Classify these Outer Hebrideans [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Grace O'Malley

02-19-2024, 08:02 AM

Weren't Steppe people varied in pigmentation? how else would you explain Scandinavians being twice as blonde as the British?

Yes they were and also there has been recent selection for certain traits in populations. You also have to allow for drift in populations especially small island populations. It would not take long for certain traits to dominate especially if you have some powerful men in control who had a reproduction advantage. This is one of the reasons why R1b-M222 became dominant in Northwestern Ireland for example. Anyway Outer Hebrideans would have a similar amount of Western Steppe Herders that the Irish have and Irish have similar levels to Scandinavians. This is from the paper Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia.

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

Grace O'Malley

02-19-2024, 08:03 AM

Weren't Steppe people varied in pigmentation? how else would you explain Scandinavians being twice as blonde as the British?

Also there is variety of pigmentation in all populations as far as colouring goes. You also can't tell how much admixture a population has by looking at them as people have odd ideas about what populations should look like.

A well known Viking genome in Ireland for example was Norwegian but had dark hair and brown eyes. Anyway my point is that unless you have some understanding of population genetics how are you not going to say something that can be easily shown to be incorrect?

Also some people have biases and will just say any BS about populations.

The findings of the largest ever DNA analysis of Vikings, who travelled by sea to raid and eventually settle on the island of Ireland, show they derived much of their genetic ancestry from Norway.

Moreover, many Vikings had brown hair and darker features including the famous Eyrephort warrior from Co Galway, while English Vikings display sharp ancestral differences to their Irish counterparts, with much stronger Danish influences. Some thought to be Vikings and given a ceremonial burial turned out to be locals.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/blonde-hair-blue-eyes-often-not-dominant-characteristics-of-irish-vikings-study-finds-1.4356375

charlesmckinven1234

02-20-2024, 03:23 PM

Thank you for this Grace. I've followed your contributions for a while and you have the most insightful answers on Ireland. I feel Ireland (and to some extent Scotland) are two countries people on this site always get massively wrong.

aherne

02-20-2024, 06:26 PM

A good example of how not having a knowledge of genetics can make you come to the incorrect conclusions. Their Steppe input for example would be higher than their ENF and HG.

I simply don't trust genetics when it gives historically implausible results. I prefer to be "ignorant" and trust what I see, especially in our age of highly politicized science that works within the frames of political/semitical correctness as well as the chase for grants and futile titles...

However, I've never been there, so I can get easily deluded by cherrypicking. Speaking to the point (people from Stornoway):

https://i0.wp.com/wickhighschool.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151215_095632.jpg?resize=860%2C280&ssl=1
https://www.hial.co.uk/images/Airport_Visit_Edited.jpg
https://scontent.fotp3-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/300637259_401414485436273_4355030822951931733_n.jp g?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=783fdb&_nc_ohc=9ja0CoT3B-sAX_mFvdW&_nc_ht=scontent.fotp3-3.fna&oh=00_AfCNKu6EfFm5XYHFgqemO2JI6aYOL1INEVWcZ-MfJOt66g&oe=65DA986A
https://www.thursohighschool.org.uk/images/gallery/0312201811292764774.jpg

Very Nordic people (in the right meaning of the word), basically NW Euro CM with Aryan admixture (smaller than in Scandinavians) and a small ENF element that is almost invisible except in a few individuals.

charlesmckinven1234

02-20-2024, 07:54 PM

Excluding a few they look very Gaelic in my opinion. Only a handful look Scandinavian influenced.

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 12:17 AM

I simply don't trust genetics when it gives historically implausible results. I prefer to be "ignorant" and trust what I see, especially in our age of highly politicized science that works within the frames of political/semitical correctness as well as the chase for grants and futile titles...

