PDA

View Full Version : LivingDNA is way off, but why?



SaxonofRoM
25-05-18, 05:28
FTDNA had me down as 66% or so North-West European and 23% British; which was about right.
LivingDNA claim that I am ~96% British.
Pretty weird, considering they are supposedly the most accurate.
My mother is Boer, she is mostly of Dutch and German descent, but has some distant Gallowglass and more distant Hugenot.
My father is English on his father's side and Cape Afrikaans (largely Hugenot as far as we were aware) on his mother's.

mwauthy
25-05-18, 18:47
FTDNA had me down as 66% or so North-West European and 23% British; which was about right.
LivingDNA claim that I am ~96% British.
Pretty weird, considering they are supposedly the most accurate.
My mother is Boer, she is mostly of Dutch and German descent, but has some distant Gallowglass and more distant Hugenot.
My father is English on his father's side and Cape Afrikaans (largely Hugenot as far as we were aware) on his mother's.
Most Celtic/Germanic or Northwestern genes automatically get assigned to the British Isles even if they are from other areas of Europe. I have zero British ancestry on paper yet I received 63% Great Britain with Living DNA. DNA Land gives me exactly 63% Northwestern Europe as well. On FTDNA I have 90% West and Central Europe and 0% British Isles which matches my French Canadian and Belgian Ancestry better.

DavidCoutts
25-05-18, 19:19
Interesting thread. I really want to read what Maciamo thinks about this.

Maciamo
25-05-18, 20:54
It's not way off. The Dutch and English are very similar genetically. In fact East Anglians may be more similar to Dutch people than to, say Cumbrians or Cornwall people.

At present Living DNA's algorithm uses far more samples from British regions than from the Benelux or Germany, but this is going to change soon.

timberwolf
27-05-18, 07:47
It's not way off. The Dutch and English are very similar genetically. In fact East Anglians may be more similar to Dutch people than to, say Cumbrians or Cornwall people.

At present Living DNA's algorithm uses far more samples from British regions than from the Benelux or Germany, but this is going to change soon.

How soon? Also what is happening with their family networks? I thought the beta version of it, was supposed to available by now.

Maciamo
27-05-18, 09:16
How soon? Also what is happening with their family networks? I thought the beta version of it, was supposed to available by now.

Don't ask me, I have no idea. If you have questions about Living DNA, ask them directly. I don't work for them. I am also looking forward to the update.

DavidCoutts
28-05-18, 22:35
I must admit, I'm surprised LivingDNA test to such low percentages. I am 95.5% British/Irish, and 4.5% Scandinavian. Such a tiny percentage of my DNA coming from Scandinavia is, I would have thought, pretty much irrelevant. I appreciate their professionalism in being so thorough, but really they could simply have classified me as British for all the difference 4.5% Scandinavian makes.

mwauthy
29-05-18, 01:33
I must admit, I'm surprised LivingDNA test to such low percentages. I am 95.5% British/Irish, and 4.5% Scandinavian. Such a tiny percentage of my DNA coming from Scandinavia is, I would have thought, pretty much irrelevant. I appreciate their professionalism in being so thorough, but really they could simply have classified me as British for all the difference 4.5% Scandinavian makes.

That’s one of my major complaints with autosomal dna testing. There is a lot of overlap between regions so percentages can be misleading.

DavidCoutts
29-05-18, 07:14
That’s one of my major complaints with autosomal dna testing. There is a lot of overlap between regions so percentages can be misleading.

I wasn't aware of that.

ToBeOrNotToBe
29-05-18, 13:51
LivingDNA and FTDNA are far worse autosomally than ancestry and 23andme - 23andme is definitely the best in this regard, as they don't claim to be able to do unrealistic things (such as being able to identify what percentage of you is genetically Irish).

Only from transferred data, but livingDNA predicted I was about 5% Celtic!

DavidCoutts
29-05-18, 14:30
LivingDNA and FTDNA are far worse autosomally than ancestry and 23andme - 23andme is definitely the best in this regard, as they don't claim to be able to do unrealistic things (such as being able to identify what percentage of you is genetically Irish).

Only from transferred data, but livingDNA predicted I was about 5% Celtic!

Interesting. @Maciamo, what is your take on this?

