Dodecad Ancestry Project

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperivm

(3.4, 63.1, 26.5, 0, 6.9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0) :embarrassed

---

[1,] "Kent_1KG" "3.3226"
[2,] "Dutch_D" "3.9674"
[3,] "British_D" "4.6808"
[4,] "Cornwall_1KG" "5.02"
[5,] "British_Isles_D" "5.0229"
[6,] "Mixed_Germanic_D" "6.5894"
[7,] "Irish_D" "8.2195"
[8,] "Orkney_1KG" "10.3716"
[9,] "Orcadian" "10.557"
[10,] "Argyll_1KG" "11.584"
[11,] "CEU" "12.131"
[12,] "N._European" "12.4169"
[13,] "French" "13.4034"
[14,] "French_D" "14.462"
[15,] "Norwegian_D" "14.5942"
[16,] "Swedish_D" "16.6445"
[17,] "German_D" "17.6717"
[18,] "French_Basque" "22.8961"
[19,] "Spaniards" "30.0125"
[20,] "Slovenian" "30.3457"



[1,] "11.9% French_Basque + 88.1% Kent_1KG" "1.2398"
[2,] "82.9% British_Isles_D + 17.1% French_Basque" "1.7166"
[3,] "86.5% British_Isles_D + 13.5% Spaniards" "1.8262"
[4,] "91.6% Kent_1KG + 8.4% Spaniards" "1.8832"
[5,] "87.2% British_Isles_D + 12.8% Spanish_D" "1.9203"
[6,] "92.1% Kent_1KG + 7.9% Spanish_D" "1.9281"
[7,] "87.4% British_Isles_D + 12.6% IBS" "1.9441"
[8,] "7.6% IBS + 92.4% Kent_1KG" "1.9916"
[9,] "89.3% British_Isles_D + 10.7% North_Italian" "2.03"
[10,] "74.3% British_Isles_D + 25.7% French" "2.0403"
[11,] "84.4% British_D + 15.6% French_Basque" "2.0569"
[12,] "75.9% Cornwall_1KG + 24.1% French_D" "2.1132"
[13,] "75.9% British_Isles_D + 24.1% French_D" "2.138"
[14,] "87.8% British_D + 12.2% Spaniards" "2.1517"
[15,] "76.1% British_D + 23.9% French" "2.1521"
[16,] "77.5% British_D + 22.5% French_D" "2.1782"
[17,] "94.7% Kent_1KG + 5.3% Sardinian" "2.1938"
[18,] "88.5% British_D + 11.5% Spanish_D" "2.1976"
[19,] "90.3% British_D + 9.7% North_Italian" "2.1981"
[20,] "14.8% French_D + 85.2% Kent_1KG" "2.1989"

^^ Yet another test where I come closer to the Dutch than the British! :icon_ask:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperivm

^^ Yet another test where I come closer to the Dutch than the British! :icon_ask:

---

As I told you before, you have to drop the "W", embrace your Saxon blood.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperivm

^^ Yet another test where I come closer to the Dutch than the British! :icon_ask:

---

Well, you are closest to the Kentishmen (and so am I by the way!). :) So yes - as Kadu suggested - you are probably more Anglo-Saxon than average (well, the Jutes settled in Kent anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Well, you are closest to the Kentishmen (and so am I by the way!). :) So yes - as Kadu suggested - you are probably more Anglo-Saxon than average (well, the Jutes settled in Kent anyway).

---

It surprises me because my phenotype is atlantid and my farther looks like a typical 'Old Briton' mediterranid. However, my mother is very North European looking, and her parents are from the North of England. I expect that she would score very close to the Dutch/Kent groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperivm

It surprises me because my phenotype is atlantid and my farther looks like a typical 'Old Briton' mediterranid. However, my mother is very North European looking, and her parents are from the North of England. I expect that she would score very close to the Dutch/Kent groups.

---

I expect the mutations that cause a phenotypical look beeing quiet few.
But you could also blame your estaminated Iberian admixture ;)

Quote:

---

[1,] "11.9% French_Basque + 88.1% Kent_1KG" "1.2398"
[2,] "82.9% British_Isles_D + 17.1% French_Basque" "1.7166"
[3,] "86.5% British_Isles_D + 13.5% Spaniards" "1.8262"
[4,] "91.6% Kent_1KG + 8.4% Spaniards" "1.8832"
[5,] "87.2% British_Isles_D + 12.8% Spanish_D" "1.9203"
[6,] "92.1% Kent_1KG + 7.9% Spanish_D" "1.9281"

---

Here is Loki (this time inlcuding the "Mixed mode"):

[1,] "CEU" "10.1005"
[2,] "N._European" "10.9398"
[3,] "German_D" "11.3309"
[4,] "Slovenian" "11.9122"
[5,] "Argyll_1KG" "11.9445"
[6,] "Orcadian" "12.3891"
[7,] "Orkney_1KG" "12.7934"
[8,] "French" "13.9101"
[9,] "French_D" "14.0915"
[10,] "Hungarians" "16.5795"
[11,] "Mixed_Germanic_D" "17.4161"
[12,] "Dutch_D" "19.0431"
[13,] "Kent_1KG" "21.4299"
[14,] "Tuscan_H" "22.0259"
[15,] "TSI" "22.1499"
[16,] "Tuscan_X" "22.1504"
[17,] "N_Italian_D" "22.5493"
[18,] "Portuguese_D" "23.4017"
[19,] "British_D" "23.5064"
[20,] "British_Isles_D" "23.5323"

And the mixed Mode:
(note how all of these are even far closer than "average CEU" (wich is the closest single population), wich has a difference of 10.1)

[1,] "49.8% Irish_D + 50.2% Romanians_14" "2.5352"
[2,] "53.1% British_Isles_D + 46.9% Romanians_14" "2.5396"
[3,] "53.1% British_D + 46.9% Romanians_14" "2.5474"
[4,] "58.4% Dutch_D + 41.6% Romanians_14" "2.6267"
[5,] "55.4% Kent_1KG + 44.6% Romanians_14" "2.6919"
[6,] "52.5% Cornwall_1KG + 47.5% Romanians_14" "2.7072"
[7,] "60.6% Mixed_Germanic_D + 39.4% Romanians_14" "2.729"
[8,] "21.3% Greek_D + 78.7% N._European" "2.9889"
[9,] "66.8% German_D + 33.2% Tuscan_X" "2.9932"
[10,] "66.8% German_D + 33.2% TSI" "3.0231"
[11,] "71.8% German_D + 28.2% O_Italian_D" "3.0621"
[12,] "22.8% Greek_D + 77.2% Argyll_1KG" "3.18"
[13,] "24.4% C_Italian_D + 75.6% German_D" "3.2441"
[14,] "79.8% German_D + 20.2% S_Italian_D" "3.2901"
[15,] "66.8% German_D + 33.2% Tuscan_H" "3.3168"
[16,] "48% Balkans_D + 52% Cornwall_1KG" "3.3483"
[17,] "28.3% Romanians_14 + 71.7% N._European" "3.3483"
[18,] "78.4% German_D + 21.6% S_Italian_Sicilian_D" "3.3586"
[19,] "42.1% Balkans_D + 57.9% Dutch_D" "3.5152"
[20,] "79.2% German_D + 20.8% Sicilian_D" "3.5291"

OK, since "CEU" is the closest single population, lets see, whats the difference is, to CEU average:

[21,] "73.6% CEU + 26.4% Romanians_14" "3.555"
[26,] "80.5% CEU + 19.5% Greek_D" "3.6377"
[29,] "84% CEU + 16% Turkish_D" "3.7811"
[38,] "85.6% CEU + 14.4% Cypriots" "3.998"

Second closest single population is "N.European" wich is a group from a scientific study and includes... well "Northern Europeans". But I never actually saw a list, from what countries.

[8,] "21.3% Greek_D + 78.7% N._European" "2.9889"
[17,] "28.3% Romanians_14 + 71.7% N._European" "3.3483"
[47,] "19.8% Sicilian_D + 80.2% N._European" "4.2124"

And now the difference to average German (third closest single population):

[9,] "66.8% German_D + 33.2% Tuscan_X" "2.9932"
[10,] "66.8% German_D + 33.2% TSI" "3.0231"
[11,] "71.8% German_D + 28.2% O_Italian_D" "3.0621"
[13,] "24.4% C_Italian_D + 75.6% German_D" "3.2441"

Hmm ok.
Lets check from the Slovenian (4th) view:
[35,] "45.7% French + 54.3% Slovenian" "3.9404"

Now I check the values.
West-Asian with rounded 11% is somewhat higher than average CEU (7%), GErman (7%), British (7%), Dutch (8%), French (5%) or Norwegian 4% (Lokis known anchestry)

Places, in Europe, where that is higher:
North Italy: 13%, Central Italy: 22%, South Italy: 26%, Sicily 23%
Romania: 16%, Bulgaria: 17%, Greece 26%

I think thats the value that is mainly responsable for Oracle wanting to mix some Italian or Southeastern European into it.

Dodecad 'Africa 9' calculator, designed for more specific African breakdowns.

Here is what I get when I run mine through:

67.17% Europe
6.06% NW_Africa
25.04% SW_Asia
0.00% E_Africa
1.01% S_Africa
0.00% Mbuti
0.00% W_Africa
0.48% Biaka
0.24% San

67.64% Europe
2.87% NW_Africa
26.49% SW_Asia
0.03% E_Africa
1.42% S_Africa
0.01% Mbuti
0.00% W_Africa
0.00% Biaka
1.53% San

It seems pretty much everyone has this San bit:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BtnJCDJuGV...w/s1600/_9.png

Africa 9 calc.


60.14% Europe
12.57% NW_Africa
26.39% SW_Asia
0.89% E_Africa
0.00% S_Africa
0.00% Mbuti
0.00% W_Africa
0.00% Biaka
0.00% San

DV3 (which should be (and pretty much is) similar to the analysis that Dienekes made for me):

33.89% Mediterranean
27.43% West Asian
16.94% West European
12.02% Southwest Asian
5.93% Northwest African
2.26% East European
.63% East African
.50% Neo-African
.27% Palaeo-African
.11% Southeast Asian
.02% South Asian
.00% Northeast Asian

BAT (Balkan-Anatolian-Turkic)

60.61% Anatolia
37.30% Balkans
2.09% Turkic

Africa9:

46.94% Europe
39.16% SW Asia
12.46% NW Africa
1.33% Biaka
.10% East Africa
.00% S Africa
.00% Mbuti
.00% San
.00% West Africa

MDLP:

45.24% Caucassian Anatolian
27.56% Celto Germanic
12.19% North Atlantic
10.53% Balto Slavic
4.17% Altaic
.32% Volga Region
.00% Scandinavian

Test by Eurogenes:

33.48% West_Euro
24.95% East_Mediterranean
15.48% Middle_Eastern
15.11% West_Asian
8.06% Northeast_Euro
2.20% Berber
0.50% Sub-Saharan
0.17% Southeast_Asian
0.05% Volga-Ural
0.00% South_Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% North_Asian
0.00% East_Siberian
0.00% East_Asian

Gedmatch Admixture by Chromosome:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/pic...pictureid=2523

Gedmatch Chromosome Painting:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/pic...pictureid=2522

A new West Eurasian cline calculator is out. I gots:

Atlantic-Baltic: 81.26%
Near-East: 18.11%
Far-East: 0.63%
Africa: 0.00%

Most similar to these scores (based on Euclidian distance) are the Dutch (D=1.92), Germans (D=3.30), and Hungarians (D=3.54).

PCA Plot of populations:

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4...verviewpca.jpg

Big PCA Plot.

Interpolated maps for Europe...

Atlantic-Baltic:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2...nticbaltic.jpg

Near-East:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/972/neareast.jpg

Far-East:

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5092/fareast.jpg

Africa:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6157/africav.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasimodem

A new West Eurasian cline calculator is out. I gots:

Atlantic-Baltic: 81.26%
Near-East: 18.11%
Far-East: 0.63%
Africa: 0.00%


Big PCA Plot.

---

I just ran it on my sequence:

40.99% Atlantic-Baltic
57.60% Near-East
0.01% Far-East
1.40% Africa

62.15% Atlantic-Baltic
33.92% Near-East
3.82% Far-East
0.11% Africa

Time for me to move onto a oriental forum..