However, I've never been there, so I can get easily deluded by cherrypicking. Speaking to the point (people from Stornoway):

https://i0.wp.com/wickhighschool.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/20151215_095632.jpg?resize=860%2C280&ssl=1
https://www.hial.co.uk/images/Airport_Visit_Edited.jpg
https://scontent.fotp3-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/300637259_401414485436273_4355030822951931733_n.jp g?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=783fdb&_nc_ohc=9ja0CoT3B-sAX_mFvdW&_nc_ht=scontent.fotp3-3.fna&oh=00_AfCNKu6EfFm5XYHFgqemO2JI6aYOL1INEVWcZ-MfJOt66g&oe=65DA986A
https://www.thursohighschool.org.uk/images/gallery/0312201811292764774.jpg

Very Nordic people (in the right meaning of the word), basically NW Euro CM with Aryan admixture (smaller than in Scandinavians) and a small ENF element that is almost invisible except in a few individuals.

Nordic to me is Scandinavian. They aren't the only Northwest Europeans however. How can you not trust genetics when anyone has access now to tools and can even look at their own dna and other family members? It's not something you can falsify and why would anyone want to? An example would be most Irish people would have thought they were Celtic and heavily influenced by Celts genetically. DNA shows they aren't but are much more influenced by the Bronze Age Bell Beaker populations. Genetics is non-political and not open to people's subjective biases. You just have to accept what it shows even if it is not what people might want.

Genetics in fact does not give historically implausible results. I'm amazed at how it gives very logical and accurate results. One thing that is very logical is that populations aren't very different than their neighbours whereas people previously believed very strange theories about populations but genetics has cleared up a lot of these myths about populations. Anyway that would rather trust their subjective opinions on what people should look like over genetics is someone that is not open to learning like the "flat earthers". They have ancient genomes now that they can analyse their dna. It's absolutely marvellous.

Oliver109

02-21-2024, 12:28 AM

Nordic to me is Scandinavian. They aren't the only Northwest Europeans however. How can you not trust genetics when anyone has access now to tools and can even look at their own dna and other family members? It's not something you can falsify and why would anyone want to? An example would be most Irish people would have thought they were Celtic and heavily influenced by Celts genetically. DNA shows they aren't but are much more influenced by the Bronze Age Bell Beaker populations. Genetics is non-political and not open to people's subjective biases. You just have to accept what it shows even if it is not what people might want.

Genetics in fact does not give historically implausible results. I'm amazed at how it gives very logical and accurate results. One thing that is very logical is that populations aren't very different than their neighbours whereas people previously believed very strange theories about populations but genetics has cleared up a lot of these myths about populations. Anyway that would rather trust their subjective opinions on what people should look like over genetics is someone that is not open to learning like the "flat earthers". They have ancient genomes now that they can analyse their dna. It's absolutely marvellous.

The problem with genetics is that it doesn't give reasons about why for example blonde hair is much more common in Scandinavia than Britain despite the two being genetically close or why the Irish have a much greater proportion of freckles than the French despite being genetically close. Then there are other things that genetics doesn't really explain like the much higher incidence of large lantern jaws in north Europe as opposed to the Med.

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 12:49 AM

The problem with genetics is that it doesn't give reasons about why for example blonde hair is much more common in Scandinavia than Britain despite the two being genetically close or why the Irish have a much greater proportion of freckles than the French despite being genetically close. Then there are other things that genetics doesn't really explain like the much higher incidence of large lantern jaws in north Europe as opposed to the Med.

Irish are relatively close to French but are much closer to other Northwestern Europeans. French for example have higher Farmer input than the Irish. These sort of things such as hair and skin colour are obviously due to some selection pressure. When looking at the Irish for example Ireland is very overcast and has more cloud cover than most countries. It would makes sense in that sort of climate to have very fair skin to optimise Vitamin D absorption. A side effect of this skin lightening was genes for red hair. Genetics only go so far but environmental pressures also play into it. Also things like genetic drift. It's not that difficult to understand. If you were in a small population for example it easy to see how certain traits can become more common.

Oliver109

02-21-2024, 01:07 AM

Irish are relatively close to French but are much closer to other Northwestern Europeans. French for example have higher Farmer input than the Irish. These sort of things such as hair and skin colour are obviously due to some selection pressure. When looking at the Irish for example Ireland is very overcast and has more cloud cover than most countries. It would makes sense in that sort of climate to have very fair skin to optimise Vitamin D absorption. A side effect of this skin lightening was genes for red hair. Genetics only go so far but environmental pressures also play into it. Also things like genetic drift. It's not that difficult to understand. If you were in a small population for example it easy to see how certain traits can become more common.

