaya you are for example but 23&Me, Ancestry doesn't do this.
Mine was very accurate. It exceeded my expectations. When I uploaded my father's raw DNA results to gedmatch it was extremely accurate. It also linked me immediately with my dad's profile. Stop confusing people, please.
It should link you with your dad and any other close relatives profiles because that is straight one-one comparison of DNA. Ethnicity results are done using a different algorithm and completely unrelated to relative matching.
great video, and i see your point exactly. i took the Ancestry DNA and uploaded my file to My Heritage and My Family Tree. the results got combined on some and certain "trace" elements were exchanged (my Native American via Ancestry, somehow became Eskimo/Inuit on Heritage and My family gave me Oceania & Siberia!) strange but true
Bravo one of the best guides to potential for misinterpretation of DNA results. When I started studying my legal ancestry I realized that the furthest person back I could id through written records, I suspect much further back than most in the US, I was disappointed that was as far back as I could get. Somewhere along there I started thinking about the DNA and realized that in spite of carrying the man's Y chromosome, most likely identical to his, the possibility that I didnt have even a single nucleotide from him outside that Y was more likely than not. So even though you might have legally and genetically descended from a particular person does not mean you have any significant genetic similarity to that person. We might someday be able to trace a man's fatherline back through the Y chromosome and be able to trace woman's motherline back through the mitochondria for several thousand years but that really tells little about what you have in common with any one of those ancestors beyond your grandparents really. You likely bear little resemblance to that person 10 generations back, they were very different, as different as your "unrelated" next door neighbor.
I wasn't testing for percentages, I was testing for just a genealogical location standpoint. And surprisingly, although each of the different companies I was tested with didn't exactly match each other, they all did match my actual family tree information! I encourage testing with more than one company to get a more accurate result.
I think you're on the right path. Take DNA tests to solve genealogical questions or help others do the same. The ethnicity results aren't as valuable or accurate as people thing.
I add onto my comment below by saying this though: Some reference populations it is possible to know exactly. My dads father was 100% from the exact same town. This was proved in 2011 when my dad first tested and came out as exactly 50% polish/Ukrainian. The town they come from is RIGHT on the border between Poland and Ukraine. They speak Ukrainian there, and are ethnically Ukrainian, but because the border moves frequently it’s currently officially in Poland. My dad actually has a haplogroup named after him. Turns out, all of the residents of this town up and moved to Pennsylvania/New Jersey at the exact same time. A couple thousand people left, and left behind like 200 people. My dad, and some other families, are the first people who were tested. Now, this haplogroup has hundreds of people who are all genetically related, and all have records of immigrating from this same town. People left in the town were tested, and their dna matches. So my dad knows exactly, down to the mile, half of where his dna is from.
Wow, my great grandfather moved to Pennsylvania, new Jersey in 1890 from Poland. I'll try to find the town of where he comes and see if it has something related with your family.
I see this is 3 years ago. Multiple updates. Did you do any crigenetics? My African DNA ranges from 82% - 96 %. One of their test has me at 50.2% European.....What? They also got my maternal Haplogroup wrong. They have me as Haplogroup B instead of HV.
Can anyone answer this Question. I recently did AncestryDNA. My Native American DNA didn’t show up. But I did My heritage my indigenous showed 3% of Native of America
Brits, Irishmen, and Scandinavians are all Northwest Europeans and genetically very to each other. Northwest Europeans form a single genetic cluster and hard to separate on a genomic level. Its basically saying you're a mix of different NW European ethnicities with British being the dominant component.
Also, what is missing from the History of the Western Civilization is the Moors and African Traders and Journeyman that were part of Europe from 700 AD to 1505 AD. Also Marco Polo learned about trade with East Asia from his Father and Uncle which means trade existed more than we realize around Africa, Europe and Asia. People mixed. Obviously the Mediterranean is just a nest of hedonism!! The most famous love story of all Anthony and Cleopatra or as simple as Helen Of Troy. Invaders coming from all points, taking off the womenfolk!! Yeah, we don't have a clue as to who we really are.
Moors and African Traders and Journeyman were a minsicule portion of the overall European population for the short time they interacted with portions of Europe before the Reconquista. However, point taken
@@ryan7864 the Arabs and the moors occupied the iberian pininsulla for 800 years before the Reconquista lol what do you mean by "a minsicule portion"?. You were basically our bitch back in the day
Thank you so much. My great grandmother was a Arawak Indian and yet my DNA said I am only 2% Indian. I couldn't understand that information, but you helped me a lot with your explanation.
You echoed my conclusions about ethnicity. I also compared my results across companies and found what you did. Since my genealogy is well documented back to the British Isles in most of my lines with only a little German input and a little French input, I looked at the differences or breakdowns each company gave me, and figured that the British Isles were also colonized over centuries, and in the British Isles, there are Scandinavians, French, and Germans, so any breakdown into these populations added up with DNA that is identifiable as British is all still probably British, especially Scandinavian. In any case, I think the final conclusion has to be European is European is European. Other traces may or may not be real, but if they are really small, they may reveal something from 500 or more years ago, and for genealogical purposes, that information is not very helpful. Thank you for all your enlightening, helpful videos.
This Made more sense. I have Italian and Portuguese great grandparents. I took myheritage and ancestery DNA. Italian isn't in any of them. But my Iberian Peninsula is in both. My Irish/Welsh/ Scottish was 2 30% which makes sense with my great grandpa who was half Irish, my grandma was half Welsh and my other grandpa was half Irish. Ancestry told me I am 56% Great British. Which makes no sense. I am planning on running my DNA from ancestry through some other sites and see if my Italy shows up at all. I did get between 3-6% Caucasus, which is a high portion of Sicily. But this actually helped me a lot figure out what my DNA is. I do genealogy as a hobby and my Italian goes back pretty far.
Ancestry tests were Italians biggest nightmares. You all tell everyone "Imma hundrit p'cent". Bullcrap! I love hearing Italian people back peddle when they get their results. Lol
Its about your gene pool...For example I could have a random jump and be lets say....4% korean but when my siblings or parents or even grandpartents take it they might not have any korean in them.
SomeSketchyDude 781 ... You missed the point maybe. I was having a laugh at all the Italians who want everyone on planet Earth to think they are 100% Italian.
Andrew - I have been watching a ton of DNA results videos in the last few weeks, and NOONE even thinks about the history. They all claim to wonder where the iberian ancestry comes from, or the scandinavian ancestry, or why theres is both irish and british ethnic groups, etc. History needs to be taken into account as well. But NOONE ever does that. Every time I see the Ireland/Scotland/Wales ethnic group and then Great Britain as a seperate ethnicity, I always ascribe the Ireland/scotland/wales group to being Celtic - because they speak other languages such as Cornish, Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Scots gaelic and those were celtic languages. I ascribe the great britain group to be the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes that came to England from Germany who did not speak any celtic languages and their germanic languages eventually evolved into english!! There are rumours from history of the spanish armada after they were defeated by england around 1588, where the armada boats were wrecked off the coast of ireland, so spanish blood gets introduced into Ireland. They call those descendants the Black irish - best modern example is Pierce Brosnan - with their black hair, blue eyes and olive skin. The red hair of ireland, I thinks comes from the celts. Then there is the scandinavian ethnicity. Noone seems to remember their history of 1000 years ago when the vikings were raiding the british isles all over the place - england, scotland, ireland -and possibly wales - so yes there would also be scandinavian ethnicities as well. Andrew - Is there any chance you could make a video on this history and how it explains the DNA? This is what I have picked up from my own reading and from all the videos I have seen. Thank you.
if these DNA readings are taking into account the past 200 years only then surely it would rule out the anglo saxons arriving in the 600s and the vikings too, they would just show up as British ethnicity right? Personally myself being half British half Peruvian it was interesting to see 70% welsh/irish blood, 19% native andean american and 3% african (from senegal, mali and congo, all countries that were heavily involved in the slave trade), the rest were Spanish/French and German and even 1% jewish (I assume Sephardic Jew). I assume my mum being mestiza (half native half european like most the population there) had Irish blood in her, or if it was the same Spanish group that allegedly migrated to ireland during the end of the armada. being 3/4 european I have white skin but I feel like I look Mediterranean european can't really see any northern european features apart from something in the eyes they are greeny, white genes seem very weak, anyone with 60% or less european doesn't look even close to white to me, personally I don't agree with the promotion of mix racing either way but it's pretty cool to see I'm a walking historic genome of western colonisation
I have a great interest in genealogy and have done a lot of research about my ancestors so I already know most of my ethnic background. I've thought about getting a DNA test done just to see how it compares to my research. However, seeing videos of people who've had conflicting results from two or more DNA tests has given me pause. Your explanation really clarifies things. I think I'll skip the DNA tests and stick with my own research. Thanks for saving me money! :)
I would take the DNA test, not for the ethnicity results, but for the cousin matching. DNA is a record of relationships and can connect us with cousins that a paper trail might not.
Thank you for explaining this. People have no idea how much our ancestors moved around and intermingled. It is important to understand the history of the regions when looking back into family history.
Why would it disappoint if I'm not related to that indian princess? Means she's not off the table ;P And btw you didn't ruin anything for me, this is super interesting! In a couple hundred years we could be the reference group for our decendants :)
yes, because Britain has been invaded by everyone 😉and English dna would have all those tribes that cheerfully invaded the UK, including Scotland, Ireland and even Wales...please please if you think you are British/English etc READ BRITISH HISTORY!!!
This is what makes the testing companies walk a fine marketing line. IF they told everyone in explicit terms what the ethnicity really meant (including accuracy and repeatability figures), it would bore everyone to death and no one would buy their product. The real value in DNA testing is the genealogical matching NOT ethnicity. Unfortunately, the tests are marketed primarily as an ethnicity test since it is a lot easier to understand that you are part Scandinavian, part Middle Eastern and part East Asian. But companies have to make money otherwise there wouldn't be the test data to match genealogically.
I don't know what's included in the book Great Britain history but it is a known fact that Roman army killed off in one Battle most of the mail population of Londonderry or Brittania as it was Known . And so nature being what it is women without Men , And so what it means to be British is To be Italian in part As the Roman army was mainly made up of indigenous Italian Men . Ironically they have a statue to the leader of the British rebellion in London her name was Boudicca 75,000 The vast majority of the male population were Killed that day While the Roman army only took 500 casualties according to their records .
Mikedoors13: That Roman army perhaps were mercanary soldiers for hire and might have been anything....but then the English did the same thing in the US fighting the Revolutionary War and hired Hessans.
mikedoors13 Your history is wildly inaccurate, friend. Many Roman soldiers were never in the Italian peninsula. Non-Romans eventually dominated the legions! Read some basic recently published early British history/prehistory, and Roman history. Completely different from your impressions.
Having had other family members test and receiving very similar results from ancestry DNA I am very confident in the results i received and the regions. I think comparing all those companies apples to apples is a problem because some may not have the same amount of population DNA to test against so a lot are getting lumped together etc. Out of all the tests ancestry seems to be the most accurate. I think you have it wrong because u are basically north european.. across all tests just the specific regions differed and that's probably due the the regions they are testing against . Stick with ancestry DNA people
Since your other family members have a large amount of similar DNA to you, it is not suprising that the results they received line up with your results. Ancestry is using their algorithms and are consistent in saying that such and such DNA is from such and such place. From a continental level, they are correct (along with every other testing company). However, there is so much disparity when you look at the regional and country level between companies and none of them have made a strong enough case that their algorithms are the most accurate - otherwise we would see a coalescing around one standard for analysis.
