Global genetic distances (graph map).

Have been looking for this map for a long time since AF was down, finally found it.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k1...aterearr-1.gif

Enlarged pic of Euro cluster:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6684/60550356.jpg

Notice how the distances between Europeans are many times smaller than even between them and other Caucasoids (Indians, Arabs, Iranians, Caucasus and Volga-Urals people).

Finnland, Spain and Romania are a little removed from the main cluster, but insignificantly so. Rest of Europe, from France to Russian and from Norway to Hungary is indistinguishable on the global plot.

Asians are much more diverse:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9749/66475183.jpg

And Africans ever more so, especially Khoi-San vs SSA (Bantoids). It is interesting that Bushmen form a third cluster in Africa, different from both SSA and Khoi-San, and not between them (as i would expect).

Horners (Tigri, Amhara et cetera) are between Euro/Middle-East and SSA, and appear to be roughly equidistant from them.

Amerindians are very distant from Asians, not much closer to them than to Europeans, ruining the myth about them belonging to Mongoloid race (they clearly form a separate one). Same for Australoids.

Interestingly, Asians proper appear to be between Austroloid and Amerindians, plus a little tilted to the European. So would you get a Chinese by mixing an Australian Aborigine with Sylvid and adding a Euro great-grandparent ;)?

What I said on the other forum:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cail

Interestingly, Asians proper appear to be between Austroloid and Amerindians, plus a little tilted to the European. So would you get a Chinese by mixing an Australian Aborigine with Sylvid and adding a Euro great-grandparent ;)?

---

Maybe a morph could help clear this up? I'm not good at making them so I'll leave that to somebody else. :D

As for Amerindians being distant, that makes sense as it is assumed that the bulk of the population left during a time when there wasn't a clear boundary between Caucasoid and Mongoloid. With some later waves there was probably some groups more "mongolized" but overall they would still be much closer to other Amerindians than Asians. Having said that, most Amerindians fit well with groups that retained 'proto-mongoloid' traits or what are assumed as 'proto-mongloid' traits, so I think that fits well.

I would also be interested in seeing where North-Americans(amerindian) fit in that group as most of it is South Americans on that map, though probably not much farther than the others since Amerindians are overall very close if I recall correctly.

Any population would differ greatly in genetics (whether it was progeny from mongoloid, caucasoid, proto-mongoloid, bromagnonoid, whatever) that isolated for THAT length of time.

It's clear Europe was one big orgy back in the day, because a group clustered that tightly given the waves of immigrants over the thousands of years of its habitation was clearly into some kinky shit.

Interesting graphs. Do you have a link to the respective studies?

That design has problems because it's 2 dimensional, while human genetic diversity has a lot of depth to it, and in fact more dimensions than just three. Anyway, a lot of the data above came from this...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/h1.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Fst.gif

Simon C Heath et al, Investigation of the fine structure of European populations with applications to disease association studies, European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 1413–1429; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.210

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cail

Amerindians are very distant from Asians, not much closer to them than to Europeans, ruining the myth about them belonging to Mongoloid race (they clearly form a separate one).

---

I'd point out that the Amerindian groups listed are all Central/South American. North American groups may very well be closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nodens

I'd point out that the Amerindian groups listed are all Central/South American. North American groups may very well be closer.

---

Actually with the exception of the far North, such as Inuits, I would think it to be even more distant from Asians. Though not too much more than the South American ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/sc...sual.html?_r=1

Other maps :

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/420/priceplotsm4.png

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/881...hetplotqk8.png

An investigation into fine-scale European population structure was carried out using high-density genetic variation on nearly 6000 individuals originating from across Europe. The individuals were collected as control samples and were genotyped with more than 300 000 SNPs in genome-wide association studies using the Illumina Infinium platform. A major East–West gradient from Russian (Moscow) samples to Spanish samples was identified as the first principal component (PC) of the genetic diversity. The second PC identified a North–South gradient from Norway and Sweden to Romania and Spain. Variation of frequencies at markers in three separate genomic regions, surrounding LCT, HLA and HERC2, were strongly associated with this gradient. The next 18 PCs also accounted for a significant proportion of genetic diversity observed in the sample. We present a method to predict the ethnic origin of samples by comparing the sample genotypes with those from a reference set of samples of known origin. These predictions can be performed using just summary information on the known samples, and individual genotype data are not required. We discuss issues raised by these data and analyses for association studies including the matching of case-only cohorts to appropriate pre-collected control samples for genome-wide association studies

For more information, method etc click link

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2008210a.html

Attachment 4904

The plot below shows variation internallly in a Country, in this case Germany(Dresden - Munich)

Attachment 4905