Isn't the farmer input maybe only 10% higher in France than in Ireland? I think climate can play a part but even in gloomy Britanny the resemblance to the Irish is quite weak, depigmentation is of course something that isn't limited to Ireland and UK but is also found frequently in Bosnia, Ukraine, well into Russia and Asia even though the isolation of Ireland probably helped paler people to reproduce more.

Anglo-Celtic

02-21-2024, 02:14 AM

Lewis (continued): 127064 127065 127066 127067

Donald Trump's mom was born there. He's half Gaelic and half legend.

Creoda

02-21-2024, 02:22 AM

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 03:23 AM

Isn't the farmer input maybe only 10% higher in France than in Ireland? I think climate can play a part but even in gloomy Britanny the resemblance to the Irish is quite weak, depigmentation is of course something that isn't limited to Ireland and UK but is also found frequently in Bosnia, Ukraine, well into Russia and Asia even though the isolation of Ireland probably helped paler people to reproduce more.

10% is a huge difference when you look at populations. Also Ireland while less admixed than Britain isn't that isolated. They have had constant interactions with populations especially their neighbours Britain. If you know history you would know this. This is the reason as I've explained many times why Ireland does not form a cluster of their own. They aren't a particularly unique population such as Basque, Finns, Sardinians and many other European populations have had more isolation than Ireland. Ireland though has just had more interaction with Scots, English and Welsh than with Continental Europeans for example. Southeastern England has had constant interactions with the Continent but some slow trickle of this affects the rest of Britain and Ireland. If you look at isolation genetically for instance the Orcadians and Welsh are more distinctive than the Irish. Still all those populations haven't been isolated enough to form a distinctive cluster genetically.

Oliver109

02-21-2024, 03:36 AM

10% is a huge difference when you look at populations. Also Ireland while less admixed than Britain isn't that isolated. They have had constant interactions with populations especially their neighbours Britain. If you know history you would know this. This is the reason as I've explained many times why Ireland does not form a cluster of their own. They aren't a particularly unique population such as Basque, Finns, Sardinians and many other European populations have had more isolation than Ireland. Ireland though has just had more interaction with Scots, English and Welsh than with Continental Europeans for example. Southeastern England has had constant interactions with the Continent but some slow trickle of this affects the rest of Britain and Ireland. If you look at isolation genetically for instance the Orcadians and Welsh are more distinctive than the Irish. Still all those populations haven't been isolated enough to form a distinctive cluster genetically.

I think Ireland, especially the west of Ireland has been a more peripheral area in Europe and didn't get as many of the German and French migrations that GB got, especially eastern England which genetically is the most French and German. Are the Basques isolated? i can't see that being the case as they are basically closely related to their Spanish and French populations.

Mopi Licinius Crassus

02-21-2024, 03:39 AM

Nordic to me is Scandinavian. They aren't the only Northwest Europeans however. How can you not trust genetics when anyone has access now to tools and can even look at their own dna and other family members? It's not something you can falsify and why would anyone want to? An example would be most Irish people would have thought they were Celtic and heavily influenced by Celts genetically. DNA shows they aren't but are much more influenced by the Bronze Age Bell Beaker populations. Genetics is non-political and not open to people's subjective biases. You just have to accept what it shows even if it is not what people might want.

Genetics in fact does not give historically implausible results. I'm amazed at how it gives very logical and accurate results. One thing that is very logical is that populations aren't very different than their neighbours whereas people previously believed very strange theories about populations but genetics has cleared up a lot of these myths about populations. Anyway that would rather trust their subjective opinions on what people should look like over genetics is someone that is not open to learning like the "flat earthers". They have ancient genomes now that they can analyse their dna. It's absolutely marvellous.

