Why Irish autosomal DNA is not Basque?

[JQP4545]

If most Irish people carry the same Y chromosome as the Basque people then why is their autosomal DNA so different?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

If most Irish people carry the same Y chromosome as the Basque people then why is their autosomal DNA so different?

Because it's a rigged game, basically. Autosomal markers are chosen specifically to differentiate populations. You would think this means that some other population having 2% of a marker means it shares 2% of the ancestry but it's not the case. You can't really make any certain statements about that because there is natural selection and because there's also genes from local populations that get absorbed.

So say basques and celts start exactly the same. Some move to the mountains, and there is some single tribe there with a gene useful for resisting local disease. Well, shortly thereafter the populations look very separate but they are NOT.

The same could ALSO be the case with the y-dna however. Maybe they were totally unrelated for a long time, but r1b y-dna is strongly selected for.

So in short it's largely guesswork and no theory based wholly on autosomal OR y-dna/mtdna is worth much because it's not enough information.

[JQP4545]

^^^ Makes sense.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Also, a GOOD marker that IS neutral (or even selected against) is rh- blood type, which Irish and Basque both have a lot of.

[Kale]

Well, we break the autosomal DNA into groups, and then most people judge relatedness solely by the proportion of those groups. While your typical Irishman and some random half Finn half Italian guy might have similar proportions, they are obviously not related. What people don't look into is the similarities within the groups. Basques are known for their "Atlantic" or "Mediterranean" component or what have you...and Irish have a decent chunk too. I bet if you were to look solely at that component and the variety within that, you might find that the Basque "Atlantic" component would be very close to the Irish "Atlantic" component, as opposed to say an Armenian "Atlantic" for example.

[Grace O'Malley]

Because it's a rigged game, basically. Autosomal markers are chosen specifically to differentiate populations. You would think this means that some other population having 2% of a marker means it shares 2% of the ancestry but it's not the case. You can't really make any certain statements about that because there is natural selection and because there's also genes from local populations that get absorbed.

So say basques and celts start exactly the same. Some move to the mountains, and there is some single tribe there with a gene useful for resisting local disease. Well, shortly thereafter the populations look very separate but they are NOT.

The same could ALSO be the case with the y-dna however. Maybe they were totally unrelated for a long time, but r1b y-dna is strongly selected for.

So in short it's largely guesswork and no theory based wholly on autosomal OR y-dna/mtdna is worth much because it's not enough information.

Why would anyone rig Autosomal dna? Autosomal dna is all your dna from all your ancestors. It is obvious even to a dimwit that the more autosomal dna a population share the more similar they are. The Irish and the Basque are not particularly related populations. Why do the Irish have West Asian and Caucasus in their genetic component and the Basque lack this? Some of the more knowledgeable dna posters need to answer this more fully.

People also forget that the Irish are Celtic speakers and the Basque are not. The problem is that people are still in confusion about R1b when they shouldn't be. R1b is a relatively young haplogroup that came from the East. The most common R1b in Ireland is L21 and it is approx only 15% in Basque and much lower in Spain. The L21 in Basque is in fact younger and less diverse than the L21 in Ireland so if we follow Melonhead's sense of logic the L21 in Basque is from Irishmen not the other way round.

L21 is oldest and most diverse in France and Germany. Logically this is where L21 came from to places like Ireland and Britain. All R1b entered Europe from some point East well after the Ice Age. But really ydna is a tiny tiny fraction of your genome anyway. It is not going to show how close a population is related. One grandfather could be R1a and one grandfather could be R1b. The only way to show if someone is related is by looking at all their dna (autosomal). A mother and child will share half their autosomal dna. For an adopted person to find related their have to look at autosomal dna as many many people of different nationalities share the same mt-dna and ydna. Of course a father passes his ydna from father to son and they will have the same but populations are separated by thousands of years and the y dna over a period of time will start showing different mutations.

