According to that map, North-Africans are predominantly Atlanto-Med.
Printable View
According to that map, North-Africans are predominantly Atlanto-Med.
That map isn't accurate, there have been migrations between western and eastern Norway for centuries so there would definitely be a more fluid overlap.
All phenotypes of Norway can be found pretty much in every region, at a higher or lower frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
And not only that but it has Spaniards and Portuguese as just "Mediterranean" but North Africans as Atlanto-Meds. :eek::rolleyes:
Which is what Egyptians and Arabians show also. Hard to think some still believe in this shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmariexo
And it has Greece as Alpinized Atlanto-Meds.
Here is another of those maps, this time by a German Anthropologican of the 1930:
(Note, how on GERMAN maps, the Germans claim themself "Nordic", at least in Northern Germany. While English anthropolgicans claim them Borreby or Faelic. ;)
But identically to his English comrade, he claims North-Western Africa to be the same phenotype as southwestern Europe...
Didnt they travel around in those 1930?
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...1&d=1310174551
Atlanto-Med type isn't exclusive to Atlantic countries. You can find Atlanto types all over Europe but it's more common in Western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmariexo
I have calculated the RMS distance between my results and the other populations and have produced a chart:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...man/US5RMS.jpg
My closest 10 populations are:
England: 1.42
Denmark: 1.86
Netherlands: 1.88
Wales: 3.83
Scotland: 4.29
Austria: 4.76
Ireland: 4.83
Sweden: 4.89
Belgium: 5.29
France: 5.80
My most distant 10 populations are:
Greece: 28.16
S. Italy: 22.83
Lithuania: 22.53
Belarus: 22.28
N. Russia: 20.07
Ukraine: 18.84
Russia: 18.76
Serbia: 17.77
Estonia: 16.71
Poland: 16.60
I have developed a spreadsheet calculator using Open Office that will calculate the RMS distance for other Eurogenes members for this particular run, but I need to check it's accuracy before uploading it. My results look accurate but I would like to test a few others, just to be safe.
If you are interested in being a one of my guinea pigs, please send me a PM with your results from this latest run.
Here is your chart, Loki:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k.../LokiChart.jpg
Your closest 5 populations are:
Switzerland: 2.42
Netherlands: 3.98
Austria: 4.40
Hungary: 5.25
France: 6.14
Does that seem about right to you?
xxx
Here is your chart, Pallantides:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...man/US5RMS.jpg
Your closest 5 are:
Norway:4.14
Scotland: 6.56
Ireland: 7.01
Wales: 7.98
Germany: 8.72
Absolutely :thumb001: Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
I want to see the chart for a Portuguese or Spanish person.. anyone have an example of one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
Thank you. :thumb001:
Maybe I should change my identity to Norse-Gael.:D
Well, it is your lucky day then. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cmariexo
Kadu, here is your chart:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k.../Kaduchart.jpg
Your closest 5 are:
Spain: 2.21
Portugal: 2.98
N. Italy: 5.08
France: 5.57
Switzerland: 6.24
Ok, this thing is accurate. No more requests after this post. I'll upload the spreadsheet shortly, and then you all can checkout the results of whoever you wish.
Your voice did not go unheard, Federick! Here is your chart:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k.../FredChart.jpg
Your closest 5 are:
Hungry: 3.84
Serbia: 5.29
Switzerland: 6.98
Ukraine: 7.02
Netherlands: 7.06
Germany edges out Sweden for 6th place with 7.43. That's the last one. The spreadsheet is next.
I'm a little behind on my planned schedule, but bear with me, folks. Photobucket has not been playing nice with me.
Hey, guys, on second thought, I'm going to recheck my calculations before going any further. Although everyone seems to be falling into groups that seem realistic, some of the values (particularly mine) seem a bit low.
Also, Pallantides, I somehow posted my chart instead of yours. I will fix that for you at a later time. *face palms self* Meh, I blame it on the Photobucket fiasco.
Some of those maps being made after the basic trait combinations, so f.e. tall+longheaded+light = Nordic, probably adding (if being more accurate) narrow face and nose, leptomorphic-rangy build.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
The same goes for "Atlanto-Mediterranean" just with "dark".
