Are National DNA Studies Reliable?

[Dick]

Population genetic studies have provided incontrovertible evidence that ancient Germanic culture and ethnicity arose from the fusion of the Mesolithic inhabitants of Scandinavia (linked to Y-DNA haplogroup I1) and Indo-European people (associated with haplogroups R1a and R1b).


Germanic words of non-Indo-European origin

http://www.eupedia.com/linguistics/n...ic_words.shtml

[Graham]

The larger the sample, the shorter the confidence interval.


At the very least, the stats given for Scandinavians are in the ballpark. Why are you associating R1a with Germanics? It's much more Slavic.

The higher the sample size the easier it is to determine the hypothesis that it reflects the larger population. Yep yep. Calculating probabilities and P values etc... Really what you need is the bunch of representative folk around the Median from the outliers, to have a representation of a bigger number like the OP asks about.

Ydna is pretty dead on straight and easy compared to Autosomal. R1a is far spread out. Migrants heading East to South Asia too in the past.

Those studies using just a few samples of ancient DNA are definitely not statistically significant.

Still on baby stages.

[Oneeye]

The higher the sample size the easier it is to determine the hypothesis that it reflects the larger population. Yep yep. Calculating probabilities and P values etc... Really what you need is the bunch of representative folk around the Median from the outliers, to have a representation of a bigger number like the OP asks about.

Ydna is pretty dead on straight and easy compared to Autosomal. R1a is far spread out. Migrants heading East to South Asia too in the past.




Still on baby stages.

The OP seems to think that a large population size matters in statistics, but it doesn't. A sample of a million is ridiculously large and unnecessary, and a sample of 1000 is nothing to sneeze at.



Unless there is good reason to think that men of a particular yDNA are being disproportionately sampled... there is no reason to believe Scandinavian results are significantly off.

[Oneeye]

And the Germanic countries have a higher number of R1b than R1a anyways.

[Rethel]

Population genetic studies have provided incontrovertible evidence that ancient Germanic culture and ethnicity arose from the fusion of the Mesolithic inhabitants of Scandinavia (linked to Y-DNA haplogroup I1) and Indo-European people (associated with haplogroups R1a and R1b).

It is like saying, that independent 13 colonies' Americans arose from
the fusion of the British people and one left standing last Mohican.

Even if we would include all living Indians and negros in
America at that time, it would have similar sensless.

Germanic words of non-Indo-European origin

1. Just it was explain to you.
2. Even if, then noone knoe where these words came from.
3. Even if from I1 - then you should be glad that we did preserve them for you, and learn them separetly

p.s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...ate_hypothesis

suggest that Proto-Germanic may have been either a creole or contact language that subsumed
a non-Indo-European substrate language, or a hybrid of two quite different Indo-European languages,
from the Centum and Satem types respectively. - what is actualy the fact.

Notable candidates for possible substrate culture(s) are the Maglemosian and Funnelbeaker culture
Which was in 90% Anatolian, so logicly, their language also - G2a.

BUT:

Against the theories regarding substrata, a profound sound change in the Germanic
languages known as Grimm's law has been put forward as evidence for the Germanic
languages being non-substratic and having mutated of their own accord, away from
other branches of Indo-European

Many of Hawkins's purported non-etymologies are controversial. One obvious way to refute
the Germanic substrate hypothesis is to find Indo-European etymologies for the words on
Hawkins's list. This process continues, but several cited as examples by Hawkins can likely
be eliminated. For example, it is generally agreed that helmet represents IE *ḱel- ‘to hide,
conceal’ (cf. Sanskrit śárman ‘shelter, cover’, Thracian zalmós ‘hide’). East relates to IE
*h2eus- ‘dawn’.[13]

Some of the words may have Indo-European derivations that are simply not well preserved
in other Indo-European languages. For example, it has been suggested that wife is related
to Tocharian B kwīpe ‘shame; vulva’, from a reconstructed root *gʷʰíh2bʰo-. Other possible
etymologies include:


ebb: from *h2epo "off, away"
north: from *h₁nr̥-tero- which is in turn from *h₁ner- ‘under, left’, north being to one's left when facing the rising sun.
south: from *sunþera- which is in turn from *sunnōn ‘the sun’, from the oblique stem of *sóh₂wl̥
west: from *westera- which is in turn from *wes-, reduced form of *wespero ‘evening’[16]
shield: from *skel- "to cut"
stork: from *str̥go- which is the zero-grade form of *ster- "stiff"
bear: ‘the brown one’ (a taboo avoidance term, or tabooistic formation) from *bʰerH- ‘bright, brown’; or directly from *ǵʰwer- ‘wild animal’
drink: from *dʰrénǵe-, presentive of *dʰreǵ- ‘to draw, pull’
groom: (as in bridegroom) from *(dʰ)gʰm̥on which is the zero-grade suffixed form of *dʰgʰom- "earth". The word bridegroom derives from Middle English bridegome and Old English brȳdguma, a compound of brȳd 'bride' and guma 'man'. The intrusive r in Modern English bridegroom is due to contamination with the word groom (of different meaning), the origin of which is unknown.
ship: from *skei-, a root originally meaning ‘to cut’ (cf. En shift, ON skipa ‘to regulate, control’), or compare Greek skáptō (σκάπτω) ‘I dig’, referring to a dugout boat.
strand: from *ster-, meaning "wide, flat".
king: The cyn- part is cognate with Modern English "kin" and related to Latin genus, etc., from *ǵenh1- "beget, engender". Even the derivation has IE parallels, such as Hittite ḫaššu- "king" from ḫāš-, ḫašš- "engender".


ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA...

[Oneeye]

It is like saying, that independent 13 colonies' Americans arose from
the fusion of the British people and one left standing last Mohican.

Even if we would include all living Indians and negros in
America at that time, it would have similar sensless.
ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA...

British colonials hardly mixed with native Americans, and when they did they were mainly absorbed into the native populations.. there is no existing separation between I1 and R1 n Scandinavia. You cannot tell the difference between the men, and any past physical difference was not a deterant in the two haplogroups becoming a homogenized population.

[Dick]

It is like saying, that independent 13 colonies' Americans arose from
the fusion of the British people and one left standing last Mohican.

Even if we would include all living Indians and negros in
America at that time, it would have similar sensless.



1. Just it was explain to you.
2. Even if, then noone knoe where these words came from.
3. Even if from I1 - then you should be glad that we did preserve them for you, and learn them separetly

p.s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...ate_hypothesis

suggest that Proto-Germanic may have been either a creole or contact language that subsumed
a non-Indo-European substrate language, or a hybrid of two quite different Indo-European languages,
from the Centum and Satem types respectively. - what is actualy the fact.

Notable candidates for possible substrate culture(s) are the Maglemosian and Funnelbeaker culture
Which was in 90% Anatolian, so logicly, their language also - G2a.

BUT:

Against the theories regarding substrata, a profound sound change in the Germanic
languages known as Grimm's law has been put forward as evidence for the Germanic
languages being non-substratic and having mutated of their own accord, away from
other branches of Indo-European

Many of Hawkins's purported non-etymologies are controversial. One obvious way to refute
the Germanic substrate hypothesis is to find Indo-European etymologies for the words on
Hawkins's list. This process continues, but several cited as examples by Hawkins can likely
be eliminated. For example, it is generally agreed that helmet represents IE *ḱel- ‘to hide,
conceal’ (cf. Sanskrit śárman ‘shelter, cover’, Thracian zalmós ‘hide’). East relates to IE
*h2eus- ‘dawn’.[13]

Some of the words may have Indo-European derivations that are simply not well preserved
in other Indo-European languages. For example, it has been suggested that wife is related
to Tocharian B kwīpe ‘shame; vulva’, from a reconstructed root *gʷʰíh2bʰo-. Other possible
etymologies include:


ebb: from *h2epo "off, away"
north: from *h₁nr̥-tero- which is in turn from *h₁ner- ‘under, left’, north being to one's left when facing the rising sun.
south: from *sunþera- which is in turn from *sunnōn ‘the sun’, from the oblique stem of *sóh₂wl̥
west: from *westera- which is in turn from *wes-, reduced form of *wespero ‘evening’[16]
shield: from *skel- "to cut"
stork: from *str̥go- which is the zero-grade form of *ster- "stiff"
bear: ‘the brown one’ (a taboo avoidance term, or tabooistic formation) from *bʰerH- ‘bright, brown’; or directly from *ǵʰwer- ‘wild animal’
drink: from *dʰrénǵe-, presentive of *dʰreǵ- ‘to draw, pull’
groom: (as in bridegroom) from *(dʰ)gʰm̥on which is the zero-grade suffixed form of *dʰgʰom- "earth". The word bridegroom derives from Middle English bridegome and Old English brȳdguma, a compound of brȳd 'bride' and guma 'man'. The intrusive r in Modern English bridegroom is due to contamination with the word groom (of different meaning), the origin of which is unknown.
ship: from *skei-, a root originally meaning ‘to cut’ (cf. En shift, ON skipa ‘to regulate, control’), or compare Greek skáptō (σκάπτω) ‘I dig’, referring to a dugout boat.
strand: from *ster-, meaning "wide, flat".
king: The cyn- part is cognate with Modern English "kin" and related to Latin genus, etc., from *ǵenh1- "beget, engender". Even the derivation has IE parallels, such as Hittite ḫaššu- "king" from ḫāš-, ḫašš- "engender".


ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA... ET CAETERA...

the word "ship". Indigenous north European word.


Danish skib Icelandic skip
Greco-Roman navis, nave
Russian plot


It's obvious the Indo-Europeans adpoted seafaring vessels from the indigenous northern Europeans(Battle Axe folk) just like the indigenous Europeans adopted the horse from them.

Indoeuropeans didn't need ships until they came to Europe, just horses.

[Rethel]

British colonials hardly mixed with native Americans,

Yes, they did, they still live in the same country making one nation.
And btw, oficialy halfindians and Indians count 1:1 and among US
Indians 1/3 is of non american descent anyway.

But it was not the point.
You didn;t get it.

All modern mix Europeans absorbed only ONE SINGLE GUY
who lived at least 1165 BC - according to oficial dating it
is more than 2000 years AFTER Indoeuropeans arrived.

Logically, Germans absorbed one of his descendants.

and when they did they were mainly absorbed into the native populations..

Nope, see above, and even if, then they still are of foreign provenence.

there is no existing separation between I1 and R1 n Scandinavia.

You are joking, aren't you. Ok, I admit, this was good!

You cannot tell the difference between the men, and any past physical difference was not a deterant in the two haplogroups becoming a homogenized population.

Second good joke!

[Rethel]

It's obvious the Indo-Europeans adpoted seafaring vessels from the indigenous northern Europeans(Battle Axe folk) just like the indigenous Europeans adopted the horse from them.

Battle Axes were IEs.

Indoeuropeans didn't need ships until they came to Europe, just horses.

So, how did they get into Scandia? Did they
swimm on horses to be able later adopt ships?

[Oneeye]

Yes, they did, they still live in the same country making one nation.
And btw, oficialy halfindians and Indians count 1:1 and among US
Indians 1/3 is of non american descent anyway.

But it was not the point.
You didn;t get it.

All modern mix Europeans absorbed only ONE SINGLE GUY
who lived at least 1165 BC - according to oficial dating it
is more than 2000 years AFTER Indoeuropeans arrived.

Logically, Germans absorbed one of his descendants.



Nope, see above, and even if, then they still are of foreign provenence.



You are joking, aren't you. Ok, I admit, this was good!



Second good joke!

Holy shit you're ignorant. The majority of white Americans have no native ancestry and those that do tend to have very, very little. Good luck finding a white American with a Native American YDNA. Race mixing was taboo, and natives STILL live on reservations where they have their own governement.. they weren't even officially US citizens a hundred years ago.




Wtf are you going on about "absorbing a single guy"? Perhaps you should list your source, because you either don't understand or are intentionally distorting some information you read like the bizarre haplogroup advocate you are.