None of this stuff is rocket science. I'm only a novice in this and I understand. Hopefully someone like Argang or Jackson will input into this thread.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Why would anyone rig Autosomal dna? Autosomal dna is all your dna from all your ancestors. It is obvious even to a dimwit that the more autosomal dna a population share the more similar they are. The Irish and the Basque are not particularly related populations. Why do the Irish have West Asian and Caucasus in their genetic component and the Basque lack this? Some of the more knowledgeable dna posters need to answer this more fully.

No one did it on purpose (at least not in most cases), it is inevitable that this happens and I explained very thoroughly why this will happen already. These definitions also change constantly. In short you just have no idea what you are talking about.



People also forget that the Irish are Celtic speakers and the Basque are not. The problem is that people are still in confusion about R1b when they shouldn't be. R1b is a relatively young haplogroup that came from the East.

This is circular logic. How on earth can't you understand that? It also implies again the same scenario I came up with anyway. That Irish and Basques were one people who came very recently and then differentiated very quickly on at least these genes. How? Why? This would never in a million years happen from founding effect.

These two ideas conflict each other. Either the autosomal markers mean something, or the r1b all came very recently from the east (a theory internet retards propagate but which has no scientific evidence behind it, and plenty for it). If you think this wholly factual and not speculative then you really have no clue at all and are in the same group as Fire Haired, who's 16.



The most common R1b in Ireland is L21 and it is approx only 15% in Basque and much lower in Spain.

And...?!?! Why do you think this SUPPORTS a recent migration of r1b to the area? This says the opposite. Basques have their own version of r1b as well that now covers a lot of basque territory/.



The L21 in Basque is in fact younger and less diverse than the L21 in Ireland so if we follow Melonhead's sense of logic the L21 in Basque is from Irishmen not the other way round.

In your world, all of everyone's ancestors had the same haplotypes then walked around various places. However they develop over time. If it were the other way, then these subtypes would be randomly distributed all over.

Nobody claims that basques and irish split off 200 years ago. We know the history for at least 1500 years. 1500 years is more than enough time for new haplotypes to form! That doesn't mean that people in UK are just as related to basques as they are to people who don't even have the same haplogroup at all!



L21 is oldest and most diverse in France and Germany. Logically this is where L21 came from to places like Ireland and Britain.

Still continuing the same retarded shit from the other thread? Of course that's how they came to Ireland IN RECENT TIMES. They are NOTHING to do with pre-war Irish.



All R1b entered Europe from some point East well after the Ice Age.

Very doubtful in my mind, and I really do have 150+ IQ. Like I said, there is no paper to point to such an origin, it's just a fantasy. However solutreans were R*, M'alta boy was R*. That's pretty much game over for the idea that europe was full of a bunch of clades like e1b before recent times. A complete joke, and there is not one paper I've seen to make such a case, because it's impossible case to make since it has no evidence.



But really ydna is a tiny tiny fraction of your genome anyway.

Autosomal markers are much, much smaller fractions of your DNA :lol:


It is not going to show how close a population is related.

Autosomal markers are much, much smaller fractions of your DNA :lol:It absolutely, indisputably is. In fact it's the very best marker we have for this, such as it is. It's like saying your hair color and eye color and skin color has nothing to do with how related to someone else you are. Well, sorry but it is a very good indicator.

You are looking at populations and average amounts. Something something get a math degree and try again.



One grandfather could be R1a and one grandfather could be R1b.

And they are probably from different countries, if so. On average.



The only way to show if someone is related is by looking at all their dna (autosomal).

Fundamental theorem of calculus says no. Plus reasons I said above.



A mother and child will share half their autosomal dna.

No! This is not true even of individuals let alone populations. Mixing is uneven and you can't easily look at autosomals to tell your percentage of ancestry. I already said why. Even Kale understood eventually!



For an adopted person to find related their have to look at autosomal dna as many many people of different nationalities share the same mt-dna and ydna. Of course a father passes his ydna from father to son and they will have the same but populations are separated by thousands of years and the y dna over a period of time will start showing different mutations.