That's why they found Atlantomediterranids and Nordoids in North Africa, as well as Alpinoids. Essentially, these variants are indeed present there, in a local-regional form and often as the result of mixture (especially the Nordoids as the result of longer term mixture between light Berberid and Atlanto-like variants), but their frequency is much lower in comparison to other regional-specific Mediterranid and Cromagnoid variants.
Also, they noted Orientalid (Arabid) and Negroid (mostly Sudanid) influences, which of course further change the populations in question.
They were just more lax then with their definitions quite often and if looking at what they described in detail, it is more accurate most of the time.
As for the traveling, just to mention it, v. Eickstedt made no big deal about the Northern Near East and in most maps, he colored the Western part just Armenid (Anatolia to Western Iran), based on what others wrote about that part of the world.
When he finally, after being virtually everywhere else before, made a scientific journey into the area, he immediately corrected his false ideas from before, further distinguishing the Armenoid spectrum with the Anadolid type and noting the many Mediterranid and East-/Asian-Alpinoid influences, as well as the Iranid racial type.
It was as pity he died too early, but this might serve as an example, as he was a great typologist and usually, when he was wrong, there was an acceptable reason for that.
lets not fill this thread with off topic stuff. ;)
This is about Eurogenes admixture analysis of aDNA and not NAZI voodoo magic.
I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.:lightbul:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
:icon_cheesygrin::love:
The sample sizes are obviously a problem at this stage. This should improve as time goes by, but already we can see patterns emerging that seem to make sense from a historical point of view. Not perfect yet, but amazingly insightful - even at this early stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertas
If samplesizes are large enough to allow it, one could analyse the results for the gaussian norm.
(rough version: In any natural number series are 1/3 who are outside the norm and 2/3 who represent the norm.
So, theoretically, a sample size of 12 should contain 4 freaks and the other 8 beeing inside of the norm fluctuation range.:coffee:
Its often claimed, results that do not follow a gaussian norm bell, cant be right or are man made. (checking the size of Yeti feet and all that ha ha)
But when you get enough people and start to see trends, you can begin to see beyond reasonable doubt that a real discovery has been made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertas
First of all, like Polako said and corrected us, aDNA is not the correct term for autosomal DNA but ancient DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
Secondly typology has nothing to do with "Nazi" per se and obviously phenotypes are of great importance and it is interesting to compare genetic results with the phenotypical variation, because after all, like I said before, what really matters are phenotypical traits and especially qualities, the rest is scientific-genealogical playgrounds.
Thirdly, I don't know what's up with you, as you can see and I have proven, if you rely blindly on results of a program, results you can't even prove by yourself, you are the last to talk about scientific purity and truth.
You are just mad at me, because you were so deeply into the speculation of what this components might be, when there was in reality a methodological problem.
Also, phenotypical studies and racial studies are not voodoo but science too, you can only question something specific, but hardly if I say something which was proven by anthropometric or other phenotypical studies.
Calm down and don't piss me off with your lowest level comments.
What you are doing is actually trolling, because I didn't introduce Coon's map here to explain the random distribution of the related components. Now you are done with it, you want me to shut up, when I just explain the misinterpretation of the maps made?
Bad behaviour of yours, nothing else.
The point is, the results make perfect sense for the populations in question, if you put in the latest run Northern + North Atlantic and Western + Southern together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertas
Then you see a clear gradient from Northern Europe to Southern Europe, with the additional third Baltic/North Eastern component.
The deviations inside of the samples are, if you sum those related components up and reduce everything to 3, in the range of what should be expected.
If you count the related components on their own, everything is spoiled. There is virtually no population in which it isn't random, with the exception of some individuals which seem to make up a component of their own, like the Basques for Western.
Actually it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that especially populations like the Swedes and Norwegians, but also the others, vary THAT MUCH, in the sense of one individual having 70 percent of A and zero of B, another component common in the population and again another individual has 70 percent of B and zero of A.
That is, to say it blunt, absurd, especially for smaller and rather homogeneous populations.
If it happens in more than one individual, it's against the experience of population genetics, one has always to question the method first!
That's a golden rule.
