PDA

View Full Version : I talked to ancestrydna? So I'm both 66% African as well as 100% but estimated 90%?



jaderose22
04-02-2017, 02:02 PM
I'm just wondering? Because I've done ancestrydna and the answer I get for the range keeps changing. Yesterday I spoke to a specialist about the range and he told me it was there because that's what I tested as in the 40 times they tested me some of the time I was 32% European 66% African and 1% native american and 1% middle eastern and but more of the time tested 100% or close to 100%. Their estimate is I'm 90% African. What's weirder is on other places I've transfered the raw data to I get more middle eastern more north African than I do European and hardly get any native american. I also got much more east African heritage there. So I really question my results. But my question is if I'm both 66% African and 100% African but estimated at 90% African. How am I supposed to explain that? I mean I feel 90% is a deceptive it hides the fact that I tested 100% African sometimes and other times tested 66% African I'd have preferred the actual findings and results than an estimate you know?

lwell
04-02-2017, 04:35 PM
The range is from each run, and based on the length of the segments of the chromosomes. The final number is just the average.

geebee
04-02-2017, 08:09 PM
The range gives you the lowest result you scored and the highest result, but that doesn't mean your "real" percentage is halfway between. I think that might be what they mean if they're telling you that you "more of the time tested 100% or close to 100%".

Suppose that you only tested as low as 66% African one time, but tested as 100% six or seven times; and as somewhere between 75-95% the remaining times. Then your average result will be much closer to 100% than to only 66%. Or in this case, the average comes out as 90%.

My brother-in-law's daughter (my wife's niece) is married to an African-American. Ancestry tells him he's 80% African, and 19% European (the rest is Asian). They actually don't provide a "range" for African, you have to figure out the range for each component -- Ivory Coast/Ghana, Cameroon/Congo, Benin/Togo, and several "low confidence" regions.

Obviously, it isn't enough just to add each low to get the low for African, or each high to get the high. The latter would yield more than 100%, which is not possible. In fact, the different components actually aren't independent of each other: when one is high, another may be low. However, because they show you the average for each ethnicity, they're actually treating each one as if it were independent of the others -- even though that really isn't true.

(That's why I like Ancestry Composition much better, because at least there you have an opportunity to see where on each chromosome the segments representing each ancestry are believed to lie. You can therefore more easily compare the results of related persons to each other, and see whether it makes sense.)

jaderose22
04-02-2017, 10:51 PM
The range gives you the lowest result you scored and the highest result, but that doesn't mean your "real" percentage is halfway between. I think that might be what they mean if they're telling you that you "more of the time tested 100% or close to 100%".

Suppose that you only tested as low as 66% African one time, but tested as 100% six or seven times; and as somewhere between 75-95% the remaining times. Then your average result will be much closer to 100% than to only 66%. Or in this case, the average comes out as 90%.

My brother-in-law's daughter (my wife's niece) is married to an African-American. Ancestry tells him he's 80% African, and 19% European (the rest is Asian). They actually don't provide a "range" for African, you have to figure out the range for each component -- Ivory Coast/Ghana, Cameroon/Congo, Benin/Togo, and several "low confidence" regions.

Obviously, it isn't enough just to add each low to get the low for African, or each high to get the high. The latter would yield more than 100%, which is not possible. In fact, the different components actually aren't independent of each other: when one is high, another may be low. However, because they show you the average for each ethnicity, they're actually treating each one as if it were independent of the others -- even though that really isn't true.

(That's why I like Ancestry Composition much better, because at least there you have an opportunity to see where on each chromosome the segments representing each ancestry are believed to lie. You can therefore more easily compare the results of related persons to each other, and see whether it makes sense.)

Well my range for Africa itself is 32-100% because everything has 0% range included expect Nigeria 30% minimum and cote divoire being 2% minimum in the range. But I was told every time they tested it adds up to 100% my European range was at the highest range 32%. But at the lowest 0% or close 0%. Which means sometimes I was 66% African that includes Nigeria and cote divoire not sure what else it included and 32% European while on other times they tested it was far closer to 100% and more of the time tested it was closer to the later that is why my European estimate is 9%. My native american estimate is below 1% and my middle east result was not included. Because much more of the time it was 0%. Than it was 1% or close to that. Etc.... That's what I was told by the DNA specialist. Which is hard trying to actually openly explain my heritage in any sense because of the conflicting information.

lwell
04-04-2017, 08:09 PM
Which is hard trying to actually openly explain my heritage in any sense because of the conflicting information.