Sile
29-05-18, 20:25
LivingDNA and FTDNA are far worse autosomally than ancestry and 23andme - 23andme is definitely the best in this regard, as they don't claim to be able to do unrealistic things (such as being able to identify what percentage of you is genetically Irish).
Only from transferred data, but livingDNA predicted I was about 5% Celtic!
but 23andme problem is it has a void in admixture in central europe from alsace to hungary and from south-germany to North-italy ..............they have nothing for this group .
.
I am not in ancestry, but have manager use of my first cousin for it and I find they use the 1000 Genomes classification as a mix ...........so IBS+TSI = East Europe/balkan, CEU+GBR = Central europe, GBR+FIN = scandinavia , etc .............

bigsnake49
03-07-18, 14:49
They really need to expand their reference populations.

paul333
24-08-18, 18:11
I think once LivingDNA get your money and genetic information, they move on to the next victim, and ignore any concerns you raise, despite admitting incorrect reportings.

It seems in my own opinion they are only after your genetic information, and money, and do not give a damm about you afterwards. The false information they supply and want you to believe is a joke. In my opinion its results are more similar to recent 'fake news', and their reports can only be considered, as in my case ' Fake DNA Ancestral Journeys ' etc .

I have plenty concerns about the missleadings in their advertising, and the complete inaccurate miss-information they deliberately supply, regarding ' Your Journey ' or ' find out where you really come from' they just do not seem to know,or choose to deliberately missinform, and should never be allowed to get away with what they seem to be doing.

It was the first ever genetic test I took, and I have certianly learned to be ' very cautious about their results'. It seems they have a hidden agenda, behind gaining your personal genetic information, which they then knowingly, and deliberately missinform you about.

ToBeOrNotToBe
25-08-18, 02:12
Because LivingDNA is rubbish. 23andme all day, every day...

piratica
05-09-18, 20:53
interesting... what about ftdna vs 23&me?
and these charts are kinda incorrect then?
eupedia.com/genetics/which_ancestry_dna_test_to_choose.shtml

and what about this in-depth Y-dna stuff?
yfull.com/

would this give any better results though?
livingdna.com/one-family/research
especially when everyone else can join in for free?

DavidCoutts
09-09-18, 20:47
Because LivingDNA is rubbish. 23andme all day, every day...

That's a bold statement to make. Maciamo seems to regard LivingDNA quite highly.

Dibran
10-09-18, 18:11
I think once LivingDNA get your money and genetic information, they move on to the next victim, and ignore any concerns you raise, despite admitting incorrect reportings.

It seems in my own opinion they are only after your genetic information, and money, and do not give a damm about you afterwards. The false information they supply and want you to believe is a joke. In my opinion its results are more similar to recent 'fake news', and their reports can only be considered, as in my case ' Fake DNA Ancestral Journeys ' etc .

I have plenty concerns about the missleadings in their advertising, and the complete inaccurate miss-information they deliberately supply, regarding ' Your Journey ' or ' find out where you really come from' they just do not seem to know,or choose to deliberately missinform, and should never be allowed to get away with what they seem to be doing.

It was the first ever genetic test I took, and I have certianly learned to be ' very cautious about their results'. It seems they have a hidden agenda, behind gaining your personal genetic information, which they then knowingly, and deliberately missinform you about.

I think you need to lay off the conspiracy theories. LivingDNA is also a fairly new company, so for them they have alot of hurdles to go through competing against the Big 3.

Additionally, they have a big undertaking with their One World project which aims at creating sample sized regionally based on samples that only have all their grandparents born from one region of the country. This is to make ancestry reporting alot clearer. They are also no different than 23andme with regards to reporting. They have 3 levels, complete, assumed, and cautious, with cautious being general but not making any assumptions.

My results(especially since they dont really have many balkan samples) has been quite accurate. Aside from a quirk here or there, its not what you're making it out to be. Their family network feature also seems quite ambitious.
Give them a break.

paul333
11-09-18, 01:16
I can only speak from my own experience, and form my own opinion, and that is what I did, and as a result I try to inform, and warn people, about being taken in as I was, regarding LivingDNA and their advertising.

Had I known how bad they were, I would never of tested, or wasted my time with them. Regarding your comments "Give them a break" ??? best if you stick to your own experience, and opinions.

In my 'own' opinion, and experience, it was actually worse than what I stated, especially in their "Your Journey" and "where you really come from" !! ...and I did give them a break.

Now one year later, I am starting again trying to find my 'true Genetic Journey' and to find out 'where I and my family 'really' did come from ' .

gidai
26-11-18, 20:26
They really need to expand their reference populations.


All ambitious "regional projects" have volatilized now along with promises ! Not a single link related to its other than... buy a test.

bigsnake49
12-12-18, 16:57
The raw genetic data from LivingDNA is very close to that from Ancestry. It is their reference populations and their calculators that suck.

mitty
14-12-18, 14:28
Received my Living dna results yesterday, which only took 1 month from the day they received my specimen! I took the test because I read it was the best test for British people.

