Eurogenes Biogeographic Ancestry Project

[Agrippa]

How not ? The behar et al. shows clearly a dark-blue European component, since it's highest frequencies is found in Europeans (except Cyprus which is genetically closer to levantines).

The only Europeans which don't have it are non-Indo-Europeans btw.

Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).

I never said dark green is European...

They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component

.

Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?

Let's count them - oh its none!

What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??

Not all are that different, but many are in particular those shown as deviating form European phenotypes more strongly, for example Turkish people with foreign/new influences:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html

The Western Turkish people without strong foreign/Eastern admixture are phenotypically often rather European too...

Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.

And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.

So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!

Here is a newer study for example:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...06747.g003.png

Moreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08...ture-into.html

Genetic perspective is on-line with what physical anthropologists SINCE GENERATIONS already knew, if being more competent in their field.

I'm just waiting for the first data from Kurgan groups remains and that of Anatolian-South Eastern European Neolithics...

This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.

Nonsense. The intepretation in detail varies, but how can it vary if comparing Mediterranoids with Armenoids?

You don't even need to measure to see the difference, what you say is ridiculous.

Do you think all the generations of anthropologists were not capable of measuring the skull? Even if they would have measured wrong, some militers, in the larger samples this doesn't change the whole result.

You are in denial...

Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ??

To begin with, West Asian is much stronger in Europe than the other components, to go on, it also depends on the runs, because the same names might not mean the same thing in any case.

But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.

Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.

Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.

Well, I'm not even 100 percent sure all of WA entered Europe in early Neolithic times, SWA even less sure - it seems most likely by now, but it might have entered later (Late Neolithic to Metal Ages) too.

That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.

There are only older and younger, more or less related, more or less European components, if they being distributed so evenly in most European populations.

Also, the Fst distance is crucial:



If you make West European "the golden standard", which is reasonable, you get see who's closer...

Below 0,1 is Europid one could say for example.

Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).

[Ibericus]

Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?

Let's count them - oh its none!

And ? It doesn't change the fact that the most allele frequencies of this component is found in Europeans. It's a European component.

And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.

So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!

Here is a newer study for example:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...06747.g003.png

Well, I am relying to genetics not pseudoscience. Fact is, all scientist agree that haplogorups J, and it's subclades J1 and J2, are of Middle-Eastern origin, are still today the majoritarian haplogroups in those areas.

But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.

I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.

Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.

Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian. What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.

That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.

We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.

Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).

Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets. The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.

[Agrippa]

Well, I am relying to genetics not pseudoscience. Fact is, all scientist agree that haplogorups J, and it's subclades J1 and J2, are of Middle-Eastern origin, are still today the majoritarian haplogroups in those areas.

As if haplogroups explain everything?

Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.

And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!

I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.

That makes no sense, because if you say it is not European, someone having it is partially non-European, that's what you are saying.

If you say the component is "less European", you can say someone having a strong WA-SWA component is "less European-specific", that's ok, but you said "non-European" to this component which is practically everywhere in Europe, which is a difference.

Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian.

SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.

You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.

What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.

East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.

We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.

You could make a list of Europe specific components, starting with either West European or East European, depending on your exact perspective and then moving on to the less Europe-specific components, which are still a constitutive part of the European genetic make up, until you come to the totally foreign and not wider distributed elements.

Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets.

But as I said, that it peaks there NOW doesn't mean it originated there - at least not fully and necessarily.

Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:

Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5

Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".

The distribution reminds me of a better preservation scenario, rather than origin!

The correlation of the higher numbers with the Cardium Pottery culture is intriguing.

The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.

So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?

Better not

[Ibericus]

As if haplogroups explain everything?

No, but you said those "pre-Semitic" populations were European-like in appearance and other fairy tales, how could they be so drastically different than today's Semitic populations, when these haplogroups have always been there ? Did the Southwest-asian appear from thin air ?

Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.

But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.

And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!

How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense. Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.

SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.

Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.

You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.

It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.

East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.

It peaks in Europe.

Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:

Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5

Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".

I don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.

So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?

So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?

[Agrippa]

No, but you said those "pre-Semitic" populations were European-like in appearance and other fairy tales, how could they be so drastically different than today's Semitic populations, when these haplogroups have always been there ? Did the Southwest-asian appear from thin air ?

The main reason is what happened in between, both admixture and, even more important, selective trends.

But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.

Yet by yDNA they are closer to European R1b's than to non-R1b's...

How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense.

First of all, Coon is not the end of things, secondly, ancient Egyptians were largely Mediterranoid, not of the same subtype as Iberians, but nevertheless.

Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.

And what genetic results mean or might mean.

Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.

But they are constitutive, which is crucial.

It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.

You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.

I

don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.

Possible, but how can you know that for sure, without having ancient remains tested?

There were many theories about haplogroups, but some are now gone, because the tests falsified them.

So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?

Because of the proportions and other influences primarily I guess.

Also, these component analysis don't tell you the full story anyway.

[Ibericus]

Yet by yDNA they are closer to European R1b's than to non-R1b's...

And ? I don't know what is the point you are trying to make. Your analogy with pre-semitics makes no sense, because the R1b is not indigenous of Africa, while the J, J1 and J2 of Mesopotomian area is indigenous.

You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.

Of course you do it by saying "A is here". How do you think the two Romanian gypsies were detected in the Behar sample ? Because they had 'A', that, is, a South-Asian component, abnormally high.

[Rochefaton]

Here is a link to another OpenOffce spreadsheet that will calculate the RMSD for participants of the NEU6g run. Same format as last time. Plug in your values, get a chart.

My results have changed considerably compared to the last chart, but they match the chart Day Tripper came up with months ago, so I'm assuming they are accurate. The same populations are my closest maches as before, just in a dfferent order. I'm much closer to ze Germans in this run, too.

[Boudica]

Alabaman do I still get a chart ?

[Rochefaton]

Alabaman do I still get a chart ?

You're not part of the Eurogenes Project yet are you?

[Boudica]

You're not part of the Eurogenes Project yet are you?

The guy (I think his name is Polako? Can't remember) said that he was going away for holidays and that he would post an update when he's back.