Eupedia east-Asian admixture map revised

[d3cimat3d]

http://i42.tinypic.com/1076gkx.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars_of_Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_bulgaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

Who agrees?

[SobieskisavedEurope]

So, all of Scandinavia is more Asian by DNA than Poland.

[d3cimat3d]

So, all of Scandinavia is more Asian by DNA than Poland.

That's right.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2vm5x8p.gif

[Peikko]

That East Asian just keeps on spreading.

[d3cimat3d]

That East Asian just keeps on spreading.

Indeed, this map needs to get edited again, I found a Hustul dude who is 3-4%:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?55345-Post-your-Gedmatch-Eurogenes-K12-results&p=1225413&viewfull=1#post1225413

[Gaston]

No idea why Maciamo keeps on relying on the obsolete Dodecad runs but not on the Eurogenes project or the more recent globe4 run of the dodecad. I think he's in denial of his own East Asian ancestry.

East Eurasian ancestry should be around or over 10% in Northern Europe, from Britain to Poland. Of course there is a subtle difference between East Asian and North Asian ancestry but he should be posting both to be fair, not just East Asian.

[sgc2009]

So, all of Scandinavia is more Asian by DNA than Poland.

Swedes and Norwegians are. There isn't even any Danish group in Dodecad, but overall they score about the same as Dutch or north Germans (non to negligible noise).

[SobieskisavedEurope]

That East Asian just keeps on spreading.

Interesting map.

East European is quite a bit higher in Scotland than in the rest of the British Islands.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Swedes and Norwegians are. There isn't even any Danish group in Dodecad, but overall they score about the same as Dutch or north Germans (non to negligible noise).

Yeah, it is hard to believe that Danes are so much more Asian by DNA than Poland!

[Insuperable]

No idea why Maciamo keeps on relying on the obsolete Dodecad runs but not on the Eurogenes project or the more recent globe4 run of the dodecad. I think he's in denial of his own East Asian ancestry.[/quite]

East Eurasian ancestry should be around or over 10% in Northern Europe, from Britain to Poland. Of course there is a subtle difference between East Asian and North Asian ancestry but he should be posting both to be fair, not just East Asian.

So? If we are to judge by "that research paper" East-Eurasian ancestry should be also present in southern Europe albeit in lower percentages. It is not the point here if true to show such very old breakdown, probably older than mesolithic times.
And he did not post just East Asian only, but obviously in East Asian component he probably included all Far Eastern components since nobody in Europe scores this high "East Asian", but only Syberian (North Asian).

[Gaston]

I didn't say anything about Southern Europe. Yes Southern Europe too has East Eurasian ancestry, even Sardinia (underestimated in them actually since they're a reference) and it doesn't matter if it's old or not. My point is we never have the whole picture with Maciamo. Just like how he puts North African ancestry in Europe as just "African admixture" which is bogus: over 10% sometimes in Iberia for instance and over 40 to 50% in North Africa.

He's trying to confuse people by either exaggerating (African ancestry) or minimizing (East Eurasian ancestry).

[Insuperable]

I didn't say anything about Southern Europe. Yes Southern Europe too have East Eurasian ancestry, even Sardinia (underestimated in them actually since they're a reference) and it doesn't matter if it's old or not. My point is we never have the whole picture with Maciamo. Just like how he puts North African ancestry in Europe as just "African admixture" which is bogus: over 10% sometimes in Iberia for instance and over 40 to 50% in North Africa.

He's trying to confuse people by either exaggerating (African ancestry) or minimizing (East Eurasian ancestry).

Well, ok then. I thought you meant how it is not legitimate of him not showing this East Eurasian ancestry in northern Europe when it is present in the south too. And yeah he should name some of the components better, separate them.