None of this stuff is rocket science. I'm only a novice in this and I understand. Hopefully someone like Argang or Jackson will input into this thread.

You don't understand it in the least.

[random]

Because Y-DNA ≠ autosomal DNA

[Grace O'Malley]

No one did it on purpose (at least not in most cases), it is inevitable that this happens and I explained very thoroughly why this will happen already. These definitions also change constantly. In short you just have no idea what you are talking about.


This is circular logic. How on earth can't you understand that? It also implies again the same scenario I came up with anyway. That Irish and Basques were one people who came very recently and then differentiated very quickly on at least these genes. How? Why? This would never in a million years happen from founding effect.

These two ideas conflict each other. Either the autosomal markers mean something, or the r1b all came very recently from the east (a theory internet retards propagate but which has no scientific evidence behind it, and plenty for it). If you think this wholly factual and not speculative then you really have no clue at all and are in the same group as Fire Haired, who's 16.


And...?!?! Why do you think this SUPPORTS a recent migration of r1b to the area? This says the opposite. Basques have their own version of r1b as well that now covers a lot of basque territory/.


In your world, all of everyone's ancestors had the same haplotypes then walked around various places. However they develop over time. If it were the other way, then these subtypes would be randomly distributed all over.

Nobody claims that basques and irish split off 200 years ago. We know the history for at least 1500 years. 1500 years is more than enough time for new haplotypes to form! That doesn't mean that people in UK are just as related to basques as they are to people who don't even have the same haplogroup at all!


Still continuing the same retarded shit from the other thread? Of course that's how they came to Ireland IN RECENT TIMES. They are NOTHING to do with pre-war Irish.


Very doubtful in my mind, and I really do have 150+ IQ. Like I said, there is no paper to point to such an origin, it's just a fantasy. However solutreans were R*, M'alta boy was R*. That's pretty much game over for the idea that europe was full of a bunch of clades like e1b before recent times. A complete joke, and there is not one paper I've seen to make such a case, because it's impossible case to make since it has no evidence.


Autosomal markers are much, much smaller fractions of your DNA :lol:

Autosomal markers are much, much smaller fractions of your DNA :lol:It absolutely, indisputably is. In fact it's the very best marker we have for this, such as it is. It's like saying your hair color and eye color and skin color has nothing to do with how related to someone else you are. Well, sorry but it is a very good indicator.

You are looking at populations and average amounts. Something something get a math degree and try again.


And they are probably from different countries, if so. On average.


Fundamental theorem of calculus says no. Plus reasons I said above.


No! This is not true even of individuals let alone populations. Mixing is uneven and you can't easily look at autosomals to tell your percentage of ancestry. I already said why. Even Kale understood eventually!



You don't understand it in the least.

OH BOY! That's all I can say.

[Ulla]

Why should Irish autosomal DNA be Basque?

[blogen]

The great questions of the life. Why not correlated the parental DNA with the autosomal and the physical race! :D

[Grace O'Malley]

Here is my Eurogenes K15 showing my components and the closest populations. Not very Basque influenced.

I think there are a lot more other European populations more influenced by Basque genetics than the Irish.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 37.04
2 Atlantic 29.88
3 Baltic 11.89
4 Eastern_Euro 8.75
5 West_Asian 5.16
6 West_Med 4.95
7 Amerindian 1.15
8 Red_Sea 1.1
9 Siberian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish 3.03
2 West_Scottish 3.18
3 North_Dutch 3.71
4 Danish 3.92
5 Orcadian 4.92
6 Southeast_English 5.05
7 North_German 5.1
8 Southwest_English 6.72
9 Norwegian 7.23
10 West_Norwegian 7.49
11 Swedish 8.02
12 South_Dutch 9.76
13 West_German 10.83
14 North_Swedish 10.95
15 East_German 14.23
16 French 14.47
17 Southwest_Finnish 15.54
18 Austrian 18.1
19 Hungarian 18.79
20 Finnish 18.91

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 85.3% Irish + 14.7% Swedish @ 2.74
2 96.9% West_Scottish + 3.1% Chechen @ 2.76
3 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% North_Ossetian @ 2.77
4 97.4% Irish + 2.6% Tabassaran @ 2.78
5 89.9% Irish + 10.1% North_Swedish @ 2.79
6 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Chechen @ 2.8
7 67.9% Irish + 32.1% North_Dutch @ 2.81
8 74.3% West_Scottish + 25.7% North_German @ 2.82
9 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Lezgin @ 2.82
10 97.2% West_Scottish + 2.8% Kabardin @ 2.82
11 86.3% Irish + 13.7% West_Norwegian @ 2.83
12 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Adygei @ 2.83
13 97% West_Scottish + 3% Tabassaran @ 2.83
14 98% Irish + 2% North_Ossetian @ 2.84
15 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% Lezgin @ 2.84
16 86.3% Irish + 13.7% Norwegian @ 2.84
17 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Balkar @ 2.85
18 94.8% Irish + 5.2% Finnish @ 2.85
19 96% Irish + 4% Estonian @ 2.86
20 98% Irish + 2% Kabardin @ 2.86

Oracle 4

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 3.432
2 West_Scottish @ 3.567
3 North_Dutch @ 4.197
4 Danish @ 4.472
5 Orcadian @ 5.508
6 Southeast_English @ 5.687
7 North_German @ 5.911
8 Southwest_English @ 7.480
9 Norwegian @ 8.427
10 West_Norwegian @ 8.739
207 iterations.



Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +50% North_Dutch @ 3.222
2 50% North_Dutch +50% West_Scottish @ 3.340
3 50% Danish +50% Irish @ 3.391
4 50% Irish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.412
5 50% Irish +50% Irish @ 3.432
6 50% North_German +50% West_Scottish @ 3.563
7 50% North_German +50% Orcadian @ 3.564
8 50% West_Scottish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.567
9 50% Danish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.569
10 50% Irish +50% North_German @ 3.796
21528 iterations.

Oracle X

ct. Calc. Option 2

1 Irish 82.27%
2 Orcadian 5.29%
3 Swedish 4.82%
4 North_Swedish 2.28%
5 Tabassaran 1.97%
6 Estonian 1.80%
7 Finnish 0.63%
8 Chechen 0.45%
9 North_Ossetian 0.37%
10 Tatar 0.11%

[Jackson]

They are related sure, but there is not a special relationship between one and the other when you consider that they each have their own types of R1b. So it is not useful talking about the Irish in isolation. The Basque are modal for Atlantic components and also very high in western Mediterranean, while low in Baltic, much lower than the Irish. Also it is not necessarily reliable to associate the frequency of y-haplogroups with overall relatedness, as a polygamous clan-based system could cause very high frequencies of one haplogroup in an area over a relatively short period of time, so one y-haplogroup would become over-represented compared to the autosomal genes originally associated with it.

So yes by the fact they both share high frequencies of a (broad) haplogroup, they were both (or those lines were both part of) a population that expanded into those areas a long time ago, but it is not as though the Irish are surrounded by people almost devoid of R1b.