I think I may have asked before about this, but what is the difference between the bell beakers and proto-celts?
I used to assume bell beakers were the branch of Indo-European speaking steppe people that became the Celts in western Europe

aherne

02-21-2024, 04:16 AM

I'm amazed at how it gives very logical and accurate results.

Such as the Basques being paternally... "Indo-European" or, as I've learnt yesterday, the people of El Argar culture in Andalusia having been genetically replaced by the Bell Beaker people, all in crass denial of:
- archaeological remains that shows continuity from the Neolithic onwards
- historical evidence that shows this area to be Tartesian/Iberian speaking until Romanization
- physical anthropology that demonstrate that people there (then and now) have same amounts of "Indo-European" influences as the Sardinians (almost zero)
I wouldn't be surprised they won't find a "steppe" strain/dominance in people of Lebanon either and you guys will believe it...

I'm not denying that some of their findings helped us prove something that the anthropologists/historians have guessed long before (the three components of European ancestry) and that they're quite reliable in determining racial (but not ethnic) ancestries, but to treat them as science is untenable because one of the main characteristics of science is for a fact to be independently reproductible. If they were science, independent teams studying the same remains / same populations would reach the same conclusions: instead they come with wildly different and totally wild estimates.

Proof: What's the genetic contribution of HG/ENF/ARYAN elements in, say, Romanians? If you search over the internet about what these so-called scientists have found out, you will see a lottery of numbers...

Also, the very idea that the indigenous population in NW Europe was exterminated is in complete hatred of history and lacking any archaeological proof. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the looks of people in areas least affected by the two other migrations: Northern Europe, especially NW and NE corners, showing a complete gradation of more or less pure indigenous phenotypes that have no parallels outside Europe.

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 04:32 AM

I think Ireland, especially the west of Ireland has been a more peripheral area in Europe and didn't get as many of the German and French migrations that GB got, especially eastern England which genetically is the most French and German. Are the Basques isolated? i can't see that being the case as they are basically closely related to their Spanish and French populations.

The most distinctive parts of Ireland are Donegal and Cork not the west per se. However all of Ireland is very close genetically but in the latest dna studies done they found that Donegal was the most distinctive and isolated. This however does not mean they are completely isolated but just more so than other parts of Ireland. Donegal for instance has had Scots input going back hundreds of years and Cork has had Normans, Vikings and English settle there but still there is a bit of isolation due to mountain ranges in southern Munster and Donegal is a periphery area of Ireland and one of the most distant areas in Ireland. The Basque are distinctive from the rest of Spain which is why they have their own genetic cluster. They don't get the North African or Iberomaurusian that is in the rest of Iberians nor the Roman or North European admixture which makes them distinctive to a certain degree. Look at the population distances to other Spanish for example and of course they have a distinctive cluster. Of course the west of Ireland if you compare it to South East England has not had the Continental influences that has occurred there but west Ireland has not been isolated either. Nearly every place in Ireland is accessible by water for instance and places like Galway has always had Normans and English settle there. Galway City for example is known as Galway of the Tribes due to 14 merchant families that dominated there from the mid-13th Century to the 19th Century. These families were a mix of Anglo-Norman and native Irish families. The history is interesting.

Galway is often referred to as the City of Tribes. This is reference to the fourteen tribes of Galway or the fourteen merchant families who once dominated Galway between the mid-13th and late 19th centuries. The fourteen tribes included the following families: Athy, Blake, Bodkin, Browne, D’Arcy, Deane, Font, Ffrench, Joyce (One of whom was Richard Joyce – Creator of the Claddagh Ring), Kirwan, Lynch, Martin, Morris and Skerritt.

