How do Y-DNA and mtDNA lines change?

[Lavrentis]

How can a paternal or maternal line change? The way I interprete it:

1) Tribe A gets invaded by tribe B

2) Tribe B males bang a lot of tribe A females

3) The sons of the said tribe A females will now carry tribe B Y-DNA

Right?

[Hamlet]

Well there's three main ways Y DNA can dominate:

1. Tribal clan hierarchies, where big daddy and his bros gets all the pussy

2. Mass rape, or replacement of the men of the foreign tribe

3. The tribe goes through a bottleneck, and by pure chance a few of the Y DNA lines that make it in to the bottleneck expand greatly

[Lavrentis]

Well there's three main ways Y DNA can dominate:

1. Tribal clan hierarchies, where big daddy and his bros gets all the pussy

2. Mass rape, or replacement of the men of the foreign tribe

3. The tribe goes through a bottleneck, and by pure chance a few of the Y DNA lines that make it in to the bottleneck expand greatly

Thanks for the answer

[Hamlet]

Thanks for the answer

mtDNA lines usually don't change, but when they do, it's usually because of bottlenecks or population replacement (as in, females of another tribe are brought in)

[de Burgh II]

Through successive mutations and natural selection is the essence of evolution at work. Weeding out negative mutations in favor for beneficial/progressive mutations to take place.

[Kelmendasi]

In terms of Ydna it can happen through either things like bottlenecks, founder effect, an invasion by a certain Ydna carrying group replacing the previous group or better breeding biases allowing the males to produce more male offspring increasing the amount of people with that Ydna

[Hamlet]

Through successive mutations and natural selection is the essence of evolution at work. Weeding out negative mutations in favor for beneficial/progressive mutations to take place.

With change of Y DNA and mtDNA? Not really - they barely change from generation to generation

[Kelmendasi]

With change of Y DNA and mtDNA? Not really - they barely change from generation to generation
I think he was talking about how a haplogroup mutates into another forming sub-groups

[Hamlet]

I think he was talking about how a haplogroup mutates into another forming sub-groups

The mutations are basically random though (like all mutations (well)), and their spread is not to do with natural selection

Someone who is R1b M269* has no proper advantage over someone who is R1b-L21

[Token]

Most of the times through massive population replacement.

[Kelmendasi]

The mutations are basically random though (like all mutations (well)), and their spread is not to do with natural selection

Someone who is R1b M269* has no proper advantage over someone who is R1b-L21
Oh yh true, the mutations are random and spontaneous.

[Lavrentis]

Most of the times through massive population replacement.

But that didn't happen with the Slavic invasions in the Balkans though. Most south Slavs carry Slavic Y-DNA lines but there wasn't any population replacement there. Or with Brits carring the Germanic I1 haplogroup. But you could be right, speaking in general

[Token]

But that didn't happen with the Slavic invasions in the Balkans though. Most south Slavs carry Slavic Y-DNA lines but there wasn't any population replacement there. Or with Brits carring the Germanic I1 haplogroup. But you could be right, speaking in general

This is why i said most of the times. There was a massive replacement by Germanic invaders in England though, with a East-West cline, some peer-reviewed genetic studies trace almost half of the genome of modern English people back to Anglo-Saxons.

[Kelmendasi]

But that didn't happen with the Slavic invasions in the Balkans though. Most south Slavs carry Slavic Y-DNA lines but there wasn't any population replacement there. Or with Brits carring the Germanic I1 haplogroup. But you could be right, speaking in general
When the south Slavs arrived they probably were mainly R1a with a smaller amount of I2a1b but the I2a1b members seem to have been able to produce more male offspring than the R1a members due to certain breeding biases thus making I2a1b the majority. As for the I1 in Brits, it could be from Anglo-Saxons who settled in England, Viking/Norse raiders who either settled or raped an Anglo or from some later migration

[Lavrentis]

There was a massive replacement by Germanic invaders in England though, with a East-West cline, some peer-reviewed genetic studies trace almost half of the genome of modern English people back to Anglo-Saxons.

I guess I was wrong there

[Bosniensis]

But that didn't happen with the Slavic invasions in the Balkans though. Most south Slavs carry Slavic Y-DNA lines but there wasn't any population replacement there. Or with Brits carring the Germanic I1 haplogroup. But you could be right, speaking in general

Marriages:

(A) Slavic male + (B) Illyrian Native = (C) Slavic YDNA + Greek (Illyrian) Autosomal

Repeat that numerous times and you get:

Slavic YDNA with Greek/Ukrainian Autosomal results.

There are Greeks in Greece who have Slavic Y-DNA but 90% Greek autosomal.