What kind of answers were you looking for in terms of explaining your heritage? I'll tell you from my own experience that AncestryDNA gives you a good starting point of the genes you inherited from your parents, but doesn't really paint a full picture of heritage if that is what you are looking for.

I'll give you an example with myself. I am Mexican American with a Mestizo Mother and European Mexican father. While my mothers side of the family has been in Mexico for generations, my fathers side of the family immigrated from France and the French Basque/Spanish Asturias area. I look like any random white person physically, but my AncestryDNA result shows:

Africa 5%
Trace Regions 5%
Africa North 2%
Mali 1%
Senegal < 1%
Ivory Coast/Ghana < 1%

America 25%
Native American 25%

Asia < 1%
Trace Regions < 1%
Asia Central < 1%

Europe 64%
Italy/Greece 28%
Iberian Peninsula 24%
Europe West 7%
Trace Regions 5%
European Jewish 2%
Ireland 2%
Europe East 1%

West Asia 5%
Trace Regions 5%
Middle East 3%
Caucasus 2%

Beyond that, I learned that my origin from my mothers side is central African. As you can see, there is no clear cut way to define my own heritage through these alone. The most information I have gathered after obtaining my mtDNA is that my first mother originated in Central Africa, meaning my African origins likely ended in Mexico by means of slavery, went through years of mixing, and resulting in finally me.

jaderose22
04-10-2017, 09:17 PM
What kind of answers were you looking for in terms of explaining your heritage? I'll tell you from my own experience that AncestryDNA gives you a good starting point of the genes you inherited from your parents, but doesn't really paint a full picture of heritage if that is what you are looking for.

I'll give you an example with myself. I am Mexican American with a Mestizo Mother and European Mexican father. While my mothers side of the family has been in Mexico for generations, my fathers side of the family immigrated from France and the French Basque/Spanish Asturias area. I look like any random white person physically, but my AncestryDNA result shows:

Africa 5%
Trace Regions 5%
Africa North 2%
Mali 1%
Senegal < 1%
Ivory Coast/Ghana < 1%

America 25%
Native American 25%

Asia < 1%
Trace Regions < 1%
Asia Central < 1%

Europe 64%
Italy/Greece 28%
Iberian Peninsula 24%
Europe West 7%
Trace Regions 5%
European Jewish 2%
Ireland 2%
Europe East 1%

West Asia 5%
Trace Regions 5%
Middle East 3%
Caucasus 2%

Beyond that, I learned that my origin from my mothers side is central African. As you can see, there is no clear cut way to define my own heritage through these alone. The most information I have gathered after obtaining my mtDNA is that my first mother originated in Central Africa, meaning my African origins likely ended in Mexico by means of slavery, went through years of mixing, and resulting in finally me.



those are your estimates you're showing. I have estimates they are clear cut look something like this

90% Africa
46% Nigeria
14% Ivory Coast
10% Mali
7% Togo/Benin
5% Senegal
5% Cameroon
2% Eastern Bantu
below 1% Khoisan
Africa North 0%

Europe
Trace regions 9%
Ireland 3%
Iberian Peninsula 1%
Scandinavia 1%
Finland/Russia 1%
Great Britain below 1%
East Europe below 1%
Jewish European below 1%
West European way below 1% It sometimes indicates 0%
Italy/Greece 0%

Americas below 1%

Asia
Middle east 0%
Cauasus 0%

Oceania
Melanesia 0%
Polynesia 0%



These are my estimates though not my actual ranges.


My actually ranges are what I actually tested as. The estimate is the average of all the results total.


My ranges are actually more like this


Nigeria 30-64% range

Cote D'ivoire 2-25% range

Mali 0-20% range

Togo/Benin 0-17% range

Senegal 0-12% range

Cameroon 0-12% range I believe could be 10%

Eastern Bantu 0-7% range

Khoisan 0-2%

Africa North 0-0% range

Europe
trace regions

Ireland 0-6% range

Iberian Peninsula 0-5% range

Scandinavia 0-5% range

Finland/Russia 0-4% range

Great Britain I believe 0-4% range

East European 0-3% range

West European 0-3% range

European Jewish 0-2% range

Italy/Greece 0-0% range

Americas 0-1% range

Asia

Middle east 0-1% range

Caucasus 0-0%

Oceania

Polynesia 0-<1%

Melanesia 0-0%


The ranges are craziest in African and Europe as you can see. I'm as low as 32% African heritage and as high as 159% African lol. And as low as 0% European and as high as 32% European. I spoke to the dna specialist he told me that it is showing how I tested over the 40 times. So that's why there is such a difference. He also mentioned how every time it results in 100% of the genome

geebee
04-11-2017, 02:04 AM
Once more, you cannot come up with a range for either all African or all European. The reason is simple: it is very unlikely that you got your lowest score in every African region (or your highest score) in the same test run.

What you're doing to figure your "range" for African (or European) ignores this. But try this: to get the lowest score you could ever have possibly gotten for all of Africa, take the highest scores you ever got for anything else. Add them up, and subtract them from 100%. I think you're likely to find a number greater than 32%. If so, that means you can't say that you're "as low as 32% African heritage", since your total African on any test run can never have been that low.

geebee
04-11-2017, 02:12 AM
If I were to figure the way you've done, I'd say that my lowest non-zero European scores were 15% and <1%, so therefore the bottom of my range for "all Europe" must be less than 16% (because all of my other European scores were sometimes 0.)! This makes no sense.

What I have to do instead is calculate the highest possible score for all of my non-European results and subtract this from 100%. This is because logically anything that isn't non-European is European. So subtracting 16% from 100% gives me 84%, and that is the actual bottom of my European -- not 16%!

Once again, please try this. Add up the highest score for all of your non-African ranges. Since everything that isn't non-African must be African, you can subtract the non-African result from 100%. The difference will be your lowest possible African score.

I really doubt that it will be only 32%.

EDIT: I see that you actually did post your non-African ranges. I only came up with a total of 35%, which means your African range can only be from 65% to 100%. (Not from 32% to 150%.)

Ireland 6% + Iberian Peninsula 5% + Scandinavia 5% range + Finland/Russia 4% + Great Britain 4% + East European 3%+ West European 3% + European Jewish 2% +
Americas 1% + Middle east 1% + Polynesia <1% = less than 35%, but I called it 35%

jaderose22
04-11-2017, 02:49 AM
I am just saying the only African heritage that didn't include 0%. Every run was surely over 32%. But the ranges all include 0% except Nigeria and cote divoire. Which added up to 32%. But Europe added up to 32% total. So when I spoke to the dna specialist he told me that it meant Europe was up to 32% in some of the runs. Therefore I was 66% African in some runs while other runs were close to 100%.





Once more, you cannot come up with a range for either all African or all European. The reason is simple: it is very unlikely that you got your lowest score in every African region (or your highest score) in the same test run.

What you're doing to figure your "range" for African (or European) ignores this. But try this: to get the lowest score you could ever have possibly gotten for all of Africa, take the highest scores you ever got for anything else. Add them up, and subtract them from 100%. I think you're likely to find a number greater than 32%. If so, that means you can't say that you're "as low as 32% African heritage", since your total African on any test run can never have been that low.

jaderose22
04-11-2017, 02:54 AM
I'm just wondering? Because I've done ancestrydna and the answer I get for the range keeps changing. Yesterday I spoke to a specialist about the range and he told me it was there because that's what I tested as in the 40 times they tested me some of the time I was 32% European 66% African and 1% native american and 1% middle eastern and but more of the time tested 100% or close to 100%. Their estimate is I'm 90% African. What's weirder is on other places I've transfered the raw data to I get more middle eastern more north African than I do European and hardly get any native american. I also got much more east African heritage there. So I really question my results. But my question is if I'm both 66% African and 100% African but estimated at 90% African. How am I supposed to explain that? I mean I feel 90% is a deceptive it hides the fact that I tested 100% African sometimes and other times tested 66% African I'd have preferred the actual findings and results than an estimate you know?


If I were to figure the way you've done, I'd say that my lowest non-zero European scores were 15% and <1%, so therefore the bottom of my range for "all Europe" must be less than 16% (because all of my other European scores were sometimes 0.)! This makes no sense.

What I have to do instead is calculate the highest possible score for all of my non-European results and subtract this from 100%. This is because logically anything that isn't non-European is European. So subtracting 16% from 100% gives me 84%, and that is the actual bottom of my European -- not 16%!

Once again, please try this. Add up the highest score for all of your non-African ranges. Since everything that isn't non-African must be African, you can subtract the non-African result from 100%. The difference will be your lowest possible African score.

I really doubt that it will be only 32%.

EDIT: I see that you actually did post your non-African ranges. I only came up with a total of 35%, which means your African range can only be from 65% to 100%. (Not from 32% to 150%.)

Ireland 6% + Iberian Peninsula 5% + Scandinavia 5% range + Finland/Russia 4% + Great Britain 4% + East European 3%+ West European 3% + European Jewish 2% +
Americas 1% + Middle east 1% + Polynesia <1% = less than 35%, but I called it 35%



I said that in my op I was tested as 66% African heritage sometimes while other times I was not. This is what the dna specialist said. I just find this hard to explain to others. That I'm both 32% European and closer to 0% at the same time. You know?

And that's what I did. I'm 32% European in some of the tests. Plus 1% from native anerican and middle east each

geebee
04-11-2017, 04:25 AM
I said that in my op I was tested as 66% African heritage sometimes while other times I was not. This is what the dna specialist said. I just find this hard to explain to others. That I'm both 32% European and closer to 0% at the same time. You know?

And that's what I did. I'm 32% European in some of the tests. Plus 1% from native american and middle east each

I think that what you said in your OP is correct. Where you caused some confusion -- I think maybe to both of us -- was in a couple of later posts.

In Post #4 you wrote:


Well my range for Africa itself is 32-100%

But that could only have been true if on one of the 40 runs your total for all of Africa combined was just 32%. Obviously, it wasn't. In fact, it seems never have been less than 66%.

You also wrote in Post #6:


The ranges are craziest in African and Europe as you can see. I'm as low as 32% African heritage and as high as 159% African lol. And as low as 0% European and as high as 32% European. I spoke to the dna specialist he told me that it is showing how I tested over the 40 times. So that's why there is such a difference. He also mentioned how every time it results in 100% of the genome

But the ranges aren't crazy. The only reason they seem to be is because you're thinking of them as all being separate. They aren't. Every time one of the 40 test runs was completed, you got a score for each ancestry. All at the same time. Clearly, when some of your Africa scores were 0, others were not, so that you never got a total of less than 66%, and you also never got a total of more than 100%.

If I'd only read the OP, I wouldn't have had a problem. A range of 66-100% for Africa makes sense; a range of 32-159% does not. It would be crazy, but that isn't what the test results ever suggested.

geebee
04-11-2017, 04:48 AM
"I mean I feel 90% is a deceptive it hides the fact that I tested 100% African sometimes and other times tested 66% African I'd have preferred the actual findings and results than an estimate you know?"

Ancestry does give the actual findings, because that's what the ranges represent. The problem is that the ranges are a bit misleading, because they seem to be independent of each other when they aren't. Ideally, you should know exactly what you scored for each ancestry for each of the 40 runs.

The problem is that it would be more difficult to present the results. What you'd have to have would be 40 separate ethnicity estimates, rather than one estimate with 40 ranges for each ancestry. It's actually possible -- maybe even likely -- that you never had a single test result that was the matches your ethnicity estimate.

The problem I have with Ancestry treating each ancestry as if it's separate, and coming up with separate averages, is that the scores are not separate. Therefore, what you really need is not the average of each individual ancestry, but the average of all the runs -- even if that results in a couple of individual ancestries deviating from their average scores. You don't want an average, you want the best fit.

jaderose22
04-11-2017, 09:00 PM
I think that what you said in your OP is correct. Where you caused some confusion -- I think maybe to both of us -- was in a couple of later posts.

In Post #4 you wrote:


Well my range for Africa itself is 32-100%

But that could only have been true if on one of the 40 runs your total for all of Africa combined was just 32%. Obviously, it wasn't. In fact, it seems never have been less than 66%.

You also wrote in Post #6:


The ranges are craziest in African and Europe as you can see. I'm as low as 32% African heritage and as high as 159% African lol. And as low as 0% European and as high as 32% European. I spoke to the dna specialist he told me that it is showing how I tested over the 40 times. So that's why there is such a difference. He also mentioned how every time it results in 100% of the genome

But the ranges aren't crazy. The only reason they seem to be is because you're thinking of them as all being separate. They aren't. Every time one of the 40 test runs was completed, you got a score for each ancestry. All at the same time. Clearly, when some of your Africa scores were 0, others were not, so that you never got a total of less than 66%, and you also never got a total of more than 100%.

If I'd only read the OP, I wouldn't have had a problem. A range of 66-100% for Africa makes sense; a range of 32-159% does not. It would be crazy, but that isn't what the test results ever suggested.

What I was saying was my regions say 0% except for migeria and cote divoire which adds a minimum of 32%. But every run adds up to 100% which meanss I was 66% african at some runs while most were near 100%