These families first came to Galway during the Middle Ages and had become very wealthy through trade with France and Spain. Most of these tribes were Anglo-Norman and considered themselves separate from the Gaelic natives that lived outside of the city walls. With their arrival they drove the Gaelic family the O Flaherties to the rough and wild landscape of Connemara. The O Flahertys became feared and on the surrounding wall of the city the words “From the Ferocious O Flaherty’s O Lord deliver us” were inscribed.

http://claddaghlegend.com/?p=431

The Tribes of Galway (Irish: Treibheanna na Gaillimhe) were 14 merchant families who dominated the political, commercial and social life of the city of Galway in western Ireland between the mid-13th and late 19th centuries. They were the families of Athy, Blake, Bodkin, Browne, Darcy/D’Arcy, Deane, Fant, French, Joyce, Kirwan, Lynch, Martyn, Morris and Skerritt. Of the 14 families, 12 were of Anglo Norman origin, while two—the Darcy (Ó Dorchaidhe) and Kirwan (Ó Ciardhubháin) families—were Normanised Irish Gaels.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Galway

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 04:49 AM

Such as the Basques being paternally... "Indo-European" or, as I've learnt yesterday, the people of El Argar culture in Andalusia having been genetically replaced by the Bell Beaker people, all in crass denial of:
- archaeological remains that shows continuity from the Neolithic onwards
- historical evidence that shows this area to be Tartesian/Iberian speaking until Romanization
- physical anthropology that demonstrate that people there (then and now) have same amounts of "Indo-European" influences as the Sardinians (almost zero)
I wouldn't be surprised they won't find a "steppe" strain/dominance in people of Lebanon either and you guys will believe it...

I'm not denying that some of their findings helped us prove something that the anthropologists/historians have guessed long before (the three components of European ancestry) and that they're quite reliable in determining racial (but not ethnic) ancestries, but to treat them as science is untenable because one of the main characteristics of science is for a fact to be independently reproductible. If they were science, independent teams studying the same remains / same populations would reach the same conclusions: instead they come with wildly different and totally wild estimates.

Proof: What's the genetic contribution of HG/ENF/ARYAN elements in, say, Romanians? If you search over the internet about what these so-called scientists have found out, you will see a lottery of numbers...

Also, the very idea that the indigenous population in NW Europe was exterminated is in complete hatred of history and lacking any archaeological proof. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the looks of people in areas least affected by the two other migrations: Northern Europe, especially NW and NE corners, showing a complete gradation of more or less pure indigenous phenotypes that have no parallels outside Europe.

Basques are on the paternal side Bell Beaker but it is reduced compared to other Iberians. There is nothing controversial or difficult to understand with this. Regarding places like Ireland there has always been a history of population boom and bust. They can show that there was a big population crash at different periods in Ireland. This quite likely occurred in the adjacent island of Britain also. Anyway the farmer population of Ireland had reduced drastically by the time the Bell Beakers came there which is why you don't see the same thing that happened in Spain with the Bell Beakers taking Iberian wives. The Bell Beakers that came to Ireland came with women as well and whatever population was in Ireland was greatly reduced. This is most likely due to climatic conditions with Ireland being wet and windy and most suited to cattle rearing which was the Bell Beaker speciality. Nothing really strange or odd about it and they can look at ancient genomes and tell you what populations where there in the past. It's a wonderful thing to now be able to see these studies.

I'm not sure why you object or have issues with genetics? Do you think there is some conspiracy with the results? Why and to what purpose if you believe this?

Of course genetics is science. That's not even disputable.

Also no area of Spain was replaced genetically. The Bell Beakers that went there just outcompeted with the males for the females. The farmer population of Spain did survive which is why Spain doesn't cluster with populations more North because they have more farmer dna and less Steppe. It's very straight forward and only people that don't like the results would dispute the findings.

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 05:31 AM

I think I may have asked before about this, but what is the difference between the bell beakers and proto-celts?
I used to assume bell beakers were the branch of Indo-European speaking steppe people that became the Celts in western Europe

Bell Beakers are a Bronze Age population and genetically different than later Celts. The Celts originated somewhere where languages such as Proto-Germanic was spoken and Italic and are an Iron Age culture. Proto-Celts are associated with Urnfield Culture and later particularly with the Hallstatt Culture. Bell Beakers genetically where quite Northern originally and Celts were more similar to Central Europeans such as the Swiss, Southern Germans etc. There are some genomes available of these populations. There has been a bit of a lack of genetic studies over the last couple of years so I hope more will be coming out in the next few years.

Oliver109

02-21-2024, 05:37 AM

Bell Beakers are a Bronze Age population and genetically different than later Celts. The Celts originated somewhere where languages such as Proto-Germanic was spoken and Italic and are an Iron Age culture. Proto-Celts are associated with Urnfield Culture and later particularly with the Hallstatt Culture. Bell Beakers genetically where quite Northern originally and Celts were more similar to Central Europeans such as the Swiss, Southern Germans etc. There are some genomes available of these populations. There has been a bit of a lack of genetic studies over the last couple of years so I hope more will be coming out in the next few years.

I think the Bell beakers must have brought the more northern looking phenotypes to Ireland, as is obvious the majority of Ireland is quite northern in race and there are metrical similarities with Friesians and Norwegians etc.

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 07:25 AM

I think the Bell beakers must have brought the more northern looking phenotypes to Ireland, as is obvious the majority of Ireland is quite northern in race and there are metrical similarities with Friesians and Norwegians etc.

HGs were very Northern and more so than Bell Beakers but like most of Europe at that time Farmers and HGs were the populations in Western Europe. Bell Beakers had mixed with GAC populations on the way to places like Ireland but yes they were a more northern population than Farmers. An example of an Irish Farmer is Ballynahatty who is most similar to Sardinians and Spanish than present day Irishmen. The Irish today are closer to populations like Rathlin. There has been some populations that have come to Ireland since the Bell Beakers which is why present Irish have a bit more Farmer than Bell Beakers. These populations would have come via Britain (like most of the populations that have come to Ireland previously). An example I can use is the Normans. When they came to Ireland they were already a century in Britain and already mixed with Welsh and English. In Ireland the Normans became known as the Old English in contrast to the later English who came during the time of the plantations. Normans in that time were already integrated and mixed with Irish clans. I'm using this as an example of how populations that came to Ireland came via Britain first. The only ones that were an exception to this were Vikings and even the Vikings from Dublin were the ones who went to places like York.

York and Dublin, the two most important Viking settlements in Western Europe, are joining to learn from each other about their linked heritage and history, it was announced today.

The project – funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), part of UK Research and Innovation, with the support of Creative Ireland, Dublin City Council and the National University of Ireland – aims to develop new collaborations between York in England and Dublin in Ireland, to expand knowledge of their shared Viking-age history.

Dyflin and Jórvik (Viking Age Dublin and York) each experienced enormous change during their time as Viking colonial centres in the late 9th and early 10th century and were closely linked during the late ninth and early tenth century when the same family ruled over them both. Not only do they have a shared history, but both cities also have comparable waterlogged layers of well-preserved archaeology and have been extensively excavated.

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2020/october/headline_758494_en.html

So regarding Ireland it would be populations from Britain that came after the Bell Beakers.

Immanenz

02-21-2024, 07:55 AM

Julie Fowlis :love0031:

All in all, they are more broad-skulled than the average Briton, in that regard they are closer to the Irish. I see a lot of Brünnization and Alpinization going on.

what is Brünnization if its an early European phenotype?

Smaug

02-21-2024, 09:31 AM

what is Brünnization if its an early European phenotype?

Becoming Brünn-like, i.e. having Brünn influence.

aherne

02-21-2024, 07:23 PM

I'm not sure why you object or have issues with genetics? Do you think there is some conspiracy with the results? Why and to what purpose if you believe this?

Doesn't matter what I believe. I believe in science and what you told me is just snake oil... Pseudo-scientific verbiage to explain ridiculous results that have no historical/logical backing. It's like religion, where the main ingredient is belief rather than reasoning...

What are the genetic contributions of the three founding elements in Romanians?

Some "scientists" for example say 70% ENF, 20% Aryan, 10% HG, others say 50% ENF, 30% HG, 20% Aryan (as I heard yesterday). My conclusion: random numbers => no science

BTW: weren't those HG "of color" (black skinned) exterminated?:picard1:

Grace O'Malley

02-21-2024, 09:15 PM

Doesn't matter what I believe. I believe in science and what you told me is just snake oil... Pseudo-scientific verbiage to explain ridiculous results that have no historical/logical backing. It's like religion, where the main ingredient is belief rather than reasoning...

What are the genetic contributions of the three founding elements in Romanians?

Some "scientists" for example say 70% ENF, 20% Aryan, 10% HG, others say 50% ENF, 30% HG, 20% Aryan (as I heard yesterday). My conclusion: random numbers => no science

BTW: weren't those HG "of color" (black skinned) exterminated?:picard1:

I haven't really looking into Romanians and not read up on them so I'll avoid that topic. There are people on this forum who would have more knowledge on that topic. There are calculators that amateurs like us can use if you want to look at Romanians ancient contributions. I'll have a look later using G25 and post it.

They aren't random numbers. If you were interested you could compare different populations and learn more about the topic. I think the stuff you say is snake oil i.e. looking at phenotypes and making a personal judgement on their genetic contributions. That is all just your own personal opinion. What I've said can be backed up by peer reviewed scientific studies.

HG were darker skinned than modern populations and they still are part of the dna of modern populations. They were small populations who eventually got absorbed into larger farming populations. Just like now there are no populations like European Farmers and the closest to European Farmers today are Sardinians.

Populations genetics is all based on science and the methods used are all explained and can be checked by anyone who has the tools available. There are people on this forum who know how to use the same tools that scientists use. There are also forums like Eurogenes where people discuss scientific studies and some do check what scientists say in their studies. It's not snake oil if you have an understanding of the topic.

You believe what you want but you if you don't understand population genetics then you are going to say very inaccurate things about populations that you are judging from a few photographs and from a very personal bias. The next person can say what they want also and they can have a completely different opinion. It is not objective and completely reflective of one person's personal bias. Population genetics is objective and is peer reviewed and there is lots of information out there on the topic. Even amateurs can check the veracity of the results.

You won't believe even what the studies say why? Because you think it doesn't go along with your personal biases about what populations look like?

aherne

02-22-2024, 07:17 PM

You won't believe even what the studies say why? Because you think it doesn't go along with your personal biases about what populations look like?

No... Because in science, if you're grounded in facts, studying the same sample will always yield (more or less) the same answers.

Grace O'Malley

02-23-2024, 08:04 AM

No... Because in science, if you're grounded in facts, studying the same sample will always yield (more or less) the same answers.

They do yield the same answers. I've never seen anything contradictory.

Also if you get a dna test they will find your relatives. Even those you didn't know existed. :)

This is using Global 25 so you can see how Romanians compare to Irish and Scots. Irish and Scots are very close.

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

Petalpusher

02-23-2024, 09:30 AM

The problem is not genetics, it's what people assume ancients looked like, and what it should look like now 20 000 years later when you make a recipe with all of them...that's never gonna work like some believe it should work, even less individually. HG's had dark skins, but certainly relative to 15 000 years ago, they likely had lighter skins than pretty much anyone else on the planet and features more akin to present day Europeans already, as well as blue eyes which is the results of mutations and selections. Other groups developped different things prior or later. Yamnaya were originally dark in pigmentation, the meme has been posted several times where funnelbeakers (farmers) are tested light skin, blond and blue eyes, and the Yam pit graves had no light features. Yet today this type of ancestry is a bit more prevalent in the north. Even some EHG looked genuinely Amerindian based on reconstruction so that's not so surprising something like EHG + CHG would produce Yamnaya, only when it morphed into Corderd Ware and mixed with farmers, light features appeared. At least this makes sense as it's a small span of time.

Then there is epigenetic and sexual selection, it's so much more complicated than mixing A,B,C from widly different and anachronic timeframes. It could be as well that every groups in the bigger picture brought some mutations or part of it that created new features. That's the basis of even speciation: Isolation, mixing (with relatively close group), isolation, rince & repeat over and over as it speeds up the process of acquiring new mutations and a bigger pool to select positively or negatively from. If you get enough islotation once that's done, you get new species eventually. That didn't happen, but that definetly happened for races around the planet.