Is Baltic genetics why North-West Europeans are superior to Iberians!?

[Harkonnen]

I absolutely disagree. The 24,000 year old M'alta boy, or MA-1 if you prefer to call him, is the best reference for ANE, but his earliest origins lie in West Eurasia, not East Eurasia where he was found. The DNA in M'alta boy is absolutely West Eurasian in origin. I never mentioned anything about modern West Eurasians, so I don't know where you got that from. I speaking of prehistoric, ancient peoples. The population with the highest percentage of DNA from M'alta are the Karitiana Amerindian tribe of Brazil and it's at around 43%. Europeans actually share more alleles with the ancient M'alta boy than they do with the modern Human tribe of the Karitiana. Lazaridis et al. quotes this actually an f4 test concerning them all:

"Europeans share more alleles with MA1 than with Karitiana, as we see from the fact that in a plot of f4(Test, BedouinB; MA1, Chimp) and f4(Test, BedouinB; Karitiana, Chimp), the European cline deviates in the direction of MA1, rather than Karitiana (the slope is > 1 and European populations are above the line indicating inequality of these two statistics)."



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...13673_SF5.html

Also in the following interview of a professional from the University of Copenhagen on the subject of M'alta boy, he goes into detail about the venus figurines found alongside the skeleton of M'alta boy that are like ones in ancient Europe, also he specifically says that M'alta has Western Eurasian DNA (of course he means ancient, nothing modern, I don't know where you got that modern thing from) and he explains that there are similarities in the M'alta boy DNA and Europeans. It's absolutely West Eurasian DNA. He also explains that the ancestors of Native Americans were the population that the M'alta boy's population mixed into East Asians (Siberians) and their mixed descendants are the ancestors of Native Americans. Please watch the video with the interview in the audio(start at minute 3:34 in the video where there is talk of M'alta boy):

You are absolutely ridiculous. What you are effectively doing is trying to explain past through modern. Modern populations are the result of thousands of years of admixture and drift, I repeat Native Americans do not have admixture from us the West Eurasians, just like Europeans do not have admixture from Natives, but from Mal'ta. Also you are using double standards. Some how the fact that Mal'ta does not show special relationship with East Asians, who are just one view to modern East Eurasians, is supposed to prove that he is West Eurasian. What about the fact that he shows similrity, only to SOME modern West Eurasians. Does not that mean something? Note, that I am not here trying to prove that he is East Eurasian. It would be actually somewhat accurate to call him preproto-European type, some kind of North Eurasian sibling type to proto-(modern north)European, or something like that. But to call him West Eurasian is dishonesty to the max. If you are Canarian, then most of your ancestry likely stems from the so called Basal Eurasian clade which means that large part of your ancestry in no way shares more ties to Mal'ta contra what East Asians have to do with the bloke.

Now we have also the Ust-Ishim, who belonged to K, predecessor to Malta's R. He was equidistant to ancient Europeans (interestingly more similar to WHG types than to Mal'ta) and East Asians, and what is worth more similar to EAs than to modern West Eurasians, likely because of that BE type old West Eurasian specific, but perhaps slightly less purely original OOA type clade.

[Isleño]

You are absolutely ridiculous. What you are effectively doing is trying to explain past through modern. Modern populations are the result of thousands of years of admixture and drift, I repeat Native Americans do not have admixture from us the West Eurasians, just like Europeans do not have admixture from Natives, but from Mal'ta. Also you are using double standards. Some how the fact that Mal'ta does not show special relationship with East Asians, who are just one view to modern East Eurasians, is supposed to prove that he is West Eurasian. What about the fact that he shows similrity, only to SOME modern West Eurasians. Does not that mean something? Note, that I am not here trying to prove that he is East Eurasian. It would be actually somewhat accurate to call him preproto-European type, some kind of North Eurasian sibling type to proto-(modern north)European, or something like that. But to call him West Eurasian is dishonesty to the max. If you are Canarian, then most of your ancestry likely stems from the so called Basal Eurasian clade which means that large part of your ancestry in no way shares more ties to Mal'ta contra what East Asians have to do with the bloke.

Now we have also the Ust-Ishim, who belonged to K, predecessor to Malta's R. He was equidistant to ancient Europeans (interestingly more similar to WHG types than to Mal'ta) and East Asians, and what is worth more similar to EAs than to modern West Eurasians, likely because of that BE type old West Eurasian specific, but perhaps slightly less purely original OOA type clade.

Excuse me, but do not call me ridiculous. You want to be scholarly, then speak scholarly and do not insult me if you disagree with my argument. You are making the mistake to assume I'm talking about any modern peoples when I said West Eurasian. I'm speaking about proto-West Eurasian genetic origin here, nothing to do with modern West Eurasians. Did you not watch the video I posted? The professional in the video from the University of Copenhagen specifically refers to the origin of M'alta boy's DNA as West Eurasian. Both he and I are talking about ancient DNA with origins in West Eurasia. I believe you are misunderstanding this.