Their estimates lined up exactly with what we know of my family tree. They even narrowed it down to a single county in Munster, Ireland based on my "cousin matches" before I had started creating my family tree with them. Which was totally 100% correct. Perhaps it works better for Europeans than for Americans due to the sheer amount of admixture in American people? Same for my mate, he's 25% Polish, 25% Irish and 50% English and aside from a 2% Scandinavian thrown in there those figures are pretty much exactly what came up. I really think it's just the fact that American DNA is so mixed up it's hard to pinpoint exact places etc.
I've researched this subject quite a bit, and Ancestry.com is actually one of the least accurate. 23 and Me is the one most geneticists will swear by as the best of the commercial tests, with Ftdna being another one. However Ancestry.com's test is the best for connecting to relatives as they have the largest database of users. The newcomer, Myheritage DNA, is an interesting case because their founder populations are based on their extensive use of their user's genealogical trees...they claim to have the most regions of all the tests out there... All this said, I've not used 23&me...but have uploaded my Ancestry.com results to Ftdna and Myheritage, and all 3 are so different, I now just claim to be European... they're just too different from each other. I know I can say, without a doubt that I'm 3-5% Caucasus region (Turkic Armenian, Iranian, Syrian, etc..) because that % is in all 3 results...but Ancestry has me at nearly 90% British, Ftdna at 56% Scandinavian, Myheritage has me at a mix that matches up with my genealogy the best...except it gives me 7.5% Italian/Greek lineage, but the other two test don't have any Italian/Greek.
Joel Waechter i concur!. These tests are atleast 95% accurate. ~its just sometimes people get thrown a curve when thier family rumors come out to be simply JUST rumors
Joel Waechter Could the results be affected by how many countries each test has tested on? I see on their respective websites that ancestrydna only has 35 countries while 23andme has 54.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I know, but I had an isolated ethnic group on one side, and about 500 years of documentation across the other, so the test came back the way I expected. In fact, it gave me an aspect that I had not considered, but then when I went back through the trees, and explored the origins of certain family names and their locations, the research did indeed confirm that ethnic group in the proportion the DNA test indicated.
I took the Ancestry, it was a gift , and was mildly surprised and yet not because, We cannot change who we are . I see so many people upset about what they find out , What is the point? "You are who you are" can't change that . If one is into family history a genealogy, it is definitely interesting a great series of video and explanations .
I had my done and the results were exactly what I thought it would be from knowing my Dad's family tree and where my Mom was probably from. Basically 75% Welsh and English. 25% Scottish and Irish. No surprise for me.
We have string genealogy records that are pretty well verified, so I don’t see any need for a DNA test. I think these are pushed so much as money maker for the companies.
Having DNA is extremely useful for people that were adopted and for people that have no idea about their family history, so it gives them a good clue of where to look for the records
My Mom is half British....her Mom was born in Britain and Ancestry pinned my Mom's British percent to Northumbria....the correct area for where my Mom's British family is. All in all, its a fun toy but no major surprises on 4 of the kits we've bought. My husband's (our 5th purchase) was a bit of shock until I did his father's paternal and maternal lines....despite moving to America several generations back, they never married anyone who wasn't Quebecois so my husband ended up being 100% French. Ancestry can determine from DNA that my husband's French is Quebecois and mine (and my father's) is Acadian. (Which is correct.) The big thing about DNA is that its helping families that have moved apart in the last generation to get back together. We've reconnected with cousins that my parents played with as kids, with adult kids of my parents' cousins.
Thank you for your video. My husband is a DNA forensic scientist and he said a similar explanation, that there are only certain markers that can be used and its only an estimation. Not very accurate.
hello Im peruvian with a lovely and international dna 😜 i love your vídeos they are helping me with my research dna and family tree and my english is getting better day by day thank you very much greetings from geneva switzerland
we all aware their are many in each country but during the Atlantic slave trade they were all bunch together all west africa was colonize from cameroon nigeria mali congo ect
I'm so glad that your uploaded this video. The new Ancestry.com DNA update was, I'm sorry, the most inaccurate results ever. I'm part Cuban with a long line of Spaniards, yet it shows now that I'm only French, British, and Ireland! So, I personally think that Northern Spanish DNA probably is very different from Southern Spain, knowing the history. So, I think that Northern Spaniards do look somewhat French genetically. Maybe?
I am not up to snuff on my Iberian genetics and invasion/migrations. I do know that there has been lots of mixing in the Iberian peninsula with France.
yeah the irish and spanish results seem to be messed up. I was given complete irish even though the majority of my family are from sevilla. the ancestry dna is a complete waste of time, you’re better off just looking at records and judge your heritage through that.
A good thing about these DNA sites is that you can compare your DNA with others. If you share a specific stretch of DNA, normally a minimum length of seven centimorgans (cM), then you very likely share a common ancestor. Then you can triangulate with someone on your known family tree who shares that same stretch of DNA. You might be able to determine how you both are related. There's some detective work involved and you will likely encounter some barriers that you might be able to pass later.
Not only overlap of traits/genes/markers but also migration Since the dawn of our species we've been migrating all over the place it's a practice that has is and always happen Just imagine 500 years ahead what will people say about us today in a relation to them just to get some people thinking
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics This is youtube so people will debate about anything on any channel, 90% of the people who watched this video probably clicked it 10 seconds after watching some other video on subjects as varied as why radical feminists are trying to destroy humanity to a man sitting staring at the camera silent for 8 hours (a real thing this guy does every fucking day).
One difference in the interpretation seems to be the confusion of British for English, and I see you distinguishing Irish from British. English is a historically a term for the generally Western Germanic peoples, right, the invading Germanic tribes who displaced or mingled with the Celtic peoples, or "British" of "Brittany,"; and British is more appropriately a term describing the Celtic peoples -- Irish, Scot, Welsh and Breton who inhabited the British Isles. Great Britain is not exactly the same as the United Kingdom, the broader, more extensive distinction, but both comprise a variety of gene pools. Scandinavians, loosely speaking, by the way, are Northern Germanic peoples. So you see, modern political distinctions muddy it up and mean little to genetics.
Unfortunately, the DNA testing companies are not in the business of teaching geopolitics. They use the names of geopolitics that roughly align and so rather than trying to invent my own names I follow their naming conventions and try to decipher how they may line up between companies.
It all comes down to sampling bias. Less than 1% of all the people alive right now have even even been sampled, and less than 1% of 1% of the people that have ever lived have been sampled. So DNA ethinic groups are limited proxies based on less than 1% of the data. To make things even more confusing ethnic group/ populations can be grouped differently by DNA testing companies. Lets take it another step further, populations have moved and intermixed overtime, our snapshot ethnic groupings would not apply to Ancient populations. But for testing the level of more recent relatedness, I think these DNA test are very good and insightful and DNA testing has already improved by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years.
Agreed that it has improved, agreed that there is sampling bias. But all of these things together mean that no company should be reporting ethinicity results to a single decimal place. The general population assumes that indicates a degree of accuracy that simply isn't there.
It all works out for me because I have no driving need to know my heritage. I was born and raised in the United States, I know my parents and grandparents and that's as far as I need to go..I have concerns right here in the present.
Interesting video and cleared up a lot of misunderstandings about DNA. I loved the comment that just because NA or African DNA did not show up in your DNA doesn't mean there is not a NA or African ancestor in your tree. We have NA names in our tree but they go back to the 3rd g grandparent. So what this meant is that some of my 2nd and 3rd cousins inherited the NA gene and I mainly inherited the Germanic Europe with Scandinavian and Scottish genes.
"Ethnicity" and "race" aren't the same. Ethnicity is a set of social, cultural, linguistic and religious beliefs common to a specific population. Subspecies, often referred to as "race", is a set of genetic morphologic characteristics particular to each human subspecies. Countries aren't synonymous to which subspecies one belongs to, for they are inhabited by groups with distinct phenotypes. Semantics matter, hence why so much mislead regarding genetic studies vs the sociopolitical/cultural way they are explained to the public.
and let's not forget that the Romans invaded England too, bringing dna from all over their empire, including north Africa. mind you in terms of health dna testing could be helpful.
Almost none of the roman soldiers were north african, don't fool yourself. You should also take in mind that you're looking at a population in the hundreds of thousands to a few million (even at the time), whereas the number of roman soldiers that could have VISITED the british isles is in the tens-hundreds. In other words you have a possibility of zilch, hanging on a fraction of an ounce of probability. This is before you consider that north africans are largely considered to be caucasian, and that the people inhabiting those regions at the time were basically berbers, they looked no different than a southern iberian would have (they certainly were not black). Do more research.
The Romans barley invaded Great Britain. It was actually the Iberians that invaded the British isles. In fact the average brit and Irish people have 10% to 15% Iberian in their DNA results. Same with North Africa the Iberians a re right beside each other and many Iberians from the south of Spain have mixed and immigrated to Morocco. They even have a place called Spanish Morocco in that country. Btw, the Iberians once ruled Morocco at one point in history before the Muslims invaded Spain which was mostly south of Spain.
triumphant39 although you are right that North Africans are majority caucasoid aka Berbers. The Romans had many mercenaries in their armies as the centuries went by from all over the Mediterranean. During those times all these Mediterranean people from the Iberian coast to the Levant had a lot in common.
Neo Crusader it still is not populated by black people, Berbers are from the caucasoid race and from a sub race Mediterranean race, also you use a term like “Europeans” that’s not a racial term, that’s just referencing people from a continent, Europe is not homogeneous even in ancient times. Actually genetics wise Southern Europeans, example Greeks especially island ones like Crete, Italians specifically sicilians & Calabrians, Maltese, Cypriots are from the Mediterranean race they have not much in common with Northern Europeans, in fact they have more in common with the middle eastern/eastern Mediterranean populations of Lebanon, Turkey, western Syria, parts of Palestine, ancient Greeks aka minoans, ancient Etruscans etc all migrated from the Fertile Crescent area of northern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Anatolia. They carry the same DNA haplogroup markers in some cases and in other cases very similar ones.
Question: so do these tests tell you where your origins really are? Because I’ve heard dna can be lost as we don’t inherit all our DNA from our ancestors. For instance my grandpa could have Italian and Chinese in his dna. But my dad doesn’t inherit the Chinese so neither do I. So isn’t it possible that I can take a test and be under the false assumption that what the test shows is my actual ancestral origins?
Yes and no. You haven't inherited DNA from every ancestor. So, the DNA tests can only tell you about the ancestors you did inherit DNA from. Breaking up your ethnicity is done by comparing your DNA to reference populations. None of the companies' reference populations are large enough yet to give a definitive answer.
Yes! Scotland first, Ireland second (where I am from) Also loads of gingers in Australia, because loads of people from the UK immigrated to Australia (sometimes not by choice though sadly). Gingers are all over the globe but YES most of them can be found in Scotland.
Altheavpc that's what they say, the Scottish island with the most redheads is pretty close to Scandinavia, of course my DNA looks like someone from the Orkney island or Norway or Iceland(via Gedmatch and DNA land) with a dash of Moldova.Im a ginger. But I also tan. A little, lol.
donald loudermilk I think it is probably as percentage of the population, since due to the Scottish diaspora, the US likely has more redheads in over all numbers. But relative to the population size, Scotland is by the far the largest and if they scaled up Scotland’s population to the same as the US, then the number of redheads would completely dwarf anywhere else.