----------------------------------
Anyway Melonhead, so far nobody is claiming that it was only E1b in Europe 'before recent times', but there is evidence of lots of I and I2 associated with hunter-gatherers, and G associated with farmers, and R1b is first seen associated with Bell Beaker in Germany at least. Maybe as more ancient remains are tested we will find some R1b in Europe prior to that, but the main question is whether there is continuity between that R1b and modern R1b in the area. So far with the hunter-gatherers is a story of a lack of continuity for the most part on the y-DNA line (closest match of one of these I2 was in Russia). Also, there is not even a guarantee that all of the significant percentage of autosomal DNA associated with these hunter gatherers has been in the same place since they were, as given you have an average of around 15% 'ANE' throughout most of Europe (but not much in the Basque and also the Sardinians) fairly evenly spread, it pretty much points to a late or post-Neolithic movement from further east into Europe, as the only hunter-gatherers to carry similar amounts of this component in the late Mesolithic were in Sweden, and as they were missing a large farmer-related component that is present in modern Europeans with similar amounts of ANE, that kind of rules them out as the sole contributors. But the question is whether we are dealing with an almost pure ANE population (probably carrying R1) or whether they themselves were a combination of ANE and WHG, or ANE WHG and EEF. If they had two or three components rather than just ANE, then it follows that some of the WHG in modern northern and western European populations is associated with these people and came from a population likely further east that had these higher levels of ANE. Need more ancient DNA from eastern Europe and western Siberia though really.

Anyway, i'm not sure how R* being present at Ma'lta in Siberia proves that it was simultaneously present in western Europe, especially given we haven't found any yet in western Europe until only several thousand years ago. I'd think there probably was R somewhere in or on the fringes of Europe in the mesolithic, but that is not proven yet. Yes there are archaeological connections between Ma'lta and western Eurasia & Europe, but again we need more ancient DNA.

[Grace O'Malley]

The great questions of the life. Why not correlated the parental DNA with the autosomal and the physical race! :D

It would be interesting to see your K15 results Blogen being Hungarian?

[Graham]

Y dna is only line in your dna, compared to the masses. Would be like saying you only take after one great grand parent, when there are 7 more contributors.

[Graham]

It would be interesting to see your K15 results Blogen being Hungarian?

Hungarians are quite like the Austrians on those runs.

[gold_fenix]

well even when they have the highest frecuency of R1b the subclade are different, so we are speaking about a common origin ,i associate with atlantic culture early to celts and this was a lot of time ago, if we considerer like isolated populations during a time and different invasions , there you got the result

[blogen]

It would be interesting to see your K15 results Blogen being Hungarian?

What is this K15?

[LightHouse89]

Both populations are unrelated.

[The King, I am]

Because the people who do this genetics mumbo jumbo dont do it correctly

[Graham]

Proper studies show the Welsh have strong links with North West France. More than half the DNA infact. But not the South France or Iberia.


I'd imagine Ireland would be similar.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Here is my Eurogenes K15 showing my components and the closest populations. Not very Basque influenced.

I think there are a lot more other European populations more influenced by Basque genetics than the Irish.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 37.04
2 Atlantic 29.88
3 Baltic 11.89
4 Eastern_Euro 8.75
5 West_Asian 5.16
6 West_Med 4.95
7 Amerindian 1.15
8 Red_Sea 1.1
9 Siberian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish 3.03
2 West_Scottish 3.18
3 North_Dutch 3.71
4 Danish 3.92
5 Orcadian 4.92
6 Southeast_English 5.05
7 North_German 5.1
8 Southwest_English 6.72
9 Norwegian 7.23
10 West_Norwegian 7.49
11 Swedish 8.02
12 South_Dutch 9.76
13 West_German 10.83
14 North_Swedish 10.95
15 East_German 14.23
16 French 14.47
17 Southwest_Finnish 15.54
18 Austrian 18.1
19 Hungarian 18.79
20 Finnish 18.91

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 85.3% Irish + 14.7% Swedish @ 2.74
2 96.9% West_Scottish + 3.1% Chechen @ 2.76
3 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% North_Ossetian @ 2.77
4 97.4% Irish + 2.6% Tabassaran @ 2.78
5 89.9% Irish + 10.1% North_Swedish @ 2.79
6 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Chechen @ 2.8
7 67.9% Irish + 32.1% North_Dutch @ 2.81
8 74.3% West_Scottish + 25.7% North_German @ 2.82
9 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Lezgin @ 2.82
10 97.2% West_Scottish + 2.8% Kabardin @ 2.82
11 86.3% Irish + 13.7% West_Norwegian @ 2.83
12 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Adygei @ 2.83
13 97% West_Scottish + 3% Tabassaran @ 2.83
14 98% Irish + 2% North_Ossetian @ 2.84
15 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% Lezgin @ 2.84
16 86.3% Irish + 13.7% Norwegian @ 2.84
17 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Balkar @ 2.85
18 94.8% Irish + 5.2% Finnish @ 2.85
19 96% Irish + 4% Estonian @ 2.86
20 98% Irish + 2% Kabardin @ 2.86