And the fact that he was found with European-like Venus figurines is highly supportive to his likely origins. I never mentioned any modern populations at all, not once. There are no comments of me referring to modern West Eurasians. This is only something you brought to the debate in your argument. So I believe the error here lies with your mistaken assumption of my word choice. I'm exactly on-point as we can see that the professional in the video I posted used the same exact wording as I did. We are both speaking of ancient West Eurasian genetic material and are making comparisons to ancient West Eurasian, not modern west Eurasian. M'alta boy's origins are from West Eurasia, not East Eurasia.

And I've never once said I'm a direct descendant of a M'alta population and that should have nothing to do with my ability or presence in debating the subject. That was totally out of line to make such a negative statement in regards to that.

[Harkonnen]

Excuse me, but do not call me ridiculous. You want to be scholarly, then speak scholarly and do not insult me if you disagree with my argument. You are making the mistake to assume I'm talking about any modern peoples when I said West Eurasian. I'm speaking about proto-West Eurasian genetic origin here, nothing to do with modern West Eurasians. Did you not watch the video I posted? The professional in the video from the University of Copenhagen specifically refers to the origin of M'alta boy's DNA as West Eurasian. Both he and I are talking about ancient DNA with origins in West Eurasia. I believe you are misunderstanding this.

And the fact that he was found with European-like Venus figurines is highly supportive to his likely origins. I never mentioned any modern populations at all, not once. There are no comments of me referring to modern West Eurasians. This is only something you brought to the debate in your argument. So I believe the error here lies with your mistaken assumption of my word choice. I'm exactly on-point as we can see that the professional in the video I posted used the same exact wording as I did. We are both speaking of ancient West Eurasian genetic material and are making comparisons to ancient West Eurasian, not modern west Eurasian. M'alta boy's origins are from West Eurasia, not East Eurasia.

And I've never once said I'm a direct descendant of a M'alta population and that should have nothing to do with my ability or presence in debating the subject. That was totally out of line to make such a negative statement in regards to that.

The problem here is that ancient DNA does not look to agree with you. I've mentioned a few times the Ust-Ishim case http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2014/10/...5000-year.html

I repeat, Ust-Ishim was equidistant to WHG types and modern East Asians. Ust-Ishim belonged to Y-dna K, which is the Big Daddy of the majority of modern Eurasian daddy-lineages (R,Q,O,N, etc). There was also the case of the 40K old Tianyuan Man from China who was equidistant to wide range of Eurasian populations (North Euros, Amerinds, East Asians)



To me all of this seems to suggest that the split between Eurasians happened somewhere in Northern Eurasia. Which makes your scenario, that Mal'ta boy was some kind recent immigrant, from Mideast?, Europe? or whatever, long after the East Eurasians had made their long trek east, a somewhat doubtful case.

Here is the rather well known picture from Lazaridis



If you follow that tree, you see that the first split happened between WHG/ANE/ENA clade and BE, then the second between WHG/ANE and ENA, and the final between WHG and ANE. Now there are some people who like to claim that it is perfectly valid and logical to call both BE and WHG/ANE West Eurasian. I disagree, I see a logical block there. So instead of the rigid traditional dichotomy of West and East, I would rather see Eurasia, as a at least three part phenomena (I think the French have a word for this?): one block of Europe/North Eurasia, one bock of East Eurasia and one block of West Eurasia.

This in the case Lazaridis tree is correct. However I strongly suspect the concept of Basal Eurasian just represents African admix radiating from the MENA block. So it could in fundamental sense just be a WHG type guy with ancient post-OOA African admix. Indeed Sardinians who are a good EEF proxy, have the highest African affinity in Europe. In that case the traditional East Eurasia/West Eurasia split is of course valid.

[Cristiano viejo]

I have not yet heard a single argument about the supposed superiority of the Baltic countries on Iberia

Quality of life, science, sports, wages, economy, companies of all kind with international weight such as multinationals or banks, history, military power, achievements etc

How right I have

[alnortedelsur]

They are superior to Iberians let alone south Americans.

I am just talking on behalf of Iberians from Spain/Portugal, and about white, creoles, and castizo latin Americans of mostly Iberian ancestry, NOT about all latin americans.

Scandinavians are NOT superior to those white (of whichever European ancestry, including Iberian), heavily white criollos, and castizo latin/south americans, and they are NOT superior to Spaniards and Portuguese from Europe either.

Amerindians, indo-Amerindians, and balanced mestizos are proud people too, and I respect them, and I have nothing against them, but that's part of another topic, because they're part of a different mindset from mine.

Spaniards and Portuguese, and their millions of direct (or heavily Iberian admixed criollos and castizos) descendants in Latin America, would NEVER EVER "accept" anybody as our superiors. WE ARE THE BEST.

Remember: We proudly carry on our veins Blood of conquistadores.

[Insuperable]

Scandinavians are NOT superior to those white (of whichever European ancestry, including Iberian) [/COLOR][/B]

Yes, they are. Deal with it.

[alnortedelsur]

edit

[Insuperable]

They are superior than you (your person) for sure, which means that my people is superior than you as well. Deal with it.

Because I admit it, unlike some 'blind' people who don't want to recognize some things. Deal with it.

[alnortedelsur]

Because I admit it, unlike some 'blind' people who don't want to recognize some things. Deal with it.

You admit others as superior to you?? Poor guy.

[Insuperable]

You admit others as superior to you?? Poor guy.

Including you. U mad?