[Lavrentis]

Marriages:

(A) Slavic male + (B) Illyrian Native = (C) Slavic YDNA + Greek (Illyrian) Autosomal

Repeat that numerous times and you get:

Slavic YDNA with Greek/Ukrainian Autosomal results.

There are Greeks in Greece who have Slavic Y-DNA but 90% Greek autosomal.

There is no Illyrian population source in the DNA tests, so people from Western and Northern Balkans who are largely autosomally non-Slavic get 'Greek' instead. In reality, it makes more sense to name this autosomal admixture as 'Albanian'

[Bosniensis]

There is no Illyrian population source in the DNA tests, so people from Western and Northern Balkans who are largely autosomally non-Slavic get 'Greek' instead. In reality, it makes more sense to name this autosomal admixture as 'Albanian'

Illyrians were Greeks (even according to Greek myths) who never advanced in technology and who got conquered by Romans in the end and Romanized.

Albanians who are practically identical in Autosomal results with Greeks 1:1 and are unmixed Illyrians who lived somewhere on mountains, who escaped Roman Conquests and Slavic Invaders, while western balkans is mix of Slavs, Illyrians (Greeks), Romans from Italy.

Albanians should be measurement for Illyrians, and yes Greek % on Western Balkans is Illyrian not modern Greek, but that's pretty much the same (Genetically) difference back then was on cultural level.

[de Burgh II]

The mutations are basically random though (like all mutations (well)), and their spread is not to do with natural selection

Someone who is R1b M269* has no proper advantage over someone who is R1b-L21

Mutations are gradual, generational process. Natural selection in essence, plays a role in population replacement. Just as the entire Neolithic settlers of Britain were replaced by Bronze Age steppe peoples via y-dna in greater quantities who were positively selected for via sexual selection that left the numbers of Neolithic markers such as E* and G* at lower relative frequencies compared to Steppe markers. Which means that Steppe autosomes became integrated with Neolithic and Mesolithic dna/gene pool. Generally speaking, as light skin was positively elected for in low-UV intensive environments for calcium production. Light eyes and hair color are mutations that were selected for via sexual selection because these features were aesthetically attractive. Thus, whatever mutation is positively selected for, in fact, is advantageous relative to lesser endowed mutations that aren't as successful. Which can be said about mt-dna and y-dna; the mere existence of J*, I*, E*, R*, G*, etc. is a subtle remainder of its success in you and other people being living embodiments of its continued existence for a future to live in for successive generations to come.

[Leto]

This is why i said most of the times. There was a massive replacement by Germanic invaders in England though, with a East-West cline, some peer-reviewed genetic studies trace almost half of the genome of modern English people back to Anglo-Saxons.
I think the Anglo-Saxons were very similar to the Iron Age Britons, so that replacement was rather cultural than genetic. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not much different from England genetically. The difference is smaller than that of Sicilians and Lombardians.

[Token]

I think the Anglo-Saxons were very similar to the Iron Age Britons, so that replacement was rather cultural than genetic. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not much different from England genetically. The difference is smaller than that of Sicilians and Lombardians.

Yes, they were similar but, comparing the genome of pre-Migration period Britons with Anglo-Saxons and, then, with modern English people, they could detect sudden changes in some genetic patterns and, this way, they estimated a average of 38% of Anglo-Saxon contribution in East England. I've found the study if you are interested:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations after 400 CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences from 10 individuals excavated close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from the late Iron Age to the middle Anglo-Saxon period. By analysing shared rare variants with hundreds of modern samples from Britain and Europe, we estimate that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which infers population history and identifies fine-scale genetic ancestry from rare variants. Using rarecoal we find that the Anglo-Saxon samples are closely related to modern Dutch and Danish populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.

[Leto]

Yes, they were similar but, comparing the genome of pre-Migration period Britons with Anglo-Saxons and, then, with modern English people, they could detect sudden changes in some genetic patterns and, this way, they estimated a average of 38% of Anglo-Saxon contribution in East England. I've found the study if you are interested:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations after 400 CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences from 10 individuals excavated close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from the late Iron Age to the middle Anglo-Saxon period. By analysing shared rare variants with hundreds of modern samples from Britain and Europe, we estimate that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which infers population history and identifies fine-scale genetic ancestry from rare variants. Using rarecoal we find that the Anglo-Saxon samples are closely related to modern Dutch and Danish populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.
Thanks for the link. Well, they can be rightfully called Anglo-Celtic, because they look like a mix of Germanics and Celts. Celts came from Western Europe to Britain anyway. Survive the Jive says basically the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iVdy0s8ARE