I am confused, I dd AncestryUK and it had what I thought was fairly accurate told me I was 100% European (no surprise) 80% Irish a little low given that I was born and raised there as was my family going back at least 4 generations. Probably even further back than that but I didn’t look any further. Told me I was 95% likely to be Ulster Irish which is SPOT ON, I’m from Derry and so are 3 of my grandparents the last one being from Monaghan (also in the province of Ulster) so SPOT ON there. However it found almost NO Scandinavian only 3% and I am a very cliche looking Irish ginger as was most of my mums family, so how can we not have more Scandinavian dan when Eric the red and Leif Ericsson were supposed to have been largely responsible for bringing that fair ginger, light eyed thing over to us in the UK??? I am VERY proud to be Irish, but I know that many countries invaded us. Another example is that I’m from Derry (Londonderry to some 😡) yet I only came up 5% British!!! All so confusing… Anyway, you are what you are when you look in the mirror and I am proud of that. :)
You tested around 100-120 genes out of 100,000. Did that include the genes for eye color? And do they have a record of Eric the Red and Leif Ericsson genome to compare with? Probably not.
I am from Northern Ireland and used Living DNA and they said I was mostly Scottish and English and only 5% Irish, but they are still building up their database. I was expecting about 12.5 Irish and a chunk of English, Welsh and Scottish but in different proportions than what I got. I got no Scandinavian. I’m not red haired but my family definitely has the gene. We don’t know if the Scandinavians brought it to Ireland, that was just a theory I think
The Volga region has more gingers per capita than anywhere else in the world, bar Ireland. The Udmurt people of the region have been described as “the most redheaded men in the world”, while their ancient relatives, the Budini people, were noted for their fiery hair by the Greek historian, Herodotus.
When each set of parents have sex, they give each child a little bit different of themselves (going back generations) - this is good for society, because it helps cut down on diseases, but it does make DNA tests a little confusing. Plus, these tests are the cheapest to get what we want. To get exactly what you are, you would need to do a much more expensive test. -- I did these tests to help with geneology searches (it really does help with those) and a little fun. -- But take the results with a grain of salt. It gets you into the area you were born, and that's more information than many people have.
If it was the same chip, but 23andMe is on version 5 of there chip. I had tested on V3 of the chip which was the one that provided data for the most SNPs. Some of my family tested on V4 which is more in line with what AncestryDNA uses.
Accuracy depends largely on what is being measured as well as the quality of markers used and the reference populations being used, all of the calculators on GED Match measure distinct genetic affinities across space and time. Moreover, despite having similarly labeled clusters, when these clusters are formed in ADMIXTURE different sets of populations and markers are used to create them. This is exactly why authors who have developed ADMIXTURE tests warn people against comparing different ADMIXTURE runs, because the marker overlap (referring to the markers that each cluster shares in common from another test or run) is not the same for every run or test. Dodecad K12b's Caucasus and Gedrosia is not the same as MDLP K13 Ultimate's Caucasus-Gedorsia, the alleles that go into the formation of these components is fundamentally different even when they exhibit similar patterns in other tests. In order to properly gauge the accuracy of calculator, you must first ask yourself these questions. 1. What markers are being used to define each cluster? 2. What is the FST relationship between each cluster? 3. If comparing two tests, what is the degree of marker overlap? 4. What reference populations are being used? 5. Most importantly, what is it that's being measured? What is the goal of this test?
Hi Andrew, of all the sites you visited is there one in particular you would recommend over the others? I would like to know the percentage in me of my Irish heritage, although in HS the Costanza twins thought I was of Greek ethnicity, but truth be known I looked as Italian as they were, with the big nose, eyes and mouth. 😂👍
Interesting video. Do you still consider it a useful tool to use in conjunction with "paper" genealogy for helping to break through walls if you are having issues with fairly recent ancestors?
Yes! Fairly recent ancestors is where DNA is the most helpful because at 2nd cousins and closer all share DNA with you and to such an extent that you can distinguish how they are related fairly easily.
There are some differences. The likelihood of Scandinavian ancestor result been right is just 40-50% (in Sweden 46% likelihood). The highest likelihood of right result is for Finland/Northwest Russia result: 96%.
Beware of the $39.99 test. Everyone comes out as a country from the British Isles and another country far away. My background is mostly Polish, but I was given Irish and Nigerian! Another European lady was given English and Indian!
There's nothing anomalous about English and Indian. Considering the history of those two countries. Also if some test gives you something silly like less than 0.1% Sub-Saharan African even though you are European. Just disregard it. It's within the margin of error and means nothing.
Toveri Juri There were plenty of Indians living and working in the UK. I don’t see why it is so hard to fathom any sort of sexual conduct between the two groups considering extensive interaction in some places
if it was small % then its likely impossible because it had happaned long time ago when there were litteraly 0 indians in UK. if its over 5-10% its possible
quit be cocky dude.....it had to be this way..so as to spread the ethnicity group...furthermore..these Indians came from Siberia..and east Asia..others from Polynesia..go learn before spew crap ..
Genetic ancestry tests are unreliable, and still in the early stages. There is a margin of error depending on the company that conduct test. As the technology improves the results of these test might change.
Genes do not tell you your ancestry. You want to know your ancestry, look in the mirror and some family photos. It is a business. The purpose of a business is to make money, and they achieve that objective at any cost even lie, about the quality of what they are selling.
Eddie you are correct DNA does not lie, but it is scientists attempt to interpret it that is inaccurate. When you want to acquire knowledge about a subject you need to do research. Know what you are claiming before you text you fool.
You are correct DNA does not lie, but it is but it is scientists attempt to interpret it that is inaccurate. When you want to acquire knowledge about a subject you need to do research. Know what you are claiming before you text you fool.
Thanks for the video. Maybe my question has already been asked, then I apologize. In my DNA results there was a very localized, small indication (in Sweden). I have no idea which ancestor from which lineage passed on his DNA to me. The other information is all vague and relates to much larger areas. Like "English/Irish" or "Baltic". But not as specific a statement as the Swedish one. What explanation can there be for this?
Did you forget about crossing over? You talk really fast so it sounds convincing about all the "by this generation you don't inherit dna from some ancestors anymore", but that just isn't right
What isn't right? Could you elaborate on what you mean by crossing over in relation to genetics? The further back in generations you go, the less likely you are to inherit any DNA from a particular ancestor. By the 8th generation, you inherit no DNA from the majority (>50%) of your ancestors in that generation.
Btw (and sorry if the wuestion has been answered somewhere else) : Where does your stat about being related to 120 people comes from? I don't quite get the number... PS: thanks for these videos, clearly above the average crap we can see on youtube... I'm searching for the exact protocols followed by these company. Any leads?
You have 4 grandparents. A generation before your 4 grandparents, each of them had 4 grandparents so 4 sets of grandparents from 4 grandparents each = 16 grandparents 2 generations ago. Those 16 also had 4 grandparents, so 2 generations ago you had 64 grandparents. Those 64 had 4 grandparents each which means 3 generations ago you had 256 (TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX) GRANDPARENTS 3 generations ago. Do you see why getting information about 256 possible grandparents gets a little lost in the mix? That and country borders changed all the time throughout history. I still think tests like 23andme have value because it may only tell you .01% of your genetics, but that's 0.01% MORE than you knew.
Nope, stop right there. Negatory Ghost Rider. The inheritance of DNA can be haphazard "By the 8th generation, you inherit no DNA from the majority (>50%) of your ancestors in that generation." You're also forgetting Pedigree Collapse. Don't care for your snarky vibe, which is also terribly offbase.
I think he is referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover or genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/siblings-are-around-fifty-percent-related. So in fact we will all have DNA from all of our ancestors, at least more ore less.
Saying that you shouldn't have any Scandinavian or French ancestry if a test says you're
Chris Edwards Or because saxons and danes are almost the same group.
I'm not too sure about the historical demographics but I highly doubt that the Normans or Saxons invaded a depopulated land, if you know what I mean.
> being pale, dark blonde, blue eyed, tall, nordic italian. I think I must be quite celto-germanic since north italian is like Austria/France/Switzerland ethnically.
MyHeritage says I'm 50% italian, 30% greek, 9% balcanic and only 9% north-western european. They say I am fully mediterranean. LMAO I took the gedmatch analysis, and indeed I understand now that MH considers swedish longobards as "italians" since they came in Italy during the middle ages. These are the *real* results:
Caucasus 10.41
Southwest Asian 7.56
Mediterranean 28.14
Volga-Ural 5.63
South Baltic 5.70
Western European 25.40
North Sea 17.17
So now I have something that matches my phenotype with my genotype (half of my DNA is nordic). 89% southern european my ass
Autachyan Exactly, how can there be an Italian ethnicity? Tyroleans and Lombards in the north. Greeks in the heel. Normans in Sicily. And, stylishly well-dressed people all over. 😃
There is not italian ethnicity indeed! In the north we are celto-germanic (basically we are like swiss and french) and in the south they are arab-phoenician-greeks and some roman in both.
Each company is also using the data from those who have tested with them. They don’t cross-reference the DNA tests through other testing companies. This is why your ethnicity results can vary somewhat from company to company.
also why ancestry's test seems more accurate
Does Coca Cola cross reference their ingredients with Pepsi and RC Cola?
@@blifx can you explain how ancestry's test is more accurate than the other companies?
@@mdrahman6732 because they have bigger database
That's why people are using GedMatch.
I don't think I have ever met anyone from North Carolina who was NOT descended from a "Cherokee Princess."
Thanks John, I used that line today in a class I was teaching.
I found my ancestors living on the Mohegan Indian Reserve from 1664-until post Civil war. So of course, we had "Native high Cheekbones" and a propensity to marry into native mixed families that includes Cornplanter Chief Joseph Brant stretched out to its extremities. So when My sisters DNA showed ZERO native 1% Jewish and 1% Polynesian I was shocked. This explains the problem of ance-stors at 10 and 13 generations losing their Maternal DNA for a European(R1b) Male population that eventually overwhelmed their haplogroup.
My Cherokee ancestor was NOT a "princess"! Getting tired of hearing that crap. However, she was of high status in the Cherokee nation. Otherwise, they would probably not have convinced her that it was "fashionable" (at that time) for a high status Cherokee to marry a Celt. (She married my Scottish ancestor.)
@Steve Hanlon I'm R1b Western European (Saxon) however they stated on my old DNA test that I was mostly 60% or better Western Irish , more Irish than nearly half of the people now born in Ireland today. How Odd I thought, Im from people who crossed the Atlantic very shortly after the Mayflower on my Dads side and Pure Anglo-Saxon-Norman on my Moms side. So where did all these Irish get into my genealogy? I guess mostly in the Maiden names of the wives of which many are largely missing exceptions being Kavennah and Hayes, very Irish roots.
LMAO... Oh you are so right. My family had the same claims so I took the Autosome, Y-67 DNA, and the mtDNA tests from FamilyTree, Plus the AncestryDNA, 23andMe and National Geographic --- and you can guess what all those results consistently show: 0% not a trace of Native Blood. Well there goes that family myth :-)
What amuses me is the "updates" they provide. Originally, about 3 years ago they showed me as 18% Italian. I figured I was a quarter Italian so no surprise. Gradually that migrated after a few 6-month updates, and I am now 22% French and Portuguese. Sorry nonna, the Italian went away. There was also 3% from Benin in Sub-Saharan Africa originally. That too went across the ocean and is now 3% Native American from Mexico. (?). Can't wait for the next update which will probably show me as being 72% Chinese.😀
Have you seen the commercial where a dude and his family completely change the cultures they celebrate because of one genetic test? It told me they just didn't understand genetics but how humans engage in cultural practices. It also felt like it came from the point of view of a person you wouldn't want to emulate... I'm not going to use particular words here but hopefully you get my drift. Like people that make assumptions about people based on ethnicity or nationality.