My own paper trail gives me:
25% Northwest Scotland
25% County Durham
25% West Yorkshire
12.5% North Yorkshire
12.5% Cumbria

What I get from Living Dna:
49.3% Northwest Scotland
20.4% South Yorkshire
5.4% Central England
5.1% Northumbria
4.1% Cumbria
3.4% Ireland
2.7% Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland
2.2% Northwest England
1.2% Devon

Also 3.1% Scandinavia.

As West Yorkshire is included in the South Yorkshire Reference, 20% is not far off.

But they have given me way too much Northwest Scotland,( 49.3%?) County Durham comes under Northumbria but I have only been given 5.1% so way off on that area. Likewise they have given me too little Cumbria and North Yorkshire.

Given me a lot to think about!

piratica
15-12-18, 02:27
someone was cheating

Sile
15-12-18, 18:10
is Eupedia still in bed with Living DNA ?

DavidCoutts
19-12-18, 01:10
When I have some spare cash built up, I may take the 23andMe ancestry test just to see how it compares to LivingDNA.

gidai
24-12-18, 16:10
is Eupedia still in bed with Living DNA ?I looked now at their fb page. From November, up to now, they have reached 80% negative ratings.

Nacht
26-01-19, 20:14
Received my Living dna results yesterday, which only took 1 month from the day they received my specimen! I took the test because I read it was the best test for British people.

My own paper trail gives me:
25% Northwest Scotland
25% County Durham
25% West Yorkshire
12.5% North Yorkshire
12.5% Cumbria

What I get from Living Dna:
49.3% Northwest Scotland
20.4% South Yorkshire
5.4% Central England
5.1% Northumbria
4.1% Cumbria
3.4% Ireland
2.7% Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland
2.2% Northwest England
1.2% Devon

Also 3.1% Scandinavia.

As West Yorkshire is included in the South Yorkshire Reference, 20% is not far off.

But they have given me way too much Northwest Scotland,( 49.3%?) County Durham comes under Northumbria but I have only been given 5.1% so way off on that area. Likewise they have given me too little Cumbria and North Yorkshire.

Given me a lot to think about!

A number of Scottish moved to the Northern & NE corners of England for the mining, and a lesser extent than the Irish for shipping, industries. It's why around places like Newcastle you've got the Geordie accent & then you've the separate dying out pitmatic dialects (with the rolling Rs of the Scots) of the once close knit mining families/communities. This however likely isn't the issue for you.

There's also the fact those from the NE corner of England can be very "Germanic" in appearance & genetics as shown when researchers did some testing on a Geordie and found he was seven times "Anglo Saxon" versus Celtic years ago. The NW corner of Scotland would include Scandinavian influence from the Vikings & apparently Danish Viking DNA/Anglo Saxon DNA is nigh on impossible to separate. This is likely the issue for you.


Given your other results posted elsewhere I wouldn't say LivingDNA's exactly "wrong" per say as more they need more (or better) samples.




LivingDNA and FTDNA are far worse autosomally than ancestry and 23andme - 23andme is definitely the best in this regard, as they don't claim to be able to do unrealistic things (such as being able to identify what percentage of you is genetically Irish).

Only from transferred data, but livingDNA predicted I was about 5% Celtic!

Ancestry & 23&me aren't that great. I've never been impressed with either & I've a thoroughly researched ancestry. Besides it's been proven by a researcher that 23&me confuses Italian/Mediterranean as Ashkenazi.

As for LivingDNA predicting you're 5% Celtic there's Welsh who share a genetic similarity with Ashkenazi Jews. So it's not wrong as more you just don't know that little fact.

paul333
27-01-19, 21:21
[QUOTE=Nacht;564806]A number of Scottish moved to the Northern & NE corners of England for the mining, and a lesser extent than the Irish for shipping, industries. It's why around places like Newcastle you've got the Geordie accent & then you've the separate dying out pitmatic dialects (with the rolling Rs of the Scots) of the once close knit mining families/communities. This however likely isn't the issue for you.

Hello Nacht
Regarding Northumbria, I believe these dialects were already long in place possibly hundereds of years before mining, if you mean during the Industrial age etc.

The Northumbrian Dialect is strongly derived from the old Anglian and Scandinavian languages. The Lowland Scots accent is from much the same,and is distinct from the Dominant Gallic/Celtic language area's. It is believed to of originated from the Anglo-Saxon Settlement, (mainly Anglian ) of Northumbria, during the 5th to 9th Centuries. Two Anglo Saxon kingdoms united, to form what became known as Northumbria, one in the North known as 'Bernicia', and one in the South known as 'Deira',reaching as far as the Humber river.