One has to combine both approaches, but right not genetics is just making baby steps to say it that way and unless you have concrete genetic variants for concrete genetic traits, it is largely pointless if you want to grasp the variation of phenotypes, but can only help to understand how phenotypes came up - f.e. through mixture/genflow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis24
But you do believe that a Northern east-west split could be achieved? There has to be some difference between a Swede and an Irishman somewhere. We know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Yes, but my guess is, like for the Southern-Western, that a specific component which is more regional but dominant, spoiled all the results and led to a distortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't know if something went wrong with the program, or one would have to exclude the individuals which caused it, but obviously these very strong components of specific individuals are not suitable for differentiating the rest of the sample.
It really seems to me as if the program didn't knew what to do and therefore put some individuals completely in one category, which is in no way representative.
You just have to look at the results, a natural population can't have such, especially not if there was a longer term genflow which surely was present, because there can't have been the same isolates EVERYWHERE with some Italians having just Southern, some just Western, some just Northern, some just North Atlantic - same for Swedes, Norwegians etc.
Its not that such a component can't be found, I guess, but in this run something went wrong, that's it.
Off-topic discussion of phenotype vs genotype moved here.
Spaniards don't like this analysis because it gives them 1% nig. :laugh:
If you sum it up, it is one percent in the Dodecad analysis too, so this seems to be a constant:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimo Bayo
Behar study in Dodecad Neo-African 0,4, East African 0,4 and Palaeo-African 0,2 - in the Dodecad participants the same, just Paleo-African down to 0,1.
But that's really unimportant, one percent is close to nothing, unless selection would have been involved to promote certain traits, like in some Uralic variants like Lappid and Eastbaltid for the Mongolid inspired context, which is not likely nor visible.
The west-african at Dodecad is 0.1% which is the same as the east-asian score, and is what the Brits have also. On the other hand, Greeks are only about 68% european while Spaniards 90% (same as French or Dutch) and Basques 98%. The Greeks have like 25% anatolian/caucasus (West-Asian) and 5% arabian (southwest asian).
In the last K-12 run, the results were as I stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/...olling-in.html
I wouldn't count East African as simply Negrid though and the rest of 0,6 is close to noise in some individuals...
Also, you can't really compare Europid influences, including North Western African by the way, with extra-Europid racial influences, with West Asian being closest to the more exclusively (but not fully exclusively neither quite often) European components from all.
Typically European are rather the proportions of components it seems, rather than one (or more) specific components.
Somewhat off-topic, but I can't understand one thing. In the Dodecad run, I have 26.6% "Mediterranean" and 10.8% "West Asian" ... but in Polako's run I only register 18% Mediterranean, which supposedly INCLUDES the West Asian. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
The unique european compoments are West, East euro and Med. In the standard K=10 run it's only North and South euro. It all makes sense. Add them and see the european score. Basques/Lithuanians are at the top, and Sicilians/Greeks at the bottom. Obviously West-Asian is Cacuasoid, but not european. Otherwise Turks, Iranians, Lebanese, Georgians,etc would be as much european as any Western-European, which doesn't make any sense, considering they don't cluster with euros, and these components doesn't peak in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
The one in the left looks russian admixed. Would be interesting too see how much East and North euro she has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotheosis
West Asia used to be inhabited by Scythians and they were much alike to Europeans. I think you are just putting off West Asian as non-European to make yourself feel better since this type is lacking in Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Do you realize that Iranians, Assyrians, Turks, Lebanese, etc are more than 50 % West-Asia ? Do you really believe these populations are half european ? Without it, they are only 20-30% euroepan, makes much more sense. Btw it's not just spaniards who have very low, Lithuanians, Polish, Scandinavians have also low levels of it. The Basques without it are already 99% European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotheosis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Every West Asian component that I've seen so far seems to be closely related with Northern European and specifically with NW European components. Your West Asian affinity is probably being represented and included in your Northern European affinity.
How do you assign the quality "European" to these groups? Obviously, it's not as simple as that. There are overlaps, and West Asian is present in most of Europe as a minority element, so it's nothing strange or foreign really. It is common knowledge that other Caucasoids like Iranians, Assyrians etc are closely related to Europeans - and one can see it phenotypically in many of them as well. Overall they are all part of the Caucasoid race, including Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia