DNA Ancestry Tests: How Results Are Worked Out & Small Percentage Regions!!!

[@fridaymanly]

As an African American, I thought that my low percentage of European didn't count on my test until my cousin that lives in Europe which happens to be black as well, did a major research on my family genealogy and discover (4x great-grandfather was indeed from Ireland, he travelled to Jamaica in the 1700's) He also found historical church records and current family members of his lineage that still live in Ireland. Low percentages just means how long back our ancestors live it doesn't necessarily means that they didn't existed, thus making them an important part of our lives.

[@davidaelliott]

I agree that small percentages can mean the ancestors were further back but without following the "paper trail" to confirm you can't be sure it isn't just "background noise" in the data. It seems your cousin was able to confirm the small percentage was real through his research. Glad to hear you have the answer.

[@nailahdawkins]

It's funny you say that! My Mommy's Jamaican, I'm Afro-Caribbean American because of it. My Dad, African American. Part of my DNA has a low percentage Scottish DNA, she has the Irish part. I've tried tracking down the McGowan last name through Jamaica's records. So I got to say - you give me hope! 😅

[@robertfranklin4479]

I used Ancestry for DNA testing and got back interesting results. My first results showed about a dozen ethnicities ranging from Irish, Western European, Scandinavian, NW Russian, Caucasus, Iberian peninsular, to Nigerian. In my last update, it was Scottish, Irish, Western European, Scandinavian and

[@SierraEire]

This channel is criminally underrated.

[@davidaelliott]

Thanks!!! I’m glad to hear you like it.

[@larryburks592]

One of the ways to verify your accuracy is through family trees and DNA matches. Matches do not lie lol

[@mitchamcommonfair9543]

But only if those trees you are using as a comparison are accurate. Many trees are not.

[@osiruskat]

These test are useful if you are also doing a decent job at understanding genealogy in your research. Sometimes that 1% equals one ancestor which can confirm whether a tale you were told was true or not. Companies like MyHeritage I notice tend to use any basic African ancestry as Nigerian as a sort of proxy for that region. But take much of the results with a grain of salt. I've got different results from different ancestry companies but when you break things down with dna calculators like in GEDmatch, you can posssibly decipher a bit of truth.

[@duaaa391]

What does gedmatch do?

[@osiruskat]

@@duaaa391 GEDmatch have several ethnic calculators that give you close to accurate results that other ancestry test won't give you...granted all of these test are a guess of your estimated ancestry and only give you a small percentage of your total ancestry. I take it all with a grain of salt.

[@KristinaUSA-x5n]

I transferred my autosomal DNA from My Heritage to Family Tree DNA and my grandmother's parents were Swedish and my dad's father was British and Irish and Scottish and Welsh and Swiss and German and Dutch and my mom's Austrian and German and Eastern European from Czechoslovakian and Russian. My results are different from company to company and they keep changing them around.

[@DeLaTr0ll]

I had a genealogist say if it’s under 10% you can ignore it unless you know the history. I just don’t understand why people have a such a fit over being Portuguese v. Spanish it’s like it’s literally the same region. A person could have results for either and still identify with the one their family told them the were.

[@DeLaTr0ll]

@@eleksecurityprofessionalas351 Semantics.

[@moshenewsletter4620]

Also, most DNA companies deliberately disconnected any of their customers DNA results from a country like Rome that migrated to Iberia to avoid customers from being targeted due to racial discrimination. I watched a documentary on that randomly several years ago on history channel where most indigenous Romans refused to refer to themselves as Romans after relocating to iberia and America during the late 1400 migration and occupation.. It's one of the major reasons you would never hear anyone calling themselves Roman Americans. Same as millions of African Jews hide their ethnicities during the 1800s when Europeans occupied Central Africa fearing being targeted.

[@fridaymanly]

That genealogist should go back to school, because 10 percent does count, even 1 percent. Look at your DNA matches and you will see distant relatives from other races.

[@lucianaromulus1408]

I'd say anything 1% and under is almost for sure bs, but anything over is probably accurate. I prefer Ancestry, they seem more accurate...23andMe starts out with a 50% confidence report, like only 50% confident ? Super misleading.

[@theintrovertedaspie9095]

@@lucianaromulus1408 I was 1% Northern African. Today my results show I'm 2 percent. The rest of me is European. I know for a fact my Grandpa's Spanish and Portuguese ancestors colonized that area. While looking through my DNA communities I found some relatives who were born on the Canary Islands which is part of Africa. Theres names are of Spanish and Portuguese origin. And they clearly didn't look African. So maybe my NA heritage is just trough the natives of that region which is just the Spanish and Portuguese communities of that area. And not to the actual indigeouse Africans. Other than that theres no connection to African communities or relatives in my DNA communities. And nor is there any mention of Spanish and Portuguese immigration to the country. I guess it has yet to be added. I do have some relatives born in Cuba, but there not indigeouce. My family never really talks about this or has any evidence. We usually just associate ourselves with our other heritage like our Irish, Scottish, and even Spanish. Of course we know my grandpa's Spanish and Portuguese ancestors colonizing North Africa. I wish I was 100% European. I LOVE Europe. Well I still would identify myself as a European American.

[@iamme6773]

I took two tests from two companies and got completely different results. As in, different CONTINENTS! Here's my actual results: Company #1: Scandinavian 19.8%, Southern France 14.7%, Sardinia 13.8%, Orkney Isles 11.1%, SE India 10.3%, W Siberia 9%, Basque 8.6%, Tuva Siberia 7.4%, N India 2.2%, W South America 1.7% and SE Asia .9%. Company #2: NW Europe 34%, Scotland 25%, Germanic 16%, Wales 12%, Ireland 8%, Spain 2% and Portugal 1% So, I took these tests because I'm what you might call racially ambiguous. People always ask "what are you?" I'm American, which is a fairly mixed country. And I still don't know. Lol!

[@amoywaid8907]

What company was the #1 company you took test with? They seem more detailed and makes more sense with your seeming “ racially ambiguous”.

[@ineffable_name]

It may be like anything else on the market, chicken is chicken but I do t expect to get the same "chicken" from zaxbys as I would from Popeyes. Race, in its roots, referred to horse hair and how to distinguish them apart. You can do that with humans too. North/west africa/north/east africa/southern Europe/Eurasia/ southern asia/Polynesian people got waviest hair of different degrees. Not sure about about mtdna, but the common y haplogroups for these peopes is e1b1 and r1b. Also, all these regions can be linked to some old mixtures with black people (ancient migrations) or their are black people there now (Andaman islanders, neuritis of Phillipines and Indonesia, dark skinned people of singapore.. I would say Melanesia and Australia but their haplogroups are distinct from everyone else, aside from mtdna). The darkest skinned people of India don't quite look black but you can see that its ancient, plus they be having the waviest of the waves lol

[@ineffable_name]

You can look up all of those mentioned on Facebook in the regions named, all except for Andaman islanders and negritos. From I read and hear, negritos are treated the worse, which makes sense since the world dont k ow about them.

[@ineffable_name]

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention Malaysia. If you want to see all of the world mixed together though, the best bet would be Madagascar (they will be darker though) and certain regions or south America

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

Okay if you're saying it's got to be 20% like none of my DNA results are above 20%. And stay that way. Like none of them. Nigerian on ancestry DNA for example was above 20% at one point. So it's even been below 5%. Mali's stayed at like 10:11 13%. It's always been that percentage. Now 23andMe has hat Nigeria consistent over 20%. Everything else is not over 20% that I know of maybe East Africa? Night in Nigeria is over 30% on my heritage. Everything else again is under 20% again. So basically you're telling me I can't trust anything at this point. LMAO cuz my Nigerian on ancestry DNA went down to 1%

[@KCDisney1]

I have 4% chinese ancestry. But my cousin has 11%. And I can 100% confirm that a low percentage is not always a error as my family are Chinese Jamaican and my dad has a very typical Chinese surname. On my Ancestry Dna it shows where my Chinese ancesters migrated from Northeast China to Southeast China. And most likely were the Hakka people. What I would like to ask though is that I received 1% Korean and 1% Vietnam. Could that be an error or do you think because of China bordering these countries that it was a possibility I got these 2 countries in my DNA aswell? But the 4% chinese as I described is definitely not an error. My Jamaican Chinese family look it aswell.

[@davidaelliott]

Yes, the small percentages can show a correct source of ancestry but could be just "background noise". That is why you can not rely on it unless you have other information, which you do. It is possible that the Vietnamese and/or Korean could also be correct. However, I expect being neighbouring countries that the DNA for these countries is similar. So, the results could be just misinterpreting some of your Chinese DNA.

[@KCDisney1]

@@davidaelliottCool, thank you for replying. On my Ancestry Dna results it does show a migration map (Showing the dotted lines) from the North East of China which shows my ancesters moving from up there and going through (where the dotted line goes abit through North Korea) to all the way down through China southeast, and through Vietnam and Malaysia. So could be the migration pattern from the Hakka people.

[@cariocabassa]

I don't believe it's noise at all...especially if it keep on showin' with different tests...I mean 0.1% could be noise maybe...but 1% n' more if its keep on showin in ya results...definitely ain't noise. As far as your Korean n' Vietnamese ancestry...yes it most likely comes from the proximity that China has with this countries. I was within a dna group, where these kinda questions were frequently asked...

[@gamillionestudios4162]

This man done found out something he doesn't like on his DNA and hes trying to explain it away. /DNA doesn't lie.

[@dominiquehudson8077]

No he's actually right. Several Geneticists and genealogists have talked about this exact topic.

[@Viraltok10]

dna does lie. he is totally correct.

[@dominiquehudson8077]

@@Viraltok10 Are you saying that Dropping Jewels is right?? DNA doesn't lie, but our interpretation of the DNA can be incorrect. Listen to the experts. Geneticists and genealogists (the people who work and study this field) say anything below 3% can be incorrect and to use cousin matching, not a random percent. Check the several hundred update videos on DNA test results and they always change. Again listen to the experts not random ppl on the Internet.

[@Viraltok10]

@@dominiquehudson8077 that was what i was trying to say. You should’nt nesessarily trust a 3 percent. Dropping jewels is incorrect

[@dominiquehudson8077]

@@Viraltok10 Ahh gotcha 👌

[@Buckles_thebeaver]

I think low percentages are your roots . I'm %1 Basque and my father was able to tell me about it

[@mbsnyderc]

It's what you should call a margin of error result.doesn't mean it's wrong,but it well could be.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

That's why I just don't pay attention to the ancestry DNA results because their results are too wacky. Like they change everything has been a low confidence result Cameroon used to be low confidence that it was 40% the only one who wasn't low confidence was mali

[@josesolans2475]

I have a question for David A Elliott. I am Cuban American and had a dna test done through ancestry dna a couple of years ago and the results came back as follow : Spain/Portugal 75 %; North Africa 4 %; Wales 5 % Native American 4 % Ireland/ Scotland 4 % Italy 3 % France 3 % Sub Saharan African 2 %. As far as I know according to family history I had Spanish ancestors directly from Spain to Cuba in the late 1890s. Should I disregard those low percentages and if so how low ?. 5, 4 or 3 or 2 ?.

[@davidaelliott]

I wouldn't necessarily totally disregard the low percentages. It is just the lower the percentage than the interpretation is less reliable. Though with their updates of results the accuracy may improve. Another issue is that geographically close populations will have similar DNA and some of the DNA can get matched to that other region. So, for example some of your Spanish DNA may get misinterpreted as Italy, France and North Africa & possibly even further. I would generally say if tracing family history to compare it to your paper trail but it may help in following up other avenues to investigate. You may also try other DNA testing companies and compare results. For free you can download your raw DNA data from Ancestry DNA & upload to other companies for interpretation (e.g. Family Tree DNA, My Heritage DNA, Living DNA, GedMatch, etc.).

[@fridaymanly]

Maybe your Spaniard relatives, they themselves had ancestors from those areas like Ireland or Scotland, Wales and it was passed to you. As for the Native and Sub-Saharan African, dude, That is extremely common among people from the Caribbean, remember lower percentages doesn't mean that those ancestors didn't exist, it means that they were present further back in your family tree

[@sloppyfloppy79]

If you have a family tree it helps. I was shown 3 percent native but I am 6 generations from a full blood. I would say anything below 1 percent. Make sure to use large databases for comparison. These companies are very limited.

[@gj1234567899999]

I was intrigued by the family history of the actress Kate Beckinsale. She’s English but she has a direct Burmese ancestry because her distant ancestor was a British officer who married a Burmese. If she didn’t know her history and she took a DNA test, and it showed how she has Burmese DNA, would people assure her it was a meaningless artifact because Burma is way out there compared to her other genes? Perhaps more people have similar ancestry. It takes about 7 generations for a full blooded ancestors genes be under 1%. It seems quite possible to have had an ancestor who was a native, a slave, etc. before 1850 and by now that DNA is negligible.

[@davidaelliott]

Yes, I totally agree. 7 generations back there would be up to 128 ancestors in that generation. If someone was tested and the results said they had 1% Burmese ancestry I would not say it was definitely a meaningless artefact but that they could not state it as proven fact because there is a high probability that "background noise" could have created that result. However, that information could give them a clue in following the paper trail. I looked online and it appears it was Kate Beckinsale's great grandfather was Burmese. So, she would be 12.5% Burmese and it's likely a DNA test would show some Burmese or at least somewhere nearby. My main point in this video was that many people believe the results to be absolute facts when the reality is there is a high degree of error, especially with the percentage amounts.

[@pham1lyph1rst]

Yep. You lost me at "fake news"

[@fishinwidow35]

I transferred my autosomal DNA to another company which lets you looks at your ancient DNA and it pretty much matched what the first company said and both were similar to my "paper trail". Last week the second company did some kind of update and my Scottish and Native American results vanished. Now those percentages are associated with a tiny island off North Ireland (ok because Scots and Irish have moved around a bit) and now some is associated with headless Romans found in England? My father knew his Native grandmothers and the DNA that was there is now just gone.

[@davidaelliott]

Yes, it is possible that when they update data that correct results can disappear and incorrect ones appear, especially if they are not large percentages. For example, as I say in the video, my great grandfather was Danish but one company shows all my ancestry was British.

[@fishinwidow35]

@@davidaelliott 12% down to 0 is a big drop

[@oh-hithere9449]

@@davidaelliott If that “one company” is Ancestry, they struggle to recognize Danish DNA and have put me in the Swedish and Norwegian categories, and in the “Denmark community”. My mother is full Danish, per a very long paper trail over hundreds of years. 23andme finally put her at 98.-something Danish but Ancestry has her with British blood as well, I believe. I saw on a board many years ago, Danes in Denmark saying they got the same results. I assume it’s due to migration or early Danish settlements in England.

[@normanhayashi]

MyHeritage tells me that I was 1% Finnish, 1.5% Baltic and 1% Andean while skipping my Mongolian heritage and mistaking it as Chinese. Using the same raw DNA data and matching it with ancient DNA from archeological burial sites showed that I have multiple strong matches to ancient humans in Mongolia including Xiongnu and Xianbei cultures. And the tiny "European" component in my DNA actually came from a mixture of Scythians and Siberians whom the Xiongnus are direct descendants - a white paper about this discovery was recently released in 2020, prior to that no one knew who were the Xiongnus and where they came from.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

My problem is this ancestry DNA went from 46% Nigerian then 1% Nigerian then back up to 38% Nigerian so that's why when you say don't trust a small results I'm like well that was my biggest result by the way

[@GMarieBehindTheMask]

Mine didnt say low confidence on any and I have a bunch 1% 2% 3% WTH?

[@davidaelliott]

Some just list the percentages & don't say they are "low confidence", "trace" or anything else. With those low percentages it could just be "background noise". Though it is not impossible there may have been an ancestor from that region, especially if those low percentages are near each other. For example, one company says I'm 1.1% Middle Eastern. Since it is nowhere near any of my other regions I think it is probably just "background noise"

[@dahaliantongue]

Many east and southeast asians could get 3% finnic or scandinavian ancestry and it was seen from reports from number of companies. Does that tell something?

[@manxkin]

My Ancestry DNA Regional/Ethnicity results are actually quite accurate.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

Because they constantly switch every time they switch it changes.

[@alfawolf7125]

they claim that the mitochondrial or maternal haplogroup c1b is "native america" however after doing some research i found out that actually it may have originated in europe the C1 GROUP IS FROM EUROPE and went to the americas and became.....C1B.how to understand these confusion?

[@honeyjazz4147]

High percentages can be incorrect on these dna tests also just like you stated you have Danish ancestry and one company said you're 100% English. Most tests are close to accurate on the continental level. I have a small amount of Native American ancestry which I know it's there for certain one way is your cousin matches, another is paper trail there are many ways to verify it, hapoloug group even blood type also genetic traits.

[@davidaelliott]

I agree the high percentages can be incorrect. I would never rely on the percentage being right and it is even possible the region could be wrong. The "paper trail" show all my ancestry lead back to Britain except for my great grandfather from Denmark. So, I would expect between about 10% and 15% from this region. Though another factor to consider is errors will occur with different populations that are genetically similar. This is the case with Scandinavian and British populations and can explain the 100% British from one company. I agree with the rest of what you say. It is good to confirm information from multiple sources and methods, where possible.

[@mitchamcommonfair9543]

This is absolutely correct. The low percentages in a result are just noise. As you say, this is explained in the testing company information pages. That low percentages, eg anything below 15%, is not to be considered accurate. Another thing that amazes me is the amount of family tree enthusiasts who believe it is possible to split North Western European ethnic heritage by country. So for example, someone wanting to find Irish, Scottish, French, English ethnicity. But the truth is, there is hardly any difference between them. If any at all.

[@rosexx241]

It’s ridiculous because we do these test expecting accuracy. More than 20% of my dna is made up of small percentages I feel like I can’t even trust it

[@fridaymanly]

@@rosexx241 Percentage refers to the time those ancestors were in your family tree, it doesn't mean they didn't existed. Low percentages means that they existed further back.

[@theintrovertedaspie9095]

I am 2% Norwegian, but that may or may not mean ethnic Norwegian ancesters, but rather Celtic (Irish/Scottish/British) peoples who descend from slaves that Vikings took from their homelands.

[@theintrovertedaspie9095]

Makes sense. European lands have tons of history of being colonized by other Europeans. A large majority of my heritage originates from Englsnd. As you probably know, that place was originally inhabited by the Britonic, a Celtic tribe. But they may have mingled with other tribes like the Welsh, Irish, Scotish, Manx, and probably even the Geuls who lived primarily in France. But then England was colonized by the Romans and they ruled it for like a 100 or so years and I think the natives drove then out or the western Roman empire fell. A while later England was colonized again by the Germanic people such as the Angles, Saxons, and the jutes. And ocassionaly the Norseman (Vikings). Anyway so as of now being of Britsh descent could mean ethnic British and/or/ Germanic or other European cultures that are non Celtic. Whi knows, you could be a mixed of all those.

[@lukegriffin2467]

I’m 15% welsh on my grandmother on dads side and great grandmother on moms side is welsh.

[@stephenwright133]

These estimates make me laugh. Over time AncestryDNA has had my highest ethnicity go from Scandinavian to Irish, to English, and in their latest update 30% Scottish. So, NW Europe-ish. I’ve also had tests done with other major DNA companies, 23andMe, FTDNA, MyHeritage, etc. They are starting to converge a bit, but my highest percentages are 30% Scotland, 54% Irish, 38% British & Irish, and 40% English. I’ve done my family tree and based on that it comes to 38% English from southern England, 25% Irish, and 12% German for the higher percentages. I just look at it for entertainment purposes now.

[@davidaelliott]

It is a bit of a mixture of art and science. So, the different companies will give different results but I expect they will tend to converge in their results as more population data is available. It may be useful in some cases for those researching family history but otherwise, as you say, it's generally best for "entertainment purposes".

[@theintrovertedaspie9095]

I am 2% Norwegian, but that may or may not mean ethnic Norwegian ancesters, but rather Celtic (Irish/Scottish/British) peoples who descend from slaves that Vikings took from their homelands.

[@ESCAGEDOWOODWORKING]

The number of ancestors in our trees double as we go back into the past. Many of those people no longer contribute to our current dna makeup. They could have been from anywhere and everywhere, and probably were. When saying what we "are", in the context of a DNA, we are actually looking at what was genetically passed down, and not the totality of the ancestors in our past. The idea of accompanying a DNA test with family tree research, is better than using just one method. In the context of the past few hundred years, one is probably from those places that show up in the DNA test results. At least the accuracy for the larger percentages carry greater confidence than the smaller percentages. But in the context of haplogroup testing, that does bring the subject of where one is "from" into another level all together. R1b, of which I am, is the most common in western Europe, and it travels back in time through the Middle East, and into Africa. Its all a sliding scale depending on what timeline we wish to focus on.

[@davidaelliott]

I pretty much agree. Apart from scientific research the information DNA provides is probably most useful as an extra tool for family tree research. Going back only 7 generations you would have up to 128 ancestors in that generation and, on average, receive less than 1% of each person's DNA from that generation. Though as you said haplogroups for the Y chromosome are different. Apart from mutations that may occur it is passed on essentially intact for many generations. I am also R1b but have had further testing to refine it to R-L2 with a subclass R-DF13. This is most common in Scotland and Ireland with an indication that my male line of ancestry has been in the UK for over 4000 years ago. The haplogroup testing also confirms that my male line originates from the Scottish clan of Elliott. However, as yet, I have not traced this connection through documentation. Mitochondrial DNA testing can also be useful for following the mother line origins but I believe it is less useful for family tree research due to its much lower mutation rate.

[@ESCAGEDOWOODWORKING]

@@davidaelliott That is really cool about the Elliot clan! I'm r1b L2 as well, but that is as far as I know, since I did the Morley test, which is free to use. My paternal line is from Spain, in the northern autonomous community called Cantabria. Like in the British Isles, Spain had an almost total male population replacement through the Yamnaya spread into western Europe. I also have Scottish and Irish results through the new ancestry updates. But my Spanish is at the 76% level. Which the others are single digests except for France, which is 10%. Its all very interesting, thank you for the reply.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

What about percentages that are low confidence on one place but not on another? Like North Africa 41 on 23andMe it is only .65%. on my heritage is 10.7%. also one other thing all my European is specifically low confidence. Because I'm a black American though. Everyone always wants to push that I have European. But it always says one two three four percent. Each result is 1234 percent. While North Africa is 10.7%. specifically on my heritage on 23andMe they also keep changing. The European is more obvious it everything changes because those were his results they could actually give well Africa at once they couldn't give it because they couldn't specify where in Africa. Which is probably why they couldn't give me North Africa at one point to now it's just a very small percentage

[@da.boyyyy]

i had 1% Oceania and it did show that my ancestors are from the Moluccan islands so thats probably legit....

[@davidaelliott]

If you know you have ancestry from the Moluccan Islands then it appears they have correctly determined this even with the small percentage. With small percentages they have limited data from your DNA and the results are less accurate and errors are more likely to be made. It appears this did not happen for you in determining the location of this part of your ancestry.

[@paranihiaanaru4414]

Strictly speaking, the Moluccas are not in Oceania. The Moluccas are situated close to Indonesia, to the north west of Australia, and its people are Melanesians. Oceania is in the South Pacific, on the east of Australia, whose people are Polynesians. (Although Hawaii does have Polynesian people, and they are north east of Australia)

[@da.boyyyy]

@@paranihiaanaru4414 ik...but alot of times they are considered polynesians...even javanese ppl like my family are considered polynesians by many.. but thats loosely speaking lol melanesians for moluccan ppl is more accurate yea

[@jerryhiggs7882]

Thank u for this information!

[@davidaelliott]

You are welcome!!!

[@michaelhawkins1173]

Is the percentage accuracy between individuals ie parents grandparents siblings cousins 1st 2nd and 3rd having increased confidence level or is it the same? Thank you I enjoyed your video and was informed for me all good.

[@davidaelliott]

I'm glad you enjoyed my video and found it informative. I'm not exactly certain what you mean about the "accuracy between individuals". if you mean their estimated relationship then this is worked out differently. It's a bit complex to explain here and I may make another video about this. But basically they look at the amount of DNA you have in common with the other person and how many segments it is broken up into. Then they would use an algorithm to estimate your likely relationship to that person. This is a mathematical calculation that they may modify at times but it is unlikely to change much.

[@davidirwin1549]

If you have Colonial ancestry from Virginia or the Carolinas going back to the 1600's there is a good chance you may have low percentage diverse ancestry. In the early 1600's 75% of immigrants to colonial Virginia came as indentured servants that lived side by side with other's from other lands in addition to those English settlers who first settled on Barbado's in the early 1600's - the men oftentimes intermarried with Native women brought to the island in the slave trade. These families later settled in the Carolina's. So it's not wrong as you say. A person from the British Isles or mainland Europe would probably be a lot less admixed than say a European person of Colonial stock American ancestry.

[@alisonnorcross951]

They said I was 82% English( Yorkshire ,east midlands and Essex.) 11% Scottish 6% Irish. I thought with my brown eyes and dark hair i must be Spanish. But no.

[@Viraltok10]

haha, same with me :) i am mainly from england, germany and denmark.

[@alfawolf7125]

yes! n you may be latin..after all the romans went to the UK BEFORE,the difference here is that....because many "english" people who shares your phenotype" may have underwent a dna test and yr results are based with theirs..

[@mitchamcommonfair9543]

There are millions of people in those English regions, who have local ethnic ancestry, who have dark hair and brown eyes.

[@alfawolf7125]

@@mitchamcommonfair9543 from the latinnnnnnnnnn from the latinnnn from the latinnnnnnnnnnnnn romansssss and otherssssssss they are not ORIGINALL ai aiia

[@alfawolf7125]

@@mitchamcommonfair9543 you do not know man.go learn history man!!! saxons germanics ,scandinavian and romans ,or french went to the uk..basques as well and they are dark haired and brown haired people....go do yr homework..before speaking nonsense.....they have because of the basques,,,romans and grecos doh!!

[@cdb88]

I find this video snarky. I don't disagree with you in concept. But it could have been less condescending.

[@davidaelliott]

I tend to agree with you. I made this video about 5 years ago and was experimenting with that style of video at the time. My videos are not as "snarky" and "condescending" now.

[@dawnemile7499]

I'm glad he was snarky because the DNA results you receive is someone's reading of them and you can't be certain if they are being accurate. The results are there but who is reporting it? Nowadays, everything seem to be woke washed and not to be trusted.

[@dawnemile7499]

He has a speech impediment.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

Black people don't have paper trails usually. So that's not really our thing. Plus my situation is mostly outside of America I don't have much mixing from white Americans so most of my mixing and different countries have to do with the countries in Africa.

[@dalton6173]

It's racial estimates and the word estimate means it's an approximation or an educated guess and they released an update which completely changed my results at least I mean not completely completely I went from 46% or 47% One race to 42% of that race and One race was changed entirely to another race however there's nowhere that says is 100% accurate considering there are billions of different DNA markers in every single person and every person has unique mutations in their own DNA and unique mutations in several generations that have not been marked such as our parents and our grandparents I mean yes some of our grandparents and some of our parents might be in the list of people however there's bound to be a few missing holes here and there so anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that these are not set in stone it's more written with an etch a Sketch... You can definitely read the information that's written there however if you wait long enough the information is likely to change.... Hopefully to become more accurate however it's probably only like 70% accurate right now I mean it's probably pretty accurate but not like you know what I'm saying.

[@GMarieBehindTheMask]

What's low percentage considered to be? 5% and under? 10%? What numbers are we talking?

[@davidaelliott]

All results are estimates only. The accuracy depends on the size and quality of the reference data & algorithms each company uses. As each company updates these the accuracy will improve. When they do you will notice the regions and percentages change. So, I can not give you an exact figure and could only say depending on the company and region maybe somewhere between 5% and 15%. High percentages are reliable for saying you have ancestry from that region. Using myself as an example I have results with 4 different companies. All have different regions and percentages but all have greater than 50% of my ancestry from the UK (one gives 100% UK). My great grandfather was Danish but Ancestry.com does not list Denmark as a region & gives 15% Norway, 3% Sweden & 3% Germanic Europe.

[@yitzhakgoldberg2404]

@@davidaelliott if it's okay to spill the beans, which company gave you 100% British? I'm just curious to know to watch out for 'em.

[@davidaelliott]

I wouldn't be too critical of the company involved as Scandinavian and UK peoples are very closely related genetic populations. About a thousand years or so ago I believe Denmark actually controlled and occupied large parts of England. None of the companies I tested with appear to even have Denmark as a possible region to show (though Ancestry does show Denmark in my "Communities"). The company is Living DNA and my main reason for testing with them was that they break the UK down into over 20 regions. The results appear to correlate well with what I now of my and my parents UK ancestry. So, they appear to be good for that purpose. I would also add that they show my mother's as having 24.6% "Northwest Germanic" ancestry (which includes Denmark).

[@yitzhakgoldberg2404]

@@davidaelliott makes sense, thanks!

[@shawnstancil6942]

I believe the smaller the dna the closer to who you are. I say that because of migrations

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

My ancestry it is different on three different companies. One says I'm about 92% subsaharan african one says I'm 89% sub-Saharan African the other says I'm 83% subsaharan african all are different. Nigerians the major results.

[@davidaelliott]

From this you may be only able to say most of your ancestry is sub-Saharan African. Part of the problem is that the accuracy of the results depends on how much genetic data there is from people living in each country. The more there is than the more accurate the results will be. Unfortunately, most of the data is European based with not as much data from Africa. Other problems are there can be misidentification with nearby countries due to similar DNA and the companies use different algorithms and data to work out the results. It is improving as the amount of data increases and I have noticed with updates the results seem to get closer to what my paper trail tells me. However, the percentages are highly variable between the 4 different companies I'm with. For example, as far as I'm aware all my ancestry was from the United Kingdom apart from my great grandfather who was from Denmark. However, one says 100% of my ancestry is from the UK. Another has 42% Scandinavian, 51% UK but 7% Central Europe. The third includes 4.2% Finnish and 1.1% Middle Eastern. The closest one has UK 74%, Denmark 12% and Norway 4%. The odd result is the 1.1% Middle Eastern. Whilst I would find it interesting if true I assume it probably isn't given the small percentage and only one of the companies listing it. As the companies get more data and improve their algorithms I expect the results will improve but the percentages will probably never be totally accurate.

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

@@davidaelliott yea even that does work because it's two different ethnicities so 83% for.my heritage has 10.7% north africa. But extremely limited European results. And 23andme struggles with north African reference panel so originally the north African results weren't there but I was like 9% Europeans both ancestry DNA and 23andme seem to overslestimate my European heritage. A bit. And they focus on west Europeans which also my ancestry has a tendency for Russians and Scandinavian more than just Irish or English. Myherotage didn't give me any English though Gedmatch tool calculators eurogenes showed both tests both results so I ended up being 80% African. It's not really a debate of one ancestry being a little more here or there it's more the reference panels for north African. I think some of it may be due to Fulani heritage and just like east Africans one the tests they don't add the mixed ancestry that way and another way is because I'm Creole and have the small Filipino percentage that's carried by islenos people who also have north African and Spanish heritage if I don't have my north African result I'm 90% African or 89% at the very least ancestry DNA was 92% without any north African ancestry. But every other test shows north africa 23andme before their reference panels were small they didn't have any then with more research there's a small percentage. All other tests show 2-10.7% north African. Which is why I lean more the myheritage and gedmatch because myheritage results haven't changed 23andme keeps changing and so is ancestry DNA I just don't think I'm only 2% Russian and 2% Norwegian I think I'm English and Spanish as that's what 23andme and ancestry DNA show I feel they are better at detecting the European and native/asian populations while myheritage is good at Middle Eastern/north African heritage they're based off in Israel their focus is more in the middle east due to demand while 23andme and ancestry DNA focus more in Europe west and central Africa and native American populations. If I included both types of test I end up with gedmatch eurogenes results pretty much at 79-80% west central and eastern Africa 10.7% north African 8.9% European and 1% native American and .1% Filipino and .1% Indonesian. But none of my tests actually reflect all the ethnicities due to the reference panel issues

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

@@davidaelliott what is a way you can track a paper trail? Is that just a census or what?

[@divestedkonservativekarame4269]

@@davidaelliott inconsistent for me and my DNA results is that I have at least 30 to 40 per cent Nigerian but that has even gone down sometimes ancestry DNA has really struggled. They have taken the Nigerian away put it back they really get confused.

[@davidaelliott]

@divestedkonservativekarame4269 I guess one of the problems with these DNA companies is they generally try to allocate ancestry geographically to particular countries or regions. But ethnicities that cover larger regions and intermarry less with others in the same geographical region would complicate this. Also, historically nomadic and displaced populations could confuse this further in trying to allocate a particular country. I also agree that the different DNA companies will have more accurate results for different regions based on where their primary focus is. For myself, I find the most accurate is Ancestry DNA but this is probably because all my ancestry appears to be from North Western Europe. The one that says I have 100% UK ancestry is Living DNA but their initial focus was on linking ancestry to counties in the UK which probably explains them not indicating my Danish ancestry.

[@mrstl3000]

DNA is correct my man even the low percents its just that u hv very little amount

[@lindaeasley5606]

My results stated 77% English and Irish, 19% German and French, 1% Finish 1% Cypriot 1% unassigned and 1% east Asian. I believe the English and Irish results because going back to the 1700s through genealogical tracing the family names are English and Irish.I have a hard time believing the rest. I am an American

[@davidaelliott]

I expect it is possible the German and French could just be misinterpretation of data from your English and Irish as they are relatively close DNA populations. The others can be easily dismissed as "background noise" in the data.

[@yitzhakgoldberg2404]

@@davidaelliott it's just like how some people discover that they're 8% English, and then, a year later, their results are updated to 71% English! Similarly, one test [say, Ancestry] might say that you're approximately 29% Italian, only for another one [say, 23andMe] to say you're really only 3%! Which one do you trust? And then they're studies where even TWINS had different results using the SAME test! This all makes me think that the good ol' paper trails are so much more reliable, after all, it seems to me that these "major DNA companies" are nothing more than entertainment masked as "fact" and "science." Some tests won't even pick up Ashkenazi DNA. You have to be tested multiple times, with different companies, before you find anything, even though the paper trail says its there.

[@davidaelliott]

Yes, I have seen that different results occur for identical twins and even triplets. This is due to the way they do their analysis. As they are providing an estimate they run their algorithm a number of times (information on AncestryDNA says 40 times) on your DNA data against their reference DNA data for each region. Each run gives a different result. They then give the average percentage as your result. So, each twin/triplet would have their DNA data run separately and it would give a different result. I actually found on AncestryDNA if you click on one of your regions it actually gives you a range. I’m not certain but I assume this is a 95% confidence interval. For example, they show me as having 30% ancestry from Scotland with a range of 3-36%. This would mean they believe there is a 95% probability that I have somewhere between 3% and 36% of my ancestry from Scotland. I plan to make a video to explain this more fully in the near future.

[@Krana-rt2yy]

My results showed 1% Cypriot ancestry too, at the very least it caused me to Google “Cyprus” and it looks like a gorgeous place to visit 🙂

[@theintrovertedaspie9095]

@@davidaelliott I was 1% Northern African. Today my results show I'm 2 percent. The rest of me is European. I know for a fact my Grandpa's Spanish and Portuguese ancestors colonized that area. While looking through my DNA communities I found some relatives who were born on the Canary Islands which is part of Africa. Theres names are of Spanish and Portuguese origin. And they clearly didn't look African. So maybe my NA heritage is just trough the natives of that region which is just the Spanish and Portuguese communities of that area. And not to the actual indigeouse Africans. Other than that theres no connection to African communities or relatives in my DNA communities. And nor is there any mention of Spanish and Portuguese immigration to the country. I guess it has yet to be added. I do have some relatives born in Cuba, but there not indigeouce. My family never really talks about this or has any evidence. We usually just associate ourselves with our other heritage like our Irish, Scottish, and even Spanish. Of course we know my grandpa's Spanish and Portuguese ancestors colonizing North Africa. I wish I was 100% European. I LOVE Europe. Well I still would identify myself as a European American.

[@worldofameiso5491]

This the most inconsequential video I think I have ever seen. Patronising to the max.

[@judithparker4608]

Danish Britain.....no difference in Britain and Viking Britain !!!

[@capricornyearofthetiger]

DNA tests have a lot of blind spots!

[@paulsims4108]

Great I was enjoying being 8% Scandinavian lol, so I'm not then it seems.

[@davidaelliott]

You might have Scandinavian ancestry or you might not. But if you do it's probably not 8%. For example, my great grandfather was Danish but with different testing companies and at different times my Scandinavian ancestry has been estimated at anything up to about 20%. One of the testing companies even says I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry (they say my ancestry is 100% Great Britain). I guess my main point is that the estimates of ancestral origins are not as accurate as some of these ancestral companies seem to imply. That said I think it is improving and they do update their estimates now and then as they get more data.

[@99oildrops]

My Mexican wife is apparently 2% Irish. 😂 Or so Ancestry says.

[@judithparker4608]

Angles Saxons Danes......Britons forced West ! Kingdoms of Northumbria......Mercia.....Wessex.... Others etc...!?

[@michaelbollinger8060]

Dna tests only go back 5 generations

[@actionjackson5759]

Well, we all come from Adam and Eve, we are all one big family, it's only one race the " Human Race" with different colors (Acts 17:26).

[@moshenewsletter4620]

Well not quite... Neanderthals and Africoid are not related at all, they are two seperate racists....Even the Nordic Whites did not descend from Africans or Neanderthals.

[@rosexx241]

@@moshenewsletter4620 Neanderthals technically aren’t even the same race as us... the first human was found in Africa dating to be 2 million years old. We all come from that first human

[@ineffable_name]

@@rosexx241 its a 4 foot chimp......I mean australo(south)pithecene(ape man)

[@headdragondavidaustinsimmo4025]

In other words man stay in your sand box unless u is visiting go home

[@headdragondavidaustinsimmo4025]

Im pima DAS messiah

[@headdragondavidaustinsimmo4025]

See 2 billion Mian people to bring home invest in 3 billion pima in China