Printable View
Actually they look extremy similar. What's more, the levantine arabs have more Eastern-European, contrary to these fairy tales which say ancient levantines where supposedly more european looking and closer to Europeans, than modern ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transhumanist
Well, I was talking about the area where the West-Asia is the first component, that's the area in the red numbers in the map, the Iranian Plateau.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Me too, can you not see that the highest three red numbers are north of the Caucasus, and not on the Iranian plateau?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Btw, basques and Sardinians were NOT used in this run. They were included AFTER the run, which means after the components were already settled based on the populations included. And you cannot talk of the mediterranean component as isolated, since it peaks in North-Italians and Spaniards. Once the sardinians were inlcuded after the initial run, they showed the highest frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Yes, the ones who barely make it into Europe :Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/509...pedec82010.png
Yes, Loki. I think it not a coincidence a great many European Y-DNA lines had their likely origins in West Asia. And, in particular, the area where "West Asian" is at least ~50%. The Caucasus, E Anatolia, N Iran, and N Mesopotamia. Many varieties of J1, J2, R1b, T, G2a, and other European haplogroups have their greatest diversity in the area. Basically, the region in varying shades of blue, on simranjits' Jatt Gene "West Asian" map:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://blog.jattdna.org/wp-content/u...est-Asian1.jpg
http://blog.jattdna.org/
Anyways, the West-Asian component is minoritary in Europe, the average is about 8% for all Europe.
Yes. It most certainly is a minority element in today's Europeans. I do not believe the other gentlemen were arguing that it was not a minority element, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Also the program of professor Dr. McDonald doesn't count the Georgians/Caucasus as European, they have their own genetic group, I beleive it's something like Antaolian/Caucasus
Ok. I have worked out the kinks in my spreadsheet and have double checked the calculations of my personal results with Day Tripper. Here are the new charts:
Mine:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...yRMSDchart.jpg
Loki:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...okiesChart.jpg
Pallantides:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...n/NO2Chart.jpg
Kadu:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...KadusChart.jpg
Frederick:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...n/DE8Chart.jpg
Bastarnae:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...arnaeChart.jpg
Barreldriver:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k.../US83Chart.jpg
The spreadsheet will be up next after I make it idiot proof.
Loki and I are Germanic, Kadu is a Med, Frederick is a Hunnic Viking, Pallantides is a Kelt incognito, Barrel is so Keltic it is ridiculous, and Bastarnae is a gypsy. :)
I somehow forgot about a certain request so here it is, Ms. Fresa Salvaje.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...n/ES6Chart.jpg
If you click here you will find the spreadsheet that acts as a RMSD calculator for this latest run of the Eurogenes project. It is pretty self explanatory once you look at it and pretty easy to use. All you have to do is place your values into the designated cells and your chart will be produced at the bottom along with your numerical distances from each population. You will need Open Office to use this.
Let's see those charts, people. :)
:thumb001: cheers! got it working
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...1&d=1310291532
While Graham's results look to be what one would expect from a Brit, Impervim, your chart is not, bro. You're lack of North Atlantic and relatively high West Euro on this run seems to seperate you from the pack. Your closest matches are the Netherlands and then France.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...ervimchart.jpg
All hail AlabamaMan!Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
Keltic? Germans on the graph look closer to me than the Irish no? A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.
I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison? :D
I meant British, my mistake! I was posting that @ 2:30 AM, bro. Give me a break. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Barreldriver
Polako used samples from S.W. Scotland, Cornwall, Kent, and the usual UK participants in this run. My calculations did not seperate them into distinct clusters. What you are seeing in your results is that you are most similar to the folks from Kent followed by the average Brit that has joined the Eurogenes Project.Quote:
A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.
I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison? :D
Of course, but how does that relate to the issue in question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.
I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.
The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here. They being shared to a greater extend with extra-European Europids than dark blue, but are nevertheless a constitutive part of the European genetic and racial make up, only the proportions vary somewhat geographically.