Northumbria had also once stretched much further North, and included much of what is now known as Lowland Scotland,including Edinburgh, and beyond even the Clyde, and this is the root of the 'Scots Anglian/English' dialect, which is very distinct but can be seen to be very close and recognisable by people of the Northumberland and Durham areas etc today.

'Pitmatic' is mostly found further south of the Tyne, in County Durham, and is similarly derived but includes a lot of old Cumbrian/Norse influences, and streches in a band from coast to coast, ie People from the West, ie Lake district, speak virtually the same dialect in the East of County Durham.

Regarding 'Geordie' people still cannot understand how Geordie, today, has so much seemingly strong Scandinavian influence's in their dialects, especially when the area, North of the Tyne etc has very few documented Viking placenames, and settlement names etc.

The Northumbria,area North of the Tyne, ( previously Bernicia )was believed to of remained mostly 'Anglo-Saxon' during the additional Viking/Scandinavian/Invasions and settlements, of the 9th to early 11th century. The area has very few placenames and Settlement evidence from the Viking periods which would be expected, knowing the root of the dialects.

One reason not given much thought, could possibly be due to an influx of large refugee's fleeing area's devastated by the 'Norman Invasions, and the later 'Harrying of the North' after the failed Anglo-Saxon rebelions, which mostly began in Durham 1069, after 700 hundred Normans were believed killed there.

That large numbers fled their traditional homes, to the North, and oversea's, is an accepted view. These large movements of peoples were mostly of Anglo/Scandinavian descent and culture, and were fleeing from the Southern area's of Durham,Yorkshire,and Lincolnshire etc, areas that were previously heavily settled by both mainly Anglian (Anglo-Saxon), and Scandinavian ( Viking ) peoples with cultures and dialects that had been established for nearly 200 years.

People are still trying to locate and find out how these distinct two Northern dialects came to exist and where they came from.

Regarding Living DNA and their results I think Northumbria % needs to be clarified, as 'Northumbria' could also genetically include both, Scotland, and England.

Northumbria previously included, Galloway, Dumfries, Cumbria, Northumberland, Yorkshire, Durham, and even other area's etc which could all be deemed 'Northumbrian'.

brick
09-06-19, 20:25
Pretty weird, considering they are supposedly the most accurate. .

LivingDNA is not the most accurate.

09-06-19, 22:17
I used LivingDNA because Expedia recommended it. For one fee I got Y-DNA down to G-Z726, where FTDNA had only given me G-M201 (the basal) for a price three times as much, plus mtDNA and autosomal. My only complaint with the latter is they have me more English than German, which I “believe” is backwards.

They were, for me, a good deal.

FreshLine_
09-06-19, 22:25
They ahve psoted on their blog that they have tested and are going to set an update to increase continental germanic sample and that increased the german ancestry to many west german

ntindeo
24-10-19, 21:02
I looked at their page and see that they started selling pickled cabbage and green horses on the walls !... :eek2:This is likely to make you more acrid to remember their promises ...

ntindeo
28-10-19, 23:04
And... besides their pickled cabbage they no longer deliver raw data and haplogroups !?
than maybe overpricing...?

Björnsson
30-10-19, 08:44
The raw genetic data from LivingDNA is very close to that from Ancestry. It is their reference populations and their calculators that suck.
I beg to differ. LDNA is more in-depth than ADNA, having taken both. While LDNA does lump all my British Isles-compatible heritage from North Sea neighbours into the Isles, which is my majority shared between companies, it gets my subregions down pat in Caution mode, with my percentages outside of the scope of Islander-type genes being only those truly distant, like Aegean and Pashtun. This forces me to do real detective work, to split hairs regarding Isles roots and to isolate totally foreign roots, like wheat from chaff. I wouldn't notice the bizarre outside ancestries, nor keep myself from seeing the forest for the trees, without LDNA to bring true differences out of the woodwork and that keeps me from sweating the small stuff. I have already discovered a possible Croatian or Hungarian source via an Austrian line through likely Moravian German colonial ancestors, probably sourced to the refugees of Turkish invasions and their attacks on the Gates of Vienna, with atypical surnames in my family tree that don't seem German. I would have assumed they were German, however, due to their birthplaces before America in the colonial period and their self-identification within the colonies, as part of the German population. My only real confusion, is Pashtun, which is Afghanistan/Pakistan, which would have to come from before the 19th century British Empire, in m estimation and I don't know how that's possible, except a possible East India Company sailor. I saw there was at least one recorded East Indian in colonial Maryland, but don't know how to factor that, if relevant.