"We dont have dna from 500 years ago."
*laughs in archeology*
People are matching ancient DNA Sites.
Omg LMMFAO
Thank you
How much DNA do you have from Archaic Humans and Extinct Human Species! - Gedmatch Tool ruclips.net/video/cRRrYIONcUk/видео.html
What is Y-DNA? Can it help you find your ancestors? ruclips.net/video/0MOEHv1g84E/видео.html
I researched and found all this information prior to taking a DNA test. I know it is not be 100% accurate, but it at least gives you a general idea of where your ancestors are from.
That's the idea, you get a general idea of where you're from.
well, i can give you a general idea for half price...
my friend took dna tests from 4 different companies, each result was drastically different
he took tests from both ancestry and 23nme
Frank Winkhorst He is upset, becaus he is a 200% white
You make an important point that you can have ancestry that these DNA tests do not reveal. People should not take these ethnicity estimates as gospel, but with a grain of salt. Thanks for posting.
A lot of dough for a grain of salt !
John NY there is a huge difference between Gospel and a grain of salt. These DNA tests correctly identify close relatives. Ans less correctly identify distant relatives. Which makes the accuracy closer to Gospel than the grain of salt. If you had a person listed as your grandfather due to documentation, but the DNA test shows that he is not related, the DNA test may reveal an adoption or other circumstance.
Classymaru Nara I don't believe one word of it
Thankful to have done geneology research the old fashioned way for decades. The documentation became even more useful after getting dna's vague/broad results. For instance, a Western Europe conclusion doesn't tell me much. Ancestry.com does list the Western Europe possibilities but from that alone how do I know exactly what one is relevant to me? At least this dna test doesn't say; however, documents compiled over the years such as ship's logs and census records do narrow the conclusion. Summary: my research gave me more precise information, the DNA results confirmed I'm on the right track.
Leona147741, I was talking about the ethnicity estimates.
linking genom to ethnicity and to geographies is tricky. People have been moving for thousands of years!
KeyboardWarrior thats true keyboard warrior
Especially as they use such vague terms such as middle eastern, European, African ect. The middle east and north Africa were conquered by turks and arabs, so don't have any real meaning today. European is too vague also as we know eastern or western, British and iberia ect are different ethnicities.
Andrew Fishburn no we don’t know that. Mideast is Mideast Europe is Europe Africa is Africa and if you do not know the origins of Russia you are lost and misleading people. Then you get into the aches of races and some involuntary mixing in early history. Stop teaching what the communist schools of evolution have indoctrination acted you in.
Petro Krasnov
There are many ethnicities within Britain and Europe. What I said is perfectly true and backed up by genetics. No communist indoctrination here.
The most surefire thing you can get from a DNA test is your haplogroup. At least with that, you can determine a general region you're from based on the sub-clade. Saying that you're specifically 70% x and 30% y, however, is rather tricky.
In medical school, we had to learn genetics and genetic counseling. We had a small group session with several hypothetical cases. One of the cases was designed to teach us how to identify spontaneous genetic mutations. The patient in the case had a genetic disease that no one else in the family tree had. So we all nodded sagely and said it was a spontaneous mutation. Our prof smiled and said, in his posh British accent “Yes, well, in your career, you’ll deal with cases like this, and you’ll come to realize that there’s no way the man this woman is married to is the father of this child, so you’ll lie through your teeth and call it a “spontaneous mutation”, because it’s a lucky man who knows his own father.”
Studies into non paternal events have found anywhere from 1% to 15+% of named fathers are not the biological father. If you have done genetic genealogy for any length of time, you'll find out about it.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics yes but they've also been known to skip too.
This is called Other Than Expected Father or OTEF.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics depends on your position in the siblings. At some point the third kid had a 20% chance of having another father...
Spontaneous mutations absolutely happen, though.
Took the ancestry test years back and it said I had 10% Spanish...not possible since my nearest Spanish ancestor was 1200. A short time later the results updated and surprise...no Spanish. But I didnt really take the test for the ethnicity results...I took it to connect with others researching same lines and in that respect it has been very useful. Have probably contacted at least 50-60 and found a few surprise kin. Historically speaking...folks moved around so trying to pinpoint ethnicity is very difficult. For example if you ancestors are from the British isles they likely came from English (Germanic), British (Irish and Scottish), French, Scandinavian, etc.
Answered on FHFLive: ruclips.net/video/pVml0P134wE/видео.html
True so much travel through commerce, wars and slavery around the globe many peoples have moved around ... always.
Did a DNA test on my granddaughter at her birth (2008) in order to help pediatrician's awareness of genetic diseases as I did not know her father. Showed 6% Native American, which made sense as my mother-in-law was NA, so NA on maternal side confirmed. Retook granddaughter's DNA in 2020 (different company) and WHOA, NA was determined to be 0.1% The whole thing makes me crazy. Glad I have so much paper genealogy on granddaughter's maternal side...The paternal side will remain a mystery until granddaughter turns 18 and her mother tells her who her father is. There is a long discussion we could have about keeping birth secrets.
Similar here, first analysis has since changed. Originally I had some trace Japanese and African, now I'm not as interesting as I once was.
Irish people aren’t British
I’m picturing a few guys in a warehouse puffing on cigars,
randomly picking out Ping-Pong balls from one of those bingo rotary things, and
just assigning whatever to whomever.
While that is a funny image, I know just enough about math to be able to say it isn't the case. For instance, if that were the case, I would expect vastly differing results from my brothers and I. They weren't.
Marx Wade That is a hilarious mental image! I laughed 'til the tears rolled - I'm still laughing!
Marx Wade my brother (same parents) went through a different DNA service than me. My brother is a Central American Polish Turk. WTF?
Marx Wade - Actually, DNA transmission is a bit like that.
Yeap! Me too!
My 23andme was too accurate in line with my knowledge of my background / heritage, all from having no evidence on me except my saliva... it told me I was half one ethnicity / half another ethnicity, the exact ethnicities I always knew, then it did a further break down... It was too scarily accurate
So it was good? Which ethnicities did you have? Im bulgarian and want to buy a kit myself
Same here, I have no doubt my DNA results are accurate
They only follow your mom
Lol having your name and birthday info is enought to access your files. They will probably use your free sample for other things.
@@africanfitnessconcept I expect you to have learned a little about science now that it's a year later. Just the level of ignorance you're spitting is scary. Oh, I was born in 1996 in Cape Town, South Africa, and my name is as it is in my username. You may now access my files and know my ethnicity breakdown, origins, health insights, intelligence estimate, and physical traits (yes, they can determine that by your DNA, the more advanced companies usually do it)! After taking a DNA test, you can download your raw DNA data in which you can then upload it to other genealogy sites for further insights and analysis, and believe it or not, it is still equally accurate even if you're not using your real name or birthday!!
You look like a skinny Peter Griffin.
good one
He has cartoon character DNA
Peter Griffin is Irish.
Nick Kraw peter griffin is actually black aswell
Grubert Chubbiecawké lmao
On my mother's side, the family tree showed pure French-Canadians all the way up to France and French came up in my DNA test. On my father's side it was supposed to be Irish, and yup Irish came up with some Scandinavian. Totally accurate and confirming the family tree for my case.
yup
Did Ancestry dna. My dad was over 1 half French Canadian. I have all the ancestors and their birthplace and names going back to France. I received 0 French ancestry. I have 19 percent northwest Europe centered mostly in England and Channel Islands and 24 percent scottish, 15 percent irish 8 percent wales. Where did the French go?
@@terryannmaes5538 Hmmmm I would ask your mom if I were you. No joke or mockery intended.
@@chongtak will I would but she has passed on. I know I am genetically related to the other French relatives but I think most came from Brittany. There lies the answer.
@@terryannmaes5538 I just saw in another video that a lot of results about French ancestry were rounded to other Europeans because DNA tests are illegal in France and they don't have a lot of data. Some 100 % French claimed that their results showed South English Ancestry. I hope I am clear explanation. I am not a native English
speaker
Your short video clarified a lot. Thanks for making it.
You're welcome. Glad to help. Hope you'll watch the others on our channel. And if you have a question or a video suggestion, don't hesitate to reach out.
Thank you! This is the best video on the subject that I've seen. There are so many things to consider in the comparative analysis of DNA. The key is to remember that the results received are estimates and ideas of where to look further in your own personal search. They are not the absolute, totally comprehensive answer they sometimes appear to be. :)
but for some of us it,s a whole lot more information than history left for us.
Can you explain what you mean further?
The ethnicity results are not set in stone. If they tell you that your ancestors are from Europe or Africa then your ancestors (at least the portion whose DNA you have) were from Europe and Africa, but if you already knew you were African-American then you probably knew this origin of your ancestors already. If they say your ancestors were from Belgium and Senegal, then I would take a step back and start to ask how they got so specific. I haven't been convinced that the country level ethnicity results are accurate.
Family History Fanatics most AA have a large admixture due to slave owners and slaves having children which would make us more than just African and from my admixture my non African ancestors are French/German , Scottish and Spanish. Also in slavery their were mixtures of slaves Fri. different areas and it goes on. It helps us understand our history . Not all if us arrived off if the Mayflower and have a papertrail from then to now. Please consider that before responding. Alot of AA doesn't know where they're from (genealogically). So this gives us something to go on and start the hunt for who we are and from whom we descended.
Many groups the world over have similar mixing, by force or by choice. As you pointed out, a lot of mixing took place even from populations in Africa between slaves.
Our point is always, DNA can trace ethnicity back to the continental level accurately. DNA will identify close relations with confidence. When attempting to identify specific regions, countries or cities, DNA accuracy drops dramatically.
Family History Fanatics I know exactly but when someone who looks not mixed has 23% Euro I think they could have had Black family in Europe
Family History Fanatics can’t trace my heritage back accurately because I don’t know my father. Zero information about him. Not everyone has this ability to trace stuff back
Great informative video. I noticed everything you said. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been telling people this over and over! (Mainly that we can’t be assured to find dna of one particular ancestor who was 9 or 10 generations back, and that genes from Native American tribes who no longer exist as a distinct tribe might not be distinguishable.) I’m going to show this to a lot of people!
We are better known as Aboriginals, and we do have tribes, such as mine Seminole. I am not African American, I am not Native American, I am Seminole.
Please do.
Thank you, ive been trying to tell people this for ages, but couldn't put it into words as well as you have...Now I can just tell them to come here ....So glad and thank you for a very informative video......
I hope as millions of more people are tested that the ethnicity results can become "accurate" but I'll wait until the statistics show they are before I recommend the results.
I enjoyed watching your video and I have a small remark to make about people's expectation from these DNA results, ... Personally think that the actual DNA test is very accurate and will give very similar technical results regarding haplogroups etc.. ...but the problem is how to put the results into a geographical/ethnic context and this is where DNA Labs differ in their interpretations.