We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.Quote:
What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.
There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.
In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.
Just read up the anthropological and historical facts of the Near East.
We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?Quote:
Sorry, that's all fantasy. There is no reason to believe that Ancient West-Asians where a different population than now.
If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?
There are many sources, but here is one available online:
http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergil...1049/12664.pdf
Some quotations:
Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.Quote:
Hacılar: This is the earliest-known agricultural settlement in Anatolia.
It is located 25 km west of Burdur. The skulls of the Eurafrican and
Proto-Mediterranean types of the Mediterranean race were found here at
a level dated to approximately the first half of the seventh millennium and
the skeletons of the same types, though in limited numbers, came from a
level dated ca. 5400-5050/5000 B.C. (Mellaart, 1975).
Çatal Höyük: This, the largest known Neolithic site in the Near-
East, is located 11 km north of Çumra in Konya. 81 percent of the 268 skeletons found here belong to a period between ca 6200 and 5830 B.C. 59
percent of these skeletal remains represent the Eurafrican type and 17
percent of them are of the Proto-Mediterranean type, while 24 percent
represent that of the Alpine (Mellaart, 1975; Angel, 1971).
And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.
You find similar variants up to the North in the LBK-group, with a fluent border over time and space even to the Nordoids (process of Nordisation).
Also, the European Neolithic culture bearers were closest to the Çatal Höyük and similar variants, not other Neolithic groups of the Near East.
So the main genflow happened from certain parts of the Neolithic World in the Near East, not undifferentiated and by bringing all elements into Europe (!), with selective processes and local mixture further shaping what came onto the continent.
Right, there are however studies done on surrounding populations...Quote:
That's because we don't have in-between populations to fill the gaps, that's why they seem to look isolated. If we were to include surrounding areas we would see a continuum.
Basques or Basque like individuals were included though, as the Spaniard and French samples prove, just look at my graphics.Quote:
Btw, basques and Sardinians were NOT used in this run. They were included AFTER the run, which means after the components were already settled based on the populations included. And you cannot talk of the mediterranean component as isolated, since it peaks in North-Italians and Spaniards. Once the sardinians were inlcuded after the initial run, they showed the highest frequency.
Also, I don't question Sardinians being largely unaltered Mediterraneans, what I questioned is when did this component come to the island and from where?
Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.
Look here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ardial_map.png
Compare with the Mediterranean component in Dodecad 12-K:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...1&d=1310306607
Look at the Levantine samples!
And look at the distribution in Europe!
How can you be sure, that it wasn't spread that way, while the WA and related Western European was spread ON LAND and BOTH during the Neolithic period?!
How can you know that?
That would also explain, why some Mediterranean people have virtually nothing West Asian, even little Western European (Dod run), because they were part of the other route.
I highly doubt however, that the Sardinians were unchanged since Mesolithic times, that is very unrealistic. But it seems the biggest change they made in time, was with the Neolithic colonisation and Cardium Pottery culture, after that, not much.
Actually it would fit perfectly, if being true and not just fantasy of mine :)
The biggest impact further North West might have been transformed and included into the West European component - in which there were other influences too however, probably from the Southern route (Med) and pre-Neolithic (East), which is the reason, why it is so close to WA, but essentially "close to all".Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
I wouldn't wonder, honestly, if the WA you see in certain runs, especially if reaching the lower levels, is actually past the initial Neolithic expansions, probably even Metal Age - or just what stood behind and wasn't transformed.
Me neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
They are somewht borderline though and one has to distinguish between ancient and modern populations.
I mean the ancient population of Central Asia is different from the modern one too - for example.
How not ? The behar et al. shows clearly a dark-blue European component, since it's highest frequencies is found in Europeans (except Cyprus which is genetically closer to levantines).Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Actually the equivalent of the West-Asian in the Behar would be the light-green, as you can see it also peaks in Georgians and Middle-easterns.Quote:
As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.
Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).Quote:
I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.
They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component.Quote:
The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here.
What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??Quote:
We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.
There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.
In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.
Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.Quote:
We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?
If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?
This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.Quote:
Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.
And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.
Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ?? Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.Quote:
Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.
Finally got Open Office downloaded and installed, these are the numbers to go with the graph for my ID:
1. Kent 3.13
2. UK 3.62
3. Cornwall 5.15
4. Germany 5.46
5. Scotland 5.66
Though on the graph Scotland and Denmark are close Scotland is the more close of the two and thus took the #5 spot kicking Denmark out of the top 5.
What I found interesting about these results is they mirror some recent revelations in my traditional genealogy work, previously I had grossly over estimated the number of Northern English ancestors as I assumed all Appalachians had to be either Northern English, Borders, or Scots-Irish folks, however the parts of Appalachia that go into Eastern Middle Tennessee via the Cumberland Plateau are less harsh and more fertile than the Blue Ridge for comparison and thus was more suitable for plantation lifestyle that frequented Eastern Virginia and Eastern North Carolina and as such attracted settlers from those parts who were of a strong Southeastern English stock, despite my lineage being Northern from Yorkshire most of the other families in the genealogy are from the Southeast and had rather wealthy properties in Eastern Middle Tennessee, nothing compared to the disgusting wealth of some South Carolinians but wealthy enough to set them apart from someone from the Blue Ridge. This is not to neglect great grandma who's half East Anglian half Hampshirite or however a person from Hampshire would be called, Kent a Southeastern region would be a naturally close match to someone with recent East Anglian ancestry as East Anglia is also Southeastern or so I would think.
The only Europeans which don't have it are non-Indo-Europeans btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
I never said dark green is European...Quote:
Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).
.Quote:
They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component
Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?
Let's count them - oh its none!
Not all are that different, but many are in particular those shown as deviating form European phenotypes more strongly, for example Turkish people with foreign/new influences:Quote:
What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html
The Western Turkish people without strong foreign/Eastern admixture are phenotypically often rather European too...
And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.Quote:
Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.
So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!
Here is a newer study for example:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...06747.g003.png
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08...ture-into.htmlQuote:
Moreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.
Genetic perspective is on-line with what physical anthropologists SINCE GENERATIONS already knew, if being more competent in their field.
I'm just waiting for the first data from Kurgan groups remains and that of Anatolian-South Eastern European Neolithics...
Nonsense. The intepretation in detail varies, but how can it vary if comparing Mediterranoids with Armenoids?Quote:
This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.
You don't even need to measure to see the difference, what you say is ridiculous.
Do you think all the generations of anthropologists were not capable of measuring the skull? Even if they would have measured wrong, some militers, in the larger samples this doesn't change the whole result.
You are in denial...
To begin with, West Asian is much stronger in Europe than the other components, to go on, it also depends on the runs, because the same names might not mean the same thing in any case.Quote:
Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ??
But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.
Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.
Well, I'm not even 100 percent sure all of WA entered Europe in early Neolithic times, SWA even less sure - it seems most likely by now, but it might have entered later (Late Neolithic to Metal Ages) too.Quote:
Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.
That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.
There are only older and younger, more or less related, more or less European components, if they being distributed so evenly in most European populations.
Also, the Fst distance is crucial:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw7x-HD7ON.../s1600/fst.png
If you make West European "the golden standard", which is reasonable, you get see who's closer...
Below 0,1 is Europid one could say for example.
Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).
And ? It doesn't change the fact that the most allele frequencies of this component is found in Europeans. It's a European component.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Well, I am relying to genetics not pseudoscience. Fact is, all scientist agree that haplogorups J, and it's subclades J1 and J2, are of Middle-Eastern origin, are still today the majoritarian haplogroups in those areas.Quote:
And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.
So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!
Here is a newer study for example:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...06747.g003.png
I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.Quote:
But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.
Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian. What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.Quote:
Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.
We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.Quote:
That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.
Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets. The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.Quote:
Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).
As if haplogroups explain everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.
And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!
That makes no sense, because if you say it is not European, someone having it is partially non-European, that's what you are saying.Quote:
I am not saying europeans who have it are less europeans, im saying it is not a European component, since the average in Europe is only 8% while in the Iranian plateau is over 40%.
If you say the component is "less European", you can say someone having a strong WA-SWA component is "less European-specific", that's ok, but you said "non-European" to this component which is practically everywhere in Europe, which is a difference.
SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.Quote:
Since ages ? So what ? The southwest-asian component probable entered right at the SAME TIME than West-Asian.
You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.
East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.Quote:
What's more, im sure some parts of Europe (Greece, SouthItaly) the West-Asian entered by people who had already southwest-asian.
And so, are Basques and Iberians not European ? And Polish, Lithuanians ? The west-asian is very low in these areas, to be a specific-european allele agroupation.
You could make a list of Europe specific components, starting with either West European or East European, depending on your exact perspective and then moving on to the less Europe-specific components, which are still a constitutive part of the European genetic make up, until you come to the totally foreign and not wider distributed elements.Quote:
We are not talking about real or not real europeans. We are talking about the specific-european components, such as West European, East European, etc.
But as I said, that it peaks there NOW doesn't mean it originated there - at least not fully and necessarily.Quote:
Mediterranean peaks in North-Italians, Iberians and Sardinians. That's as West-Europeans as it gets.
Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:
Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5
Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".
The distribution reminds me of a better preservation scenario, rather than origin!
The correlation of the higher numbers with the Cardium Pottery culture is intriguing.
So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?Quote:
The fact that Fst distances shows West-Asia closer to West-Europeans, doesn't tell you the whole story, I've seen many Fst distance tables from many differents studies, and a lot of the results are very weird.
Better not :)
No, but you said those "pre-Semitic" populations were European-like in appearance and other fairy tales, how could they be so drastically different than today's Semitic populations, when these haplogroups have always been there ? Did the Southwest-asian appear from thin air ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.Quote:
Some Negrids which are pred. R1b are still pred. Negrid by the way.
How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense. Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.Quote:
And anthropometry-physical anthropology is no "pseudoscience" - if you don't like it, just don't talk about it, but what you are saying makes you look ignorant only, because like I said, even if typology is being questioned, anthropometry isn't and it is in proper scientific use for many generations already!
Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.Quote:
SWA in the latest run is different from the ones before and the strong presence even in the North makes clear, that it is a constitutive part of the European genpool too, just less than WA, which has a lower Fst-distance to the other European components and is more widespread.
It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.Quote:
You could make a list of "more or less European" components, but "non-European" is just too much, that's all I'm saying.
It peaks in Europe.Quote:
East European is low in other parts of Europe, so what? Also, it is present in all Indo-Europeans, even in the Baltic and Eastern countries, as you can see.
I don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.Quote:
Some of the higher Mediterranean numbers for comparison by the way:
Cypriots: 42,9 (one of the highest!)
Druze: 31,5
French Basque: 45,6 (note how small the difference to the Cypriots is!)
Greek: 43,6
Morocco Jews: 35,4
North Italian_D: 44,7 (just 1-2 percent more than the Cypriots and Greeks!)
Southern Italian_D: 46,8
Samaritians: 32,2
Sicilian_D: 46,4
Spanish_D: 48,3
Sardinian: 55,5
Do you see? That is obviously not "as West European as it gets".
So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?Quote:
So you want to dismiss this important aspect of the results, without which they make much less sense, just like physical anthropology?
The main reason is what happened in between, both admixture and, even more important, selective trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Yet by yDNA they are closer to European R1b's than to non-R1b's...Quote:
But they have a different subclade of R1b than the European one, they are the branch V88 while European the M269, which differs in a certain thousands of years. Plus, autosomally, they are a whole different story.
First of all, Coon is not the end of things, secondly, ancient Egyptians were largely Mediterranoid, not of the same subtype as Iberians, but nevertheless.Quote:
How can't it be pseudoscience when Coon in his maps describes the Egyptians and Arabians the same as Iberians ?? Nonsense.
And what genetic results mean or might mean.Quote:
Plus, it's not that I don't like it, is that this thread is about GENETICS.
But they are constitutive, which is crucial.Quote:
Being part of euroepan gene-pool doesn't mean it's specific of Europe, since it is found in very low levels, while it reaches 70% in Arabians. Forget the idea of 'pureness' there are no pure europeans. The fact that these components are present, even if at low levels, in europeans, doesn't mean they are specific of Europe.
You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.Quote:
It is a non-european component. But Caucasoid , that's what im saying. Scientists also use these same methods, to determine specific ancestry. If you have a certain group of alleles that peak outside of Europe, then they are considerd non-european, regardless of europeans having it at low levels or the age at which they entered. Simple as that. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine if a European person has gypsy ancestry or not, or if he has Levantine ancestry. How would you know if a person is 1/2 European and 1/2 Levantine when doing an admixture run ? If you consider them as european. That's the point.
IPossible, but how can you know that for sure, without having ancient remains tested?Quote:
don't know what is wrong, these populations have european ancestry to a more or less degree, altough some of these populations like Druze or Samaraitians it's as far as the only European component they have, the Med one. Also, note that this mediterranean component not only peaks in Europe, but is also found in much higher percentages all around Europe, reaching considerable percentages also in Easter and Northern Europe, like 17% in Poland, 14% in Scandinavians, etc. It is certainly a paleollithic South-European component, that reached northern-european after the Ice age expansion.
There were many theories about haplogroups, but some are now gone, because the tests falsified them.
Because of the proportions and other influences primarily I guess.Quote:
So, if the West-Asian component is closer to West-European, how is that Georgians and Iranians don't cluster with Europeans, or better said, West-Euroepans, but instead they cluster with Iranians, Assyrians and Turks on genetic PCA plots ?
Also, these component analysis don't tell you the full story anyway.
And ? I don't know what is the point you are trying to make. Your analogy with pre-semitics makes no sense, because the R1b is not indigenous of Africa, while the J, J1 and J2 of Mesopotomian area is indigenous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrippa
Of course you do it by saying "A is here". How do you think the two Romanian gypsies were detected in the Behar sample ? Because they had 'A', that, is, a South-Asian component, abnormally high.Quote:
You do that by comparing proportions, not by saying "A is here or B is here" - at least not in comparison with such Europids/Caucasoids.
Here is a link to another OpenOffce spreadsheet that will calculate the RMSD for participants of the NEU6g run. Same format as last time. Plug in your values, get a chart.
My results have changed considerably compared to the last chart, but they match the chart Day Tripper came up with months ago, so I'm assuming they are accurate. The same populations are my closest maches as before, just in a dfferent order. I'm much closer to ze Germans in this run, too.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...NEU6gChart.jpg
Alabaman do I still get a chart :D?
You're not part of the Eurogenes Project yet are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boadicea
The guy (I think his name is Polako? Can't remember) said that he was going away for holidays and that he would post an update when he's back.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
Then you will have to wait until the Soul Pole gets back from holiday and adds you to a run, Ms. Boadicea. I'll be more than happy to make you a chart then. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Boadicea
Chart for the NEU6g run:
http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k.../US83NEU6g.jpg
Figures for top 5:
1. Ireland 6.94
2. Germany 7.31
3. UK 8.26
4. Netherlands 9.44
5. France 12.54
I say the NEU7g run was more accurate for me, there's no way given my genealogy that Irish and German should be closer than the UK as they don't even equal a quarter of my genealogy, the newer run accurately represents my over half English ancestry much better.
The most likely point of origin of at least R-L23, and perhaps R-M269 as well, is West Asia. In the area with concentrations of "West Asian" at or in excess of ~50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia
Dienekes, recently, on the subject:
Modeling spread of R1b1b2 into EuropeQuote:
[I] looked at the ongoing Dodecad v3 results to possibly correlate the spread of R-M269 to Western Europe with the autosomal evidence...[It] is consistent with an episode of gene flow into Europe from West Asia that affected Western more than Eastern Europe, which parallels the R-M269 distribution in Europe.
Dr. Anatole Klyosov, wrote the following, recently. I do not necessarily agree with it all.
Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy 2011 June Volume 4, No. 6Quote:
In fact, those similarities do exist, albeit in a rather weak form because thousands of years passed since then. Still now most of R1b1a2 haplotypes in the Caucasus (in Armenia, Dagestan, Georgia) belong to the ancient L23 subclade (with a common ancestor in the Caucasus of around 6,000 ybp), and have a characteristic DYS393=12 allele, unlike DYS393=13 in most of European R1b1b2 haplotypes. From the Caucasus, R1b1a2-L23 and R1b1a2-M269 bearers went South over the mountains, to Anatolia (a common ancestor of 6,000 ybp), and then split into three major routes. One went further South, to Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and became the Sumers. Many present-day Assyrians, descendants of ancient Sumers, still have their R1b1a2 haplotypes. Another went westward, across AsiaMinor, and came to Europe, to the Balkans and Mediterranean Sea region around 4500 ybp. The third group went across Northern Africa and Egypt (and,incidentally, might have left some R1b1b2 Pharaohs there) to the Atlantic and went across Gibraltar to the Iberian Peninsula around 4800 ybp. They became the Bell Beakers, and moved up North into the continental Europe. The Bell Beaker culture in Europe had lasted between about 4400 and 3800 ybp.
Image source: simranjits' The Jatt Gene
I made a boo boo here should have put Hampshire instead of East Anglia. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Barreldriver
More specific interpretation of July 4th dataset RMS results:
1. Kent 3.13 (represents my most recent Southeastern English ancestry from Hampshire and more distant ancestry from Buckinghamshire, then my Suffolk and Essex ancestry wouldn't be too far off as despite being "East English" they are relatively close to Southeastern England geographically).
2. UK 3.62 (since it's based on the pan-UK participant pool it could represent any and/or all of my various UK ancestry groups)
3. Cornwall 5.15 (was a bit of an odd ball IMO as I don't have any known Cornish ancestry, but I do have ancestors from Devon which borders Cornwall)
4. Germany 5.46 (represents my not even a full quarter German ancestry)
5. Scotland 5.66 (representing my Scots ancestors naturally)
Irish did make the top 10 (#8) and is explained in my genealogy, despite having great great grandmothers with Gaelic surnames they were by no means pure Gaelic but mostly English by ancestry, so the Gaelic being as diluted as it was it makes sense for Ireland to be set back as far as it was in these calculations.
I ran Pallantides' results from the NEU6g run and it would appear that run was more accurate for Scandians than the EU7b run. The opposite may hold to be true for the Brits and Micks.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...tidesNEU6g.jpg
Trog, here is your chart, you Keltic devil:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k.../TrogChart.jpg
Even more reason why the results should be personalized in the context of personal genealogical trends more so than anything, if it doesn't make sense with the obvious parts of your genealogy try a different method that different method might be relevant to the self but not to someone else perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
Thanks, I'm surprised I'm closer to Cornwall than to Scotland. A bit disappointed actually, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaMan
:thumb001:
NEU6g
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...tidesNEU6g.jpg
EU7b
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...n/NO2Chart.jpg
yeah I think the NEU6g results are more accurate, at least for me.
Impervim's results from the EU7b run looked odd, so I ran his numbers from the NEU6g run, and like Pallantides, his NEU6g results appear to be more accurate considering his ethnicity.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...ervimNEu6g.jpg
You guys are twisting everything. I never said that R1b-M269 was originary from Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transhumanist
Here is your chart, EuroAmerican:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...US239Chart.jpg
You're closest 3 are:
Germany 9.53
Netherlands 9.73
Kent 11.00