:cry2




:D:D

92.49% Atlantic-Baltic
5.58% Near-East
1.93% Far-East
0.00% Africa

Ethnic averages: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=0

Me:
84.49% Atlantic-Baltic
11.19% Near-East
4.32% Far-East
0.00% Africa

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3.../WEAC-CAlc.jpg

Dragging the Russians west. I'm a poor man's Swede.

Me/Norwegian_D/Swedish_D
Atlantic-Baltic 92.49/88.9/89.2
Near-East 5.58/9.6/9
Far-East 1.93/1.4/1.8
Africa 0/0/0

I forgot the North Russians in the maps. Here's a map of far east admixture with them included:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5092/fareast.jpg

Me:

72.85% Atlantic-Baltic
23.05% Near-East
1.82% Far-East
2.28% Africa

My numbers from that African calculator:

72.09% Europe
8.36% NW_Africa
18.36% SW_Asia
0.00% E_Africa
0.00% S_Africa
0.01% Mbuti
0.00% W_Africa
0.98% Biaka
0.20% San

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Me:

72.85% Atlantic-Baltic
23.05% Near-East
1.82% Far-East
2.28% Africa

---

Why is your Africa score so high? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sicilianu101

Why is your Africa score so high? :eek:

---

Call the police!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sicilianu101

Why is your Africa score so high? :eek:

---

2% is not that much considering my family has been in South Africa for around 350 years, 13 generations. Some admixture took place in the first 50 years of early settlement and was exaggerated through a bottleneck effect (founder effect) - which means I could have a single African ancestor through several lines of my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasimodem

I forgot the North Russians in the maps. Here's a map of far east admixture with them included:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5092/fareast.jpg

---

Very strange map. Finns have less Siberian components than the Russians? This seriously? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

Very strange map. Finns have less Siberian components than the Russians? This seriously? :rolleyes:

---

Well the Siberians would have to go through northern Russia to get to Finland so the map does make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

Very strange map. Finns have less Siberian components than the Russians? This seriously? :rolleyes:

---

North Russians have more Siberian components than Finns, yep. Congrats!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

Of course not. Here is the work of professional geneticists. Rus this Russians from Vologda.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...e.0016747.s004

---

???

Did you post the wrong pics? That has nothing to do with Siberian influence.

EDIT: Here's the low-down from them professional geneticists:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch...entation=PNG_M
CHB + JPT = Chinese from Beijing + Japanese from Tokyo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

What? You seen the link?

---

Yes. The pics are PCA plots with a few populations. The link shows an IBS comparison with Vologda Russians, with East Finns being the closest. Nothing about Siberian affinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

And ? :rolleyes:

---

The Vologda Russians have greater similarity with East Eurasian populations than Finns, which is what we usually see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasimodem

Yes. The pics are PCA plots with a few populations. The link shows an IBS comparison with Vologda Russians, with East Finns being the closest. Nothing about Siberian affinity.



The Vologda Russians have greater similarity with East Eurasian populations than Finns, which is what we usually see.

---

You do not understand just ... Learn more. All about Siberian affinity there. In addition Northern Russians are very different. For example people from Arkhangelsk differ from people in Vologda. And all are northern Russians ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

You do not understand just ... Learn more. All about Siberian affinity there.

---

Where? There are no Siberians in those plots, so how can you make conclusions about Siberian affinity based on those?

Quote:

---

In addition Northern Russians are very different. For example people from Arkhangelsk differ from people in Vologda. And all are northern Russians ...

---

Even if this is so, the particular North Russians in question are the Vologda Russians.

[QUOTE=Quasimodem;536303]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

You do not understand just ... Learn more. All about Siberian affinity there.

Where? There are no Siberians in those plots, so how can you make conclusions about Siberian affinity based on those?



Even if this is so, the particular North Russians in question are the Vologda Russians.

---

Sorry.... I don't understand... What you say here?? This comparative analysis of the DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

2% is not that much considering my family has been in South Africa for around 350 years, 13 generations. Some admixture took place in the first 50 years of early settlement and was exaggerated through a bottleneck effect (founder effect) - which means I could have a single African ancestor through several lines of my family.

---

OK That makes sense to me now :) I was judging by "Netherlands, Germany, England, Norway, France" on your profile.
It's interesting to think that S. Africa had that prejudice racial system when probably many people have at least one Sub-Saharan ancestor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sicilianu101

OK That makes sense to me now :) I was judging by "Netherlands, Germany, England, Norway, France" on your profile.
It's interesting to think that S. Africa had that prejudice racial system when probably many people have at least one Sub-Saharan ancestor.

---

Well, considering that is "like a drop in the sea", it is fairly unimportant.

In the end, it is more about phenotypical qualities anyway.

Such genetic tests just help you to inform yourself about your or a people's ancestry.

It is like proving that you have aristocratic ancestors - but if you are short, fat, have a piggish face and are too dumb for everything, having aristocratic ancestry doesn't really improve things for you and for others, other than on paper.

Same here. The presence of this or that genetic profile, if it is not phenotype-related, is interesting if looking at things from a higher and bigger perspective. For the individual evaluation, it is pretty much uninteresting, unless it points to important phenotypical aspects - positive or negative.

In my opinion, it would make sense to use racial rules even for a ruling mulatto class, because they could breed themselves up from an Eugenic and racial point of view.

Even for totally mixed people racial categories can make sense, if they help to improve the adaptive and general qualities of a population.

After all, it should be about results, rather the prejudices.

And without the rules in South Africa, the white population would have been long gone into a status of mixed ones here and there, but no real Europid population - and even the state and culture would have looked very different, rather worse I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Well, considering that is "like a drop in the sea", it is fairly unimportant.

In the end, it is more about phenotypical qualities anyway.

Such genetic tests just help you to inform yourself about your or a people's ancestry.

It is like proving that you have aristocratic ancestors - but if you are short, fat, have a piggish face and are too dumb for everything, having aristocratic ancestry doesn't really improve things for you and for others, other than on paper.

Same here. The presence of this or that genetic profile, if it is not phenotype-related, is interesting if looking at things from a higher and bigger perspective. For the individual evaluation, it is pretty much uninteresting, unless it points to important phenotypical aspects - positive or negative.

In my opinion, it would make sense to use racial rules even for a ruling mulatto class, because they could breed themselves up from an Eugenic and racial point of view.

Even for totally mixed people racial categories can make sense, if they help to improve the adaptive and general qualities of a population.

After all, it should be about results, rather the prejudices.

And without the rules in South Africa, the white population would have been long gone into a status of mixed ones here and there, but no real Europid population - and even the state and culture would have looked very different, rather worse I guess...

---

Alleles in your genotype which don't affect your own phenotype can affect your descendants' phenotypes, though. For example, if you and your wife carry only one allele for cystic fibrosis each, neither of you will have cystic fibrosis. But, if you and your wife have a child that inherits one cystic fibrosis allele from each of you, that child will express the cystic fibrosis phenotype. It's conceivable that the same could happen once in a blue moon with two Afrikaners with something like sickle cell anemia, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasimodem

Alleles in your genotype which don't affect your own phenotype can affect your descendants' phenotypes, though. For example, if you and your wife carry only one allele for cystic fibrosis each, neither of you will have cystic fibrosis. But, if you and your wife have a child that inherits one cystic fibrosis allele from each of you, that child will express the cystic fibrosis phenotype. It's conceivable that the same could happen once in a blue moon with two Afrikaners with something like sickle cell anemia, I suppose.

---

You don't understand anything in genetics. Sorry, but what you write idiocy...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

You don't understand anything in genetics. Sorry, but what you write idiocy...:rolleyes:

---

It's not idiocy, it's a Mendelian inheritance law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadu

It's not idiocy, it's a Mendelian inheritance law.

---

Not understood. It is not a geneticist and does not understand simple things. Even I know...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

You don't understand anything in genetics. Sorry, but what you write idiocy...:rolleyes:

---

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal2/orly_dr_evil.gif

Instead of just calling it idiocy, why don't you explain why it's idiocy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero

Not understood. It is not a geneticist and does not understand simple things. Even I know...:rolleyes:

---

"It" is not a geneticist, you're right; it's an undergraduate fizziks and math student. But I'm not proclaiming myself an authority on genetics. What I just said is junior high school material. Even though not all traits are Mendelian, those ones are.