If we look at your results they identify you are 99-100 percent European and that should be sufficient for most people who are curious to find out if they have other ethnicities in their DNA.....however those who want more precise locations within western Europe ...that could be problematic and difficult to establish.
Maybe as more people take the tests and the reference samples are bigger and more accurate ....maybe then the interpretation of the results would be closer than they are now.
Exactly. People's expectations (and how much emphasis they put on these ethnicity/admixture results) needs to change. That happens by sharing the message and educating people.
One thing that I found when I focused specifically on one parent and did the research and necessary paperwork, it proved ethnicity better than any DNA test. Since the parent and family I was searching pretty much all originated from the same place in Germany going way back to early 1600's.
Do the work it helps. Also, countries and boundaries have changed through time. That is important to remember.
Good advice. One reason paper research will show this is beyond your 3rd Great Grandparent, there are some people who you are not related to. That's just how DNA works.
@ladeirose S , Kind of disagree with your 1st part of your comment. You are probably or might be right on your family but doubt your correct on many other people ancestry.
God but think you are 100% so right on your last part on what you said on how boundary lines change and also lost countries like Yugoslavia now.
My 1 parent family side is from northern Italy and my other parent family is from southern Italy. When I did my DNA, I was very surprised to find out like I am 16% French in me and with a few other things. So now I think it explains on why many people told me my whole life that I don't look 100% Italian like I was always told. And I know for a fact I was not adopted etc... cause way too many other similarities with many other family members.
Lots of these especially older Italian people in my family flipped out from this. I do know they are going by on what other older family ancestors told them.
And after doing research on this makes sense to me in my case. The French and France use to own or control especially northern Italy.
Think that happen during or before Napolean days. And also seen on old maps that showed France was much bigger back than what we know it as today or past 100 or 1,000 years and covered big part of northern Italy. And from last I read on it is, don't think France owned it but France even actually controlled big part of southern Italy even down in Naples's area.
I did both Ancestry and 23andMe. I have a fair amount of paper record. 33sndMe was quite accurate. I am not sure I would trust it for trace ancestry but if they shade a part of a country in a dark shade you can be sure you have ancestors from that country.
There’s definitely some accuracy but I wouldn’t rely on the percentages too much
Neith Almighty I agree 100%. It’s funny watching these ancestry DNA videos and people truly believing they are X percent, like it is factual.
Exactly
I knew about my family history and my DNA results were right even down to the quite small part of Britain and Europe both sides of my family were from.
Yes, I think if you take it as a list of your ethnicities and mostly this or that, the tests are pretty accurate. If you try to be literal that you are 18 or 33 percent of something, you may notice a lot more descrepancies. His results were similar at a macro level.
The DNA doesn't lie, but people do
Finnish is not scandinavian ! And some British are from scandinavian origin, etc.
russians are ost-baltic race = sub-mongoloids.
Varangian - Second language is officially Swedish. But we're not Scandinavian. Just Finnish. Perkele :-)
Well, Finland DOES belong to what is called Scandinavia, but the language is more related (or at least has common roots with) to Turkish and Hungarian. So it's not a Scandinavian language. Maybe that makes Finland NOT Scandinavian?
@The Varangian from Pycь Nope, official second language is Swedish.
Finnish people are Chinese.
My DNA pretty much matched my family tree that I researched
Mine didn't. According to my genealogy my family have been in England at least 500 years. We have a Saxon surname. DNA claimed we were Irish. Tried a different company and it said we're Irish and Scottish. I have a couple of Irish and Scottish ancestors in my genealogy but the vast majority of us are English. I would understand if I had mostly broadly northwest European but I didn't get any of that. My DNA matches were mostly English and our family trees match up. Researching further I found we are related to the Cheddar Man, pre-Celtic English. My best guess is when invaders came, my ancestors stayed in England and others left for Scotland and Ireland? The DNA doesn't match.
@NA Phiri Our family with the Saxon surname has genealogy dating us back to London in the 16th Century. While yes, he could have changed his surname, I doubt all of the women married into the family in that time were Scottish or Irish. We've been in the Greater London area for a very long, long time and other parts are mostly Devon and Somerset. I've matched a lot of our family tree with other peoples family tree. My first thought was that someone had slept around but the names match up. There aren't enough Irish and Scottish people marrying into the family for us to be mostly Irish and Scottish.
We're not a grand family from a line of important people. Mostly just generations of working class, some craftsmen and some artisans. We have court records, church records, newspaper, guilds, census etc... If my family is matching up with other families, where is this mostly Scottish and Irish?
What are we saying here? Most of London and southwest England are Irish and Scottish immigrants? Forgive me but Devon and Somerset aren't exactly known for drawing in immigrants with the vast wealth of their moors and tiny Exmoor ponies.
I would expect at least some broadly northwestern European but we have none. And I expect lots of English and maybe a bit of Irish and Scottish. Both of these testing companies are out of whack.
I'm having trouble with that. All that's showing up is 4th cousin
Mine matches up with my tests, they coinside with my family story.. I did 23 and Ancestry.
Pretty darn close.
I dont understand dna.
My question is my great great parents thru my mother thru her fathers mother was half Irish and have English because her mother was Ireland 🇮🇪 her father from England 🇬🇧 .
So I am 9% English and Irish my Aunt was half and same English and Irish. So this adds up.
But how can I distinguish from my matches who were related to my great greats???? Help, please and thank you!
@@runningfromabear8354 well most "Englishmen" are not descent from the "Anglo-Saxons" . I think you are confusing your results with history.
Thank you for the video. I talked about doing a DNA test with my mom to better understand my biological father's side of the family. I know my mom is my biological mom, and kinda the sad story of why I'm here, but I was hoping to confirm some things with a DNA test (like if my grandmother on my bio-dad's side really is native american). But your video has definitely helped me be better prepared going into this with my expectations. I wish more people would see this video- it feels like a LOT of people really misunderstand what DNA testing is all about. Although I know not everything (every ancestor) will show up, it is definitely something I still want to do. Thank you.
Definitely do a test. Test your Mom as well. Then in your matches look for those that match you but not your mom. These would be on your father's side and connecting with them might help you understand your bio-dad more.
Thank you for your reply! My mom had actually gotten me a DNA kit since I discussed it with her, but I had wanted the 23&me since that one actually has a medical side to it as well. Not knowing the family history also means not knowing the family medical history- which means things have been a bit frustrating to help get diagnoses or just getting better ideas of what medical issues I could be facing in the future. However, my mom had gotten me an AncestryDNA kit. It is likely cheaper than the 23&me kit, but I likely should do a comparison test with my mom with the same testing company, shouldn't I? Thanks again for your reply and your videos.
You can upload the results from both kits to Gedmatch.com which is free. For medical information, check out promethease.com.
Great video and definitely a subject that needs a lot of coverage. DNA can be extremely useful for everyone but is so misunderstood, especially now when the testing is still being refined and new population sets are being tested.
A lot of DNA passed around through war, invasions, occupations throughout history and pre-history. Scandinavian (aka Vikings, aka Norman's=William the Conqueror. Add British, Irish, Scandinavian and Ancestry matches the others in the example above.
Great video and explanations.
Thank's Norman's.
I think you’re complicating it more than you need too. I don’t think most people are that worried about every percent matching up perfectly. I took the two largest percentages and now if someone asks me what ethnicity I am, I just say my ancestry is mostly British and German. I don’t say, well I’m British and German, but I also have a little Scandinavian, Spanish, Italian, middle eastern, and about 12 various other ethnicities in me. I’m not trying to tell someone all of my ingredients, just what I am largely coming from. The ancestry dna kits work just fine.
An ancestry test by many of the popular companies today will break down where they say you are from based on country/region.
The problem here is that this is based on modern samples of people from these countries. A lot of people from a lot of countries already have some genetic mixture, large autosomal studies in fact show that a lot of southern Europeans have some African type admixture and that many eastern Europeans and especially Russians have east Asian admixture as well.
The problem with the simple ancestry tests you take is that if a person from a certain region matches their samples for that region (meaning that if a person from Spain that was part of the sample test took the test himself) he would come out saying he is 100% from that region.
Which at least at face value is a true statement for today where people are and what a lot of the genes in that region are like, but it really isn't broken down on a racial or ethnic level as some readers of their ancestry imagine it is.
For example I see people look at their results and see things like Iberian peninsula 40% and they assume that this means they are 40% southern European and that their next assumption is that this is a special kind of white people.
Yet actual DNA analysis on people from southern Europe shows a plethora of genetic mixture within the population, which isn't shown on a simple ancestry test. This is why people taking ancestry tests need to understand exactly what they are looking at, and stop projecting their racial/ethnic assumptions as they do so.
i.imgur.com/IuSFMHs.jpg
Thanks for that great comment. Ethnicity/Admixture is the least useful and least accurate information one can get from a DNA test.
This is what people don't understand about modern dna testing. They are only going to show if you match the population they are using for Iberian or Europe West. They aren't looking at deep ancestry or admixture in these populations.
Also there is dna taken from bones from hundreds or even thousands of years ago in many regions & that is used to determine a person's ethnicity.
@@jackieblue1267 what you don't understand is that dna from old bones is compared with dna from modern day people from the region of where the bones were discovered.
@AJR - Companies like 23&Me, Ancestry don't use dna from ancient samples like Yamnaya, Rathlin, Hinxton etc samples etc. They use modern population samples. They are mainly geared to US populations who are trying to find their ancestry in the last few hundred years. You can get your results from 23&Me and Ancestry etc and download your results and run them through third party resources which can allow you to compare your dna to old samples and find out how much Yamnaya you are for example but 23&Me, Ancestry doesn't do this.
Mine was very accurate. It exceeded my expectations. When I uploaded my father's raw DNA results to gedmatch it was extremely accurate. It also linked me immediately with my dad's profile. Stop confusing people, please.
It should link you with your dad and any other close relatives profiles because that is straight one-one comparison of DNA. Ethnicity results are done using a different algorithm and completely unrelated to relative matching.
great video, and i see your point exactly. i took the Ancestry DNA and uploaded my file to My Heritage and My Family Tree. the results got combined on some and certain "trace" elements were exchanged (my Native American via Ancestry, somehow became Eskimo/Inuit on Heritage and My family gave me Oceania & Siberia!) strange but true
thats the same thing mostly
Glad you like it.
Bravo one of the best guides to potential for misinterpretation of DNA results. When I started studying my legal ancestry I realized that the furthest person back I could id through written records, I suspect much further back than most in the US, I was disappointed that was as far back as I could get. Somewhere along there I started thinking about the DNA and realized that in spite of carrying the man's Y chromosome, most likely identical to his, the possibility that I didnt have even a single nucleotide from him outside that Y was more likely than not. So even though you might have legally and genetically descended from a particular person does not mean you have any significant genetic similarity to that person. We might someday be able to trace a man's fatherline back through the Y chromosome and be able to trace woman's motherline back through the mitochondria for several thousand years but that really tells little about what you have in common with any one of those ancestors beyond your grandparents really. You likely bear little resemblance to that person 10 generations back, they were very different, as different as your "unrelated" next door neighbor.
I love the way you break down the information so it is understandable to everyone. Great job!
Thanks so much
Thanks for all your great info! I really enjoy all the information you provide!
Thanks Family History Fanatics.
You're too kind.
I wasn't testing for percentages, I was testing for just a genealogical location standpoint. And surprisingly, although each of the different companies I was tested with didn't exactly match each other, they all did match my actual family tree information! I encourage testing with more than one company to get a more accurate result.
I think you're on the right path. Take DNA tests to solve genealogical questions or help others do the same. The ethnicity results aren't as valuable or accurate as people thing.
I add onto my comment below by saying this though:
Some reference populations it is possible to know exactly. My dads father was 100% from the exact same town. This was proved in 2011 when my dad first tested and came out as exactly 50% polish/Ukrainian. The town they come from is RIGHT on the border between Poland and Ukraine. They speak Ukrainian there, and are ethnically Ukrainian, but because the border moves frequently it’s currently officially in Poland. My dad actually has a haplogroup named after him. Turns out, all of the residents of this town up and moved to Pennsylvania/New Jersey at the exact same time. A couple thousand people left, and left behind like 200 people. My dad, and some other families, are the first people who were tested. Now, this haplogroup has hundreds of people who are all genetically related, and all have records of immigrating from this same town. People left in the town were tested, and their dna matches. So my dad knows exactly, down to the mile, half of where his dna is from.
That's cool stuff.
Wow, my great grandfather moved to Pennsylvania, new Jersey in 1890 from Poland. I'll try to find the town of where he comes and see if it has something related with your family.
Nah, you made my day. Ever since I started seeing these ancestry DNA tests, I've been wondering about these things. :)
I see this is 3 years ago. Multiple updates. Did you do any crigenetics? My African DNA ranges from 82% - 96 %. One of their test has me at 50.2% European.....What? They also got my maternal Haplogroup wrong. They have me as Haplogroup B instead of HV.
You found that I did do a review on CRI Genetics. ruclips.net/video/XEwSfmHTP-Q/видео.html
Can anyone answer this Question. I recently did AncestryDNA. My Native American DNA didn’t show up. But I did My heritage my indigenous showed 3% of Native of America
Brits, Irishmen, and Scandinavians are all Northwest Europeans and genetically very to each other. Northwest Europeans form a single genetic cluster and hard to separate on a genomic level. Its basically saying you're a mix of different NW European ethnicities with British being the dominant component.
Also, what is missing from the History of the Western Civilization is the Moors and African Traders and Journeyman that were part of Europe from 700 AD to 1505 AD.
Also Marco Polo learned about trade with East Asia from his Father and Uncle which means trade existed more than we realize around Africa, Europe and Asia. People mixed. Obviously the Mediterranean is just a nest of hedonism!!
The most famous love story of all Anthony and Cleopatra or as simple as Helen Of Troy.
Invaders coming from all points, taking off the womenfolk!!
Yeah, we don't have a clue as to who we really are.
well some people have north african dna etc
+Mulberry2000 or vice versa. North Africans have European blood in them.
Moors and African Traders and Journeyman were a minsicule portion of the overall European population for the short time they interacted with portions of Europe before the Reconquista. However, point taken
Both Cleopatra and Helen were Greek....
@@ryan7864 the Arabs and the moors occupied the iberian pininsulla for 800 years before the Reconquista lol what do you mean by "a minsicule portion"?. You were basically our bitch back in the day
Very informative and eye opening! Thank you!
You are so welcome!
Thank you so much. My great grandmother was a Arawak Indian and yet my DNA said I am only 2% Indian. I couldn't understand that information, but you helped me a lot with your explanation.
You are welcome.
Are you Haitian or Dominican?
You echoed my conclusions about ethnicity. I also compared my results across companies and found what you did. Since my genealogy is well documented back to the British Isles in most of my lines with only a little German input and a little French input, I looked at the differences or breakdowns each company gave me, and figured that the British Isles were also colonized over centuries, and in the British Isles, there are Scandinavians, French, and Germans, so any breakdown into these populations added up with DNA that is identifiable as British is all still probably British, especially Scandinavian. In any case, I think the final conclusion has to be European is European is European. Other traces may or may not be real, but if they are really small, they may reveal something from 500 or more years ago, and for genealogical purposes, that information is not very helpful. Thank you for all your enlightening, helpful videos.
I appreciate your response. Thanks for sharing.
This Made more sense. I have Italian and Portuguese great grandparents. I took myheritage and ancestery DNA. Italian isn't in any of them. But my Iberian Peninsula is in both. My Irish/Welsh/ Scottish was 2
30% which makes sense with my great grandpa who was half Irish, my grandma was half Welsh and my other grandpa was half Irish. Ancestry told me I am 56% Great British. Which makes no sense. I am planning on running my DNA from ancestry through some other sites and see if my Italy shows up at all. I did get between 3-6% Caucasus, which is a high portion of Sicily. But this actually helped me a lot figure out what my DNA is. I do genealogy as a hobby and my Italian goes back pretty far.
Maybe your father isn't yr bio dad. Hate to say that but its possible.
Ancestry tests were Italians biggest nightmares. You all tell everyone "Imma hundrit p'cent". Bullcrap! I love hearing Italian people back peddle when they get their results. Lol
Its about your gene pool...For example I could have a random jump and be lets say....4% korean but when my siblings or parents or even grandpartents take it they might not have any korean in them.
SomeSketchyDude 781 ... You missed the point maybe. I was having a laugh at all the Italians who want everyone on planet Earth to think they are 100% Italian.
Italian DNA doesn't exist. The Italian peninsula has been colonized or invaded by EVERYBODY in the world.
Andrew - I have been watching a ton of DNA results videos in the last few weeks, and NOONE even thinks about the history. They all claim to wonder where the iberian ancestry comes from, or the scandinavian ancestry, or why theres is both irish and british ethnic groups, etc. History needs to be taken into account as well. But NOONE ever does that. Every time I see the Ireland/Scotland/Wales ethnic group and then Great Britain as a seperate ethnicity, I always ascribe the Ireland/scotland/wales group to being Celtic - because they speak other languages such as Cornish, Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Scots gaelic and those were celtic languages. I ascribe the great britain group to be the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes that came to England from Germany who did not speak any celtic languages and their germanic languages eventually evolved into english!! There are rumours from history of the spanish armada after they were defeated by england around 1588, where the armada boats were wrecked off the coast of ireland, so spanish blood gets introduced into Ireland. They call those descendants the Black irish - best modern example is Pierce Brosnan - with their black hair, blue eyes and olive skin. The red hair of ireland, I thinks comes from the celts. Then there is the scandinavian ethnicity. Noone seems to remember their history of 1000 years ago when the vikings were raiding the british isles all over the place - england, scotland, ireland -and possibly wales - so yes there would also be scandinavian ethnicities as well. Andrew - Is there any chance you could make a video on this history and how it explains the DNA? This is what I have picked up from my own reading and from all the videos I have seen. Thank you.
Yes, it is in the works.
if these DNA readings are taking into account the past 200 years only then surely it would rule out the anglo saxons arriving in the 600s and the vikings too, they would just show up as British ethnicity right?
Personally myself being half British half Peruvian it was interesting to see 70% welsh/irish blood, 19% native andean american and 3% african (from senegal, mali and congo, all countries that were heavily involved in the slave trade), the rest were Spanish/French and German and even 1% jewish (I assume Sephardic Jew). I assume my mum being mestiza (half native half european like most the population there) had Irish blood in her, or if it was the same Spanish group that allegedly migrated to ireland during the end of the armada.
being 3/4 european I have white skin but I feel like I look Mediterranean european can't really see any northern european features apart from something in the eyes they are greeny, white genes seem very weak, anyone with 60% or less european doesn't look even close to white to me, personally I don't agree with the promotion of mix racing either way but it's pretty cool to see I'm a walking historic genome of western colonisation
I have a great interest in genealogy and have done a lot of research about my ancestors so I already know most of my ethnic background. I've thought about getting a DNA test done just to see how it compares to my research. However, seeing videos of people who've had conflicting results from two or more DNA tests has given me pause. Your explanation really clarifies things. I think I'll skip the DNA tests and stick with my own research. Thanks for saving me money! :)
I would take the DNA test, not for the ethnicity results, but for the cousin matching. DNA is a record of relationships and can connect us with cousins that a paper trail might not.
I'll consider that. Thanks!
Thank you for explaining this. People have no idea how much our ancestors moved around and intermingled. It is important to understand the history of the regions when looking back into family history.
I'm glad you appreciated my video.
Why would it disappoint if I'm not related to that indian princess? Means she's not off the table ;P
And btw you didn't ruin anything for me, this is super interesting! In a couple hundred years we could be the reference group for our decendants :)
Glad you're not disappointed. You're among the few with your view on the results. Keep it up. We need more like you in the community.
yes, because Britain has been invaded by everyone 😉and English dna would have all those tribes that cheerfully invaded the UK, including Scotland, Ireland and even Wales...please please if you think you are British/English etc READ BRITISH HISTORY!!!
This is what makes the testing companies walk a fine marketing line. IF they told everyone in explicit terms what the ethnicity really meant (including accuracy and repeatability figures), it would bore everyone to death and no one would buy their product. The real value in DNA testing is the genealogical matching NOT ethnicity. Unfortunately, the tests are marketed primarily as an ethnicity test since it is a lot easier to understand that you are part Scandinavian, part Middle Eastern and part East Asian. But companies have to make money otherwise there wouldn't be the test data to match genealogically.
Britain was also invaded by Norway, and the Normans were Norweigian decendents too so this may be where he gets his Scandinavian from.
I don't know what's included in the book Great Britain history but it is a known fact that Roman army killed off in one Battle most of the mail population of Londonderry or
Brittania as it was Known . And so nature being what it is women without Men , And so what it means to be British is To be Italian in part As the Roman army was mainly made up of indigenous Italian Men . Ironically they have a statue to the leader of the British rebellion in London her name was Boudicca 75,000 The vast majority of the male population were Killed that day While the Roman army only took 500 casualties according to their records .
Mikedoors13: That Roman army perhaps were mercanary soldiers for hire and might have been anything....but then the English did the same thing in the US fighting the Revolutionary War and hired Hessans.
mikedoors13 Your history is wildly inaccurate, friend.
Many Roman soldiers were never in the Italian peninsula. Non-Romans eventually dominated the legions!
Read some basic recently published early British history/prehistory, and Roman history. Completely different from your impressions.
Having had other family members test and receiving very similar results from ancestry DNA I am very confident in the results i received and the regions. I think comparing all those companies apples to apples is a problem because some may not have the same amount of population DNA to test against so a lot are getting lumped together etc. Out of all the tests ancestry seems to be the most accurate. I think you have it wrong because u are basically north european.. across all tests just the specific regions differed and that's probably due the the regions they are testing against . Stick with ancestry DNA people
Since your other family members have a large amount of similar DNA to you, it is not suprising that the results they received line up with your results. Ancestry is using their algorithms and are consistent in saying that such and such DNA is from such and such place. From a continental level, they are correct (along with every other testing company). However, there is so much disparity when you look at the regional and country level between companies and none of them have made a strong enough case that their algorithms are the most accurate - otherwise we would see a coalescing around one standard for analysis.
Their estimates lined up exactly with what we know of my family tree. They even narrowed it down to a single county in Munster, Ireland based on my "cousin matches" before I had started creating my family tree with them. Which was totally 100% correct. Perhaps it works better for Europeans than for Americans due to the sheer amount of admixture in American people?
Same for my mate, he's 25% Polish, 25% Irish and 50% English and aside from a 2% Scandinavian thrown in there those figures are pretty much exactly what came up. I really think it's just the fact that American DNA is so mixed up it's hard to pinpoint exact places etc.
I've researched this subject quite a bit, and Ancestry.com is actually one of the least accurate. 23 and Me is the one most geneticists will swear by as the best of the commercial tests, with Ftdna being another one. However Ancestry.com's test is the best for connecting to relatives as they have the largest database of users.
The newcomer, Myheritage DNA, is an interesting case because their founder populations are based on their extensive use of their user's genealogical trees...they claim to have the most regions of all the tests out there...
All this said, I've not used 23&me...but have uploaded my Ancestry.com results to Ftdna and Myheritage, and all 3 are so different, I now just claim to be European... they're just too different from each other. I know I can say, without a doubt that I'm 3-5% Caucasus region (Turkic Armenian, Iranian, Syrian, etc..) because that % is in all 3 results...but Ancestry has me at nearly 90% British, Ftdna at 56% Scandinavian, Myheritage has me at a mix that matches up with my genealogy the best...except it gives me 7.5% Italian/Greek lineage, but the other two test don't have any Italian/Greek.
Joel Waechter i concur!. These tests are atleast 95% accurate. ~its just sometimes people get thrown a curve when thier family rumors come out to be simply JUST rumors
Joel Waechter Could the results be affected by how many countries each test has tested on? I see on their respective websites that ancestrydna only has 35 countries while 23andme has 54.
My DNA results were exact. I had already done extensive genealogy beforehand, and was pleasantly surprised that my DNA test was spot on.
That's rare.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I know, but I had an isolated ethnic group on one side, and about 500 years of documentation across the other, so the test came back the way I expected. In fact, it gave me an aspect that I had not considered, but then when I went back through the trees, and explored the origins of certain family names and their locations, the research did indeed confirm that ethnic group in the proportion the DNA test indicated.
I took the Ancestry, it was a gift , and was mildly surprised and yet not because, We cannot change who we are . I see so many people upset about what they find out , What is the point? "You are who you are" can't change that . If one is into family history a genealogy, it is definitely interesting a great series of video and explanations .
I had my done and the results were exactly what I thought it would be from knowing my Dad's family tree and where my Mom was probably from. Basically 75% Welsh and English. 25% Scottish and Irish. No surprise for me.
We have string genealogy records that are pretty well verified, so I don’t see any need for a DNA test. I think these are pushed so much as money maker for the companies.
DNA depends on the questions you're asking. They can be useful in finding answers were no records exist.
Having DNA is extremely useful for people that were adopted and for people that have no idea about their family history, so it gives them a good clue of where to look for the records
This guy should get hired by college humor to be that dan ruins everything guy
Adam Ruins Everything. I love that show. If you have any contacts with College Humor, tell them about me.
Yeah, you are the Rodney Dangerfield of DNA. " I tell ya, my DNA gets no respect, no respect at all".
Such a fair and objective perspective. Thank you.
I like being able to tell people the good and the bad with every company and the results that they get.
My Mom is half British....her Mom was born in Britain and Ancestry pinned my Mom's British percent to Northumbria....the correct area for where my Mom's British family is.
All in all, its a fun toy but no major surprises on 4 of the kits we've bought. My husband's (our 5th purchase) was a bit of shock until I did his father's paternal and maternal lines....despite moving to America several generations back, they never married anyone who wasn't Quebecois so my husband ended up being 100% French. Ancestry can determine from DNA that my husband's French is Quebecois and mine (and my father's) is Acadian. (Which is correct.)
The big thing about DNA is that its helping families that have moved apart in the last generation to get back together. We've reconnected with cousins that my parents played with as kids, with adult kids of my parents' cousins.
Connecting cousins is the best thing about DNA.
My results weren't much revealing. though I got a nice photo of my grand mother.
My DNA says I'm 99% West African and I'm sticking to it dammit!
Sounds like a plan.
And me white! I’m also sticking proudly to that!
@@justineshroomyhardy7309 😆👍
Thank you for your video. My husband is a DNA forensic scientist and he said a similar explanation, that there are only certain markers that can be used and its only an estimation. Not very accurate.
Thanks for sharing. Glad your husband and I agree
Thank you for your video, very interesting!
What would you recommend for finding ones heritage??
Any of them. All of them are equally good (but not necessarily accurate).
hello Im peruvian with a lovely and international dna 😜 i love your vídeos they are helping me with my research dna and family tree and my english is getting better day by day
thank you very much greetings from geneva switzerland
Glad I could help.
The same DNA, different programs to interpret those DNA results. That is the reason Andy.
For me it just verified what I had been told and my aunt traced 30+ years ago.
That's great. DNA is a record of relationships, and genealogists love to have more records.
Me being 49 percent from cameroon congo can give me an idea of where some of my ancestors came from especially if they are in common
Yes but in Africa it’s about tribes not countries
we all aware their are many in each country but during the Atlantic slave trade they were all bunch together all west africa was colonize from cameroon nigeria mali congo ect
@@jl2284123 yes I know but the Igbo tribe is very much different from the akan tribe
I'm so glad that your uploaded this video. The new Ancestry.com DNA update was, I'm sorry, the most inaccurate results ever. I'm part Cuban with a long line of Spaniards, yet it shows now that I'm only French, British, and Ireland! So, I personally think that Northern Spanish DNA probably is very different from Southern Spain, knowing the history. So, I think that Northern Spaniards do look somewhat French genetically. Maybe?
I am not up to snuff on my Iberian genetics and invasion/migrations. I do know that there has been lots of mixing in the Iberian peninsula with France.
yeah the irish and spanish results seem to be messed up. I was given complete irish even though the majority of my family are from sevilla. the ancestry dna is a complete waste of time, you’re better off just looking at records and judge your heritage through that.
A good thing about these DNA sites is that you can compare your DNA with others. If you share a specific stretch of DNA, normally a minimum length of seven centimorgans (cM), then you very likely share a common ancestor. Then you can triangulate with someone on your known family tree who shares that same stretch of DNA. You might be able to determine how you both are related. There's some detective work involved and you will likely encounter some barriers that you might be able to pass later.
Not only overlap of traits/genes/markers but also migration
Since the dawn of our species we've been migrating all over the place it's a practice that has is and always happen
Just imagine 500 years ahead what will people say about us today in a relation to them just to get some people thinking
Joe Duke my comment has nothing to do with Marxism that was my point that you don't understand and I do
Step up your game
Never thought that Marxism and Feminism would be a debate topic on a genealogy channel. But I'm wrong lots of times, so why not on this point.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics This is youtube so people will debate about anything on any channel, 90% of the people who watched this video probably clicked it 10 seconds after watching some other video on subjects as varied as why radical feminists are trying to destroy humanity to a man sitting staring at the camera silent for 8 hours (a real thing this guy does every fucking day).
One difference in the interpretation seems to be the confusion of British for English, and I see you distinguishing Irish from British. English is a historically a term for the generally Western Germanic peoples, right, the invading Germanic tribes who displaced or mingled with the Celtic peoples, or "British" of "Brittany,"; and British is more appropriately a term describing the Celtic peoples -- Irish, Scot, Welsh and Breton who inhabited the British Isles. Great Britain is not exactly the same as the United Kingdom, the broader, more extensive distinction, but both comprise a variety of gene pools. Scandinavians, loosely speaking, by the way, are Northern Germanic peoples. So you see, modern political distinctions muddy it up and mean little to genetics.
Unfortunately, the DNA testing companies are not in the business of teaching geopolitics. They use the names of geopolitics that roughly align and so rather than trying to invent my own names I follow their naming conventions and try to decipher how they may line up between companies.
It all comes down to sampling bias. Less than 1% of all the people alive right now have even even been sampled, and less than 1% of 1% of the people that have ever lived have been sampled. So DNA ethinic groups are limited proxies based on less than 1% of the data. To make things even more confusing ethnic group/ populations can be grouped differently by DNA testing companies. Lets take it another step further, populations have moved and intermixed overtime, our snapshot ethnic groupings would not apply to Ancient populations. But for testing the level of more recent relatedness, I think these DNA test are very good and insightful and DNA testing has already improved by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years.
Agreed that it has improved, agreed that there is sampling bias. But all of these things together mean that no company should be reporting ethinicity results to a single decimal place. The general population assumes that indicates a degree of accuracy that simply isn't there.
Family History Fanatics Yes, kinda of like the race argument,the differences between populations are real but where you draw the line is arbitrary.
Love the comparison. This is why I always tell people not to put a lot of weight into the ethnicity estimates. The real gold is in the cousin matches.
Even then I have people be careful with the matches. ruclips.net/video/XOJN7xUTRmg/видео.html
finally a video of some one talking sense about DNA and ethnicity.
British Isles includes both the UK and Ireland.
I did an ancestry test and it showed British ancestry not Irish
I had similarly different results from all of the different companies.
It all works out for me because I have no driving need to know my heritage. I was born and raised in the United States, I know my parents and grandparents and that's as far as I need to go..I have concerns right here in the present.
Jim Mc lol I agree
Yeah it's me. Wow that’s lovely that you don’t want to find out maybe we r better off that way
My uncle did a DNA test from 23 and me, and it was mostly British Isles, and a we bit Romanian.
Interesting video and cleared up a lot of misunderstandings about DNA. I loved the comment that just because NA or African DNA did not show up in your DNA doesn't mean there is not a NA or African ancestor in your tree. We have NA names in our tree but they go back to the 3rd g grandparent. So what this meant is that some of my 2nd and 3rd cousins inherited the NA gene and I mainly inherited the Germanic Europe with Scandinavian and Scottish genes.
You're on the right track. You won't know until NA test and are added to reference populations.
Do the companies have different data banks to compare the DNA to?
Yes, each has their own reference populations. I'll be doing a video on these in the future to help explain them better.
"Ethnicity" and "race" aren't the same. Ethnicity is a set of social, cultural, linguistic and religious beliefs common to a specific population. Subspecies, often referred to as "race", is a set of genetic morphologic characteristics particular to each human subspecies. Countries aren't synonymous to which subspecies one belongs to, for they are inhabited by groups with distinct phenotypes. Semantics matter, hence why so much mislead regarding genetic studies vs the sociopolitical/cultural way they are explained to the public.
All humans are the same species. Subspecies disappeared or became incorporated a long, long time ago.
Danes sure don't look like Bulgarians, though.
and let's not forget that the Romans invaded England too, bringing dna from all over their empire, including north Africa. mind you in terms of health dna testing could be helpful.
Almost none of the roman soldiers were north african, don't fool yourself. You should also take in mind that you're looking at a population in the hundreds of thousands to a few million (even at the time), whereas the number of roman soldiers that could have VISITED the british isles is in the tens-hundreds. In other words you have a possibility of zilch, hanging on a fraction of an ounce of probability. This is before you consider that north africans are largely considered to be caucasian, and that the people inhabiting those regions at the time were basically berbers, they looked no different than a southern iberian would have (they certainly were not black). Do more research.
.......and the Danes, and the French.....Britain has been invaded over and over again, and not just invaded but natural migration over the centuries
The Romans barley invaded Great Britain. It was actually the Iberians that invaded the British isles. In fact the average brit and Irish people have 10% to 15% Iberian in their DNA results. Same with North Africa the Iberians a re right beside each other and many Iberians from the south of Spain have mixed and immigrated to Morocco. They even have a place called Spanish Morocco in that country. Btw, the Iberians once ruled Morocco at one point in history before the Muslims invaded Spain which was mostly south of Spain.
triumphant39 although you are right that North Africans are majority caucasoid aka Berbers. The Romans had many mercenaries in their armies as the centuries went by from all over the Mediterranean. During those times all these Mediterranean people from the Iberian coast to the Levant had a lot in common.