Oracle 4

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 3.432
2 West_Scottish @ 3.567
3 North_Dutch @ 4.197
4 Danish @ 4.472
5 Orcadian @ 5.508
6 Southeast_English @ 5.687
7 North_German @ 5.911
8 Southwest_English @ 7.480
9 Norwegian @ 8.427
10 West_Norwegian @ 8.739
207 iterations.



Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +50% North_Dutch @ 3.222
2 50% North_Dutch +50% West_Scottish @ 3.340
3 50% Danish +50% Irish @ 3.391
4 50% Irish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.412
5 50% Irish +50% Irish @ 3.432
6 50% North_German +50% West_Scottish @ 3.563
7 50% North_German +50% Orcadian @ 3.564
8 50% West_Scottish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.567
9 50% Danish +50% West_Scottish @ 3.569
10 50% Irish +50% North_German @ 3.796
21528 iterations.

Oracle X

ct. Calc. Option 2

1 Irish 82.27%
2 Orcadian 5.29%
3 Swedish 4.82%
4 North_Swedish 2.28%
5 Tabassaran 1.97%
6 Estonian 1.80%
7 Finnish 0.63%
8 Chechen 0.45%
9 North_Ossetian 0.37%
10 Tatar 0.11%

Yeah, that proves a lot/

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Proper studies show the Welsh have strong links with North West France. More than half the DNA infact. But not the South France or Iberia.


I'd imagine Ireland would be similar.

There's a difference between "related" and being the exact same thing, obviously. Brittany is almost exactly same as ireland IN MODERN HISTORIC TIMES. Basques are still related just not almost equivalent as is the case there.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Because the people who do this genetics mumbo jumbo dont do it correctly

Yes, and sometimes they have an agenda as well. The fact it literally changes every couple months should clue people in that none of this is very reliable yet (and won't ever be without lots more adna from ancient sources). The biggest ones to make me call bullshit are scandos having "nilotic" component and europeans all having "american indian". Of course it turns out to be the other way around as should be obvious.

[Damião de Góis]

If most Irish people carry the same Y chromosome as the Basque people then why is their autosomal DNA so different?

You're starting from a wrong premise, since R1b subclades are different for both populations.

[JQP4545]

You're starting from a wrong premise, since R1b subclades are different for both populations.

True. The studies I was looking at were outdated.

[Stears]

The great questions of the life. Why not correlated the parental DNA with the autosomal and the physical race! :D Because: pseudo-science (like facial morphology) is not related with real science (like genetics).

[Grace O'Malley]

Yeah, that proves a lot/

I'm Irish and have Irish genetics. It shows the populations closest to me and is in line with other Irish people.

[Bellbeaking]

No one did it on purpose (at least not in most cases), it is inevitable that this happens and I explained very thoroughly why this will happen already. These definitions also change constantly. In short you just have no idea what you are talking about.


This is circular logic. How on earth can't you understand that? It also implies again the same scenario I came up with anyway. That Irish and Basques were one people who came very recently and then differentiated very quickly on at least these genes. How? Why? This would never in a million years happen from founding effect.

These two ideas conflict each other. Either the autosomal markers mean something, or the r1b all came very recently from the east (a theory internet retards propagate but which has no scientific evidence behind it, and plenty for it). If you think this wholly factual and not speculative then you really have no clue at all and are in the same group as Fire Haired, who's 16.
.

look at this cocksure idiot lmao

here you go mate:

https://i.imgur.com/IcHY8NE.png