Neo Crusader it still is not populated by black people, Berbers are from the caucasoid race and from a sub race Mediterranean race, also you use a term like “Europeans” that’s not a racial term, that’s just referencing people from a continent, Europe is not homogeneous even in ancient times. Actually genetics wise Southern Europeans, example Greeks especially island ones like Crete, Italians specifically sicilians & Calabrians, Maltese, Cypriots are from the Mediterranean race they have not much in common with Northern Europeans, in fact they have more in common with the middle eastern/eastern Mediterranean populations of Lebanon, Turkey, western Syria, parts of Palestine, ancient Greeks aka minoans, ancient Etruscans etc all migrated from the Fertile Crescent area of northern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Anatolia. They carry the same DNA haplogroup markers in some cases and in other cases very similar ones.
Question: so do these tests tell you where your origins really are? Because I’ve heard dna can be lost as we don’t inherit all our DNA from our ancestors. For instance my grandpa could have Italian and Chinese in his dna. But my dad doesn’t inherit the Chinese so neither do I. So isn’t it possible that I can take a test and be under the false assumption that what the test shows is my actual ancestral origins?
Yes and no. You haven't inherited DNA from every ancestor. So, the DNA tests can only tell you about the ancestors you did inherit DNA from. Breaking up your ethnicity is done by comparing your DNA to reference populations. None of the companies' reference populations are large enough yet to give a definitive answer.
Great video man
Doesn't Scotland have the largest population of redhead's in Europe, and the world?
Yes! Scotland first, Ireland second (where I am from) Also loads of gingers in Australia, because loads of people from the UK immigrated to Australia (sometimes not by choice though sadly). Gingers are all over the globe but YES most of them can be found in Scotland.
I read somewhere that red hair came from the Vikings.
Altheavpc that's what they say, the Scottish island with the most redheads is pretty close to Scandinavia, of course my DNA looks like someone from the Orkney island or Norway or Iceland(via Gedmatch and DNA land) with a dash of Moldova.Im a ginger. But I also tan. A little, lol.
donald loudermilk I think it is probably as percentage of the population, since due to the Scottish diaspora, the US likely has more redheads in over all numbers. But relative to the population size, Scotland is by the far the largest and if they scaled up Scotland’s population to the same as the US, then the number of redheads would completely dwarf anywhere else.
no, its russia
I am confused, I dd AncestryUK and it had what I thought was fairly accurate told me I was 100% European (no surprise) 80% Irish a little low given that I was born and raised there as was my family going back at least 4 generations. Probably even further back than that but I didn’t look any further. Told me I was 95% likely to be Ulster Irish which is SPOT ON, I’m from Derry and so are 3 of my grandparents the last one being from Monaghan (also in the province of Ulster) so SPOT ON there. However it found almost NO Scandinavian only 3% and I am a very cliche looking Irish ginger as was most of my mums family, so how can we not have more Scandinavian dan when Eric the red and Leif Ericsson were supposed to have been largely responsible for bringing that fair ginger, light eyed thing over to us in the UK??? I am VERY proud to be Irish, but I know that many countries invaded us. Another example is that I’m from Derry (Londonderry to some 😡) yet I only came up 5% British!!! All so confusing… Anyway, you are what you are when you look in the mirror and I am proud of that. :)
You tested around 100-120 genes out of 100,000. Did that include the genes for eye color? And do they have a record of Eric the Red and Leif Ericsson genome to compare with? Probably not.
I am from Northern Ireland and used Living DNA and they said I was mostly Scottish and English and only 5% Irish, but they are still building up their database. I was expecting about 12.5 Irish and a chunk of English, Welsh and Scottish but in different proportions than what I got. I got no Scandinavian. I’m not red haired but my family definitely has the gene. We don’t know if the Scandinavians brought it to Ireland, that was just a theory I think
The Volga region has more gingers per capita than anywhere else in the world, bar Ireland. The Udmurt people of the region have been described as “the most redheaded men in the world”, while their ancient relatives, the Budini people, were noted for their fiery hair by the Greek historian, Herodotus.
When each set of parents have sex, they give each child a little bit different of themselves (going back generations) - this is good for society, because it helps cut down on diseases, but it does make DNA tests a little confusing. Plus, these tests are the cheapest to get what we want. To get exactly what you are, you would need to do a much more expensive test. -- I did these tests to help with geneology searches (it really does help with those) and a little fun. -- But take the results with a grain of salt. It gets you into the area you were born, and that's more information than many people have.
pretty sure Scotland wins the red hair gene pool.
really weird , so what happen if you retest at the same company ! is it give the same result ?!
If it was the same chip, but 23andMe is on version 5 of there chip. I had tested on V3 of the chip which was the one that provided data for the most SNPs. Some of my family tested on V4 which is more in line with what AncestryDNA uses.
Accuracy depends largely on what is being measured as well as the quality of markers used and the reference populations being used, all of the calculators on GED Match measure distinct genetic affinities across space and time. Moreover, despite having similarly labeled clusters, when these clusters are formed in ADMIXTURE different sets of populations and markers are used to create them. This is exactly why authors who have developed ADMIXTURE tests warn people against comparing different ADMIXTURE runs, because the marker overlap (referring to the markers that each cluster shares in common from another test or run) is not the same for every run or test. Dodecad K12b's Caucasus and Gedrosia is not the same as MDLP K13 Ultimate's Caucasus-Gedorsia, the alleles that go into the formation of these components is fundamentally different even when they exhibit similar patterns in other tests.
In order to properly gauge the accuracy of calculator, you must first ask yourself these questions.
1. What markers are being used to define each cluster?
2. What is the FST relationship between each cluster?
3. If comparing two tests, what is the degree of marker overlap?
4. What reference populations are being used?
5. Most importantly, what is it that's being measured? What is the goal of this test?
The point being that admixture/heritage/ethnicity is far more complex than the marketing departments of each of these companies make it out to be.
Hi Andrew, of all the sites you visited is there one in particular you would recommend over the others? I would like to know the percentage in me of my Irish heritage, although in HS the Costanza twins thought I was of Greek ethnicity, but truth be known I looked as Italian as they were, with the big nose, eyes and mouth. 😂👍
"Where are you from" ?... Earth, I'm an Earthman, story over !...
Meh I'm more interested in the dna matches with relatives aspect of the results.
You are the gold star student in the comments section!
Population move. The results will vary if you look 200 years ago or 2000 years ago.
If you look 100 000 years ago, you will be african.
Interesting video. Do you still consider it a useful tool to use in conjunction with "paper" genealogy for helping to break through walls if you are having issues with fairly recent ancestors?
Yes! Fairly recent ancestors is where DNA is the most helpful because at 2nd cousins and closer all share DNA with you and to such an extent that you can distinguish how they are related fairly easily.
There are some differences. The likelihood of Scandinavian ancestor result been right is just 40-50% (in Sweden 46% likelihood). The highest likelihood of right result is for Finland/Northwest Russia result: 96%.
Beware of the $39.99 test. Everyone comes out as a country from the British Isles and another country far away. My background is mostly Polish, but I was given Irish and Nigerian! Another European lady was given English and Indian!
Kamelhaj english and indian is pretty likely though
it's not likely , it's just possible but anything is 'possible'.
There's nothing anomalous about English and Indian. Considering the history of those two countries.
Also if some test gives you something silly like less than 0.1% Sub-Saharan African even though you are European. Just disregard it. It's within the margin of error and means nothing.
Toveri Juri There were plenty of Indians living and working in the UK. I don’t see why it is so hard to fathom any sort of sexual conduct between the two groups considering extensive interaction in some places
if it was small % then its likely impossible because it had happaned long time ago when there were litteraly 0 indians in UK.
if its over 5-10% its possible
That explain why so many say they have native in them and it doesn’t show up
Or.. the native part is actually a lie to erase the guilt of being a descendant of those who invaded the land in the first place...
Lamp G
it wasn’t invasion, there was nothing but some cannibal tribes. No structures, no history, no right to exist.
quit be cocky dude.....it had to be this way..so as to spread the ethnicity group...furthermore..these Indians came from Siberia..and east Asia..others from Polynesia..go learn before spew crap ..
LOUIS XIV atypical statement from an uneducated and unenlightened pleb. Take pride in your peasant ancestry.
LOUIS XIV the Mississippians' mound structures all over the place beg to differ.
Genetic ancestry tests are unreliable, and still in the early stages. There is a margin of error depending on the company that conduct test. As the technology improves the results of these test might change.
The test itself gives very accurate results...of the SNPs that are tested.
What is unreliable is the ethnicity/admixture calculations.
Genes do not tell you your ancestry. You want to know your ancestry, look in the mirror and some family photos. It is a business. The purpose of a business is to make money, and they achieve that objective at any cost even lie, about the quality of what they are selling.
Agreed.
Eddie you are correct DNA does not lie, but it is scientists attempt to interpret it that is inaccurate. When you want to acquire knowledge about a subject you need to do research. Know what you are claiming before you text you fool.
You are correct DNA does not lie, but it is but it is scientists attempt to interpret it that is inaccurate. When you want to acquire knowledge about a subject you need to do research. Know what you are claiming before you text you fool.
Thanks for the video. Maybe my question has already been asked, then I apologize. In my DNA results there was a very localized, small indication (in Sweden). I have no idea which ancestor from which lineage passed on his DNA to me. The other information is all vague and relates to much larger areas. Like "English/Irish" or "Baltic". But not as specific a statement as the Swedish one. What explanation can there be for this?
Thank you for just spitting truth and going through it thoroughly
You're welcome. Come back again
Did you forget about crossing over? You talk really fast so it sounds convincing about all the "by this generation you don't inherit dna from some ancestors anymore", but that just isn't right
What isn't right? Could you elaborate on what you mean by crossing over in relation to genetics?
The further back in generations you go, the less likely you are to inherit any DNA from a particular ancestor. By the 8th generation, you inherit no DNA from the majority (>50%) of your ancestors in that generation.
Btw (and sorry if the wuestion has been answered somewhere else) :
Where does your stat about being related to 120 people comes from?
I don't quite get the number...
PS: thanks for these videos, clearly above the average crap we can see on youtube...
I'm searching for the exact protocols followed by these company. Any leads?
You have 4 grandparents. A generation before your 4 grandparents, each of them had 4 grandparents so 4 sets of grandparents from 4 grandparents each = 16 grandparents 2 generations ago. Those 16 also had 4 grandparents, so 2 generations ago you had 64 grandparents. Those 64 had 4 grandparents each which means 3 generations ago you had 256 (TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX) GRANDPARENTS 3 generations ago.
Do you see why getting information about 256 possible grandparents gets a little lost in the mix?
That and country borders changed all the time throughout history.
I still think tests like 23andme have value because it may only tell you .01% of your genetics, but that's 0.01% MORE than you knew.
Nope, stop right there. Negatory Ghost Rider. The inheritance of DNA can be haphazard "By the 8th generation, you inherit no DNA from the majority (>50%) of your ancestors in that generation." You're also forgetting Pedigree Collapse. Don't care for your snarky vibe, which is also terribly offbase.
I think he is referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover or genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/siblings-are-around-fifty-percent-related.
So in fact we will all have DNA from all of our ancestors, at least more ore less.