Actual Importance of Haplogroups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

Except that Y DNA has more genetic change than non-Y DNA. Take the chimpanzee Y chromosome for example, it differs a staggering 30% with the human Y chromosome and that's likely to be a conservative estimate. One would expect that 15-30% of racial differences can be explained by Y haplogroup, and in the case of prolonged racial admixture this could be as high as 100%.

This being the case we'd expect 20th century racial maps to match early 21th century haplogroup maps. Lets have a look.

Attachment 52328

Attachment 52329

We'll have to assume some margin of error due to poor sampling size, even then the maps are mostly identical.

R1b matches the Western race (light blue) R1a matches the East Baltic race. N1 matches the Mongolian race. J2 and J1 are well matched.

I1 matches the Nordic race. I2b matches the Phalian sub-race. I2a matches the Dinaric race.

The only anomaly is E1 which appears to be grouped together with R1b. There is mention of a "hither asiatic" race however which appears to match E1.

What's really interesting is the match in Western Norway.

The only logical explanation is that 1) The similarities are pure coincedence 2) That haplogroups correlate with racial groups 3) That the Y chromosome influences skull shape.

The truth is likely a combination of 2 and 3.

---

How does N1c match with Mongolian race?
99% of Finns, Estonians and Balts are marked as Nordic or East Baltid in the race map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ukko

How does N1c match with Mongolian race?
99% of Finns, Estonians and Balts are marked as Nordic or East Baltid in the race map.

---

West Finland is marked as Nordic, which matches the 1925 map. North Finland is marked as "Mongolian" which matches. The 2010 map is based on a sample size of 100 people and should be considered a very rough estimate. I have no idea what the sample sizes for the 1922 map was.

Estonia has 20% I 30% N and 30% R1a, either poor sampling is at fault here, or Gunther's measurements are inaccurate, or whoever measured skulls for him in Estonia was biased toward "Nordic" results. Alternatively the Russians got rid of a lot of Nordics after WW2. The Nazis had a tendency to recruit Nordics for their military as well, and Russia killed most POWs as far as I know.

We're looking at two imperfect maps here however, but there's an obvious correlation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

West Finland is marked as Nordic, which matches the 1925 map. North Finland is marked as "Mongolian" which matches. The 2010 map is based on a sample size of 100 people and should be considered a very rough estimate. I have no idea what the sample sizes for the 1922 map was.

Estonia has 20% I 30% N and 30% R1a, either poor sampling is at fault here, or Gunther's measurements are inaccurate, or whoever measured skulls for him in Estonia was biased toward "Nordic" results. Alternatively the Russians got rid of a lot of Nordics after WW2. The Nazis had a tendency to recruit Nordics for their military as well, and Russia killed most POWs as far as I know.

We're looking at two imperfect maps here however, but there's an obvious correlation.

---

No there is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ukko

No there is not.

---

There obviously is as the areas with the highest concentration of N1 overlap. For additional reference I checked Rassenkundes Europas by Gunther where he states the following about Inner Asiatics (named Mongolian in the map).

"There is sometimes in Norway, as also in Sweden, a dash of Inner Asiatic blood in the non-Lappish population." (Not shown in the map, but acknowledged here.)

"If we except the districts settled by Lapps and Finns, to whom, as in Norway, a certain Inner Asiatic and East Baltic strain in the population is due, Sweden is perhaps still more Nordic than Norway, and, therefore, the relatively purest Nordic land of all." (Once again correct, Lapps are primarily N1, I1, and R1a, and Sweden has the highest percentage of I1.)

"Owing to the likeness between East Baltic and Inner Asiatic bodily characters it will often be hard to fix a sharp boundary between these two races." (This might explain some of the confusion.)

"Inner Asiatic blood shows itself as a more or less strong admixture all over the east of Europe." (General acknowledgement that it's there though not shown on the map.)

Mentions of Hither Asiatics (most likely E1) are interesting as well.

"The two races which are, so to say, the foundation of the Jewish nation are, as was said above, the Hither Asiatic and the Oriental." (Which would be E1 and J1)

"Greece is predominantly Mediterranean (Mediterranean-Hither Asiatic-Dinaric)" (R1b E1 I2 which is close enough I guess?)

"The Spaniards have always been astonished at the likeness of their Berber foes in Morocco with themselves. In all these regions of north-west Africa, however, there are found also Oriental, Negro, and (especially, it would seem, in Algeria and Morocco) Hither Asiatic strains."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

There obviously is as the areas with the highest concentration of N1 overlap. For additional reference I checked Rassenkundes Europas by Gunther where he states the following about Inner Asiatics (named Mongolian in the map).

"There is sometimes in Norway, as also in Sweden, a dash of Inner Asiatic blood in the non-Lappish population." (Not shown in the map, but acknowledged here.)

"If we except the districts settled by Lapps and Finns, to whom, as in Norway, a certain Inner Asiatic and East Baltic strain in the population is due, Sweden is perhaps still more Nordic than Norway, and, therefore, the relatively purest Nordic land of all." (Once again correct, Lapps are primarily N1, I1, and R1a, and Sweden has the highest percentage of I1.)

"Owing to the likeness between East Baltic and Inner Asiatic bodily characters it will often be hard to fix a sharp boundary between these two races." (This might explain some of the confusion.)

"Inner Asiatic blood shows itself as a more or less strong admixture all over the east of Europe." (General acknowledgement that it's there though not shown on the map.)

Mentions of Hither Asiatics (most likely E1) are interesting as well.

"The two races which are, so to say, the foundation of the Jewish nation are, as was said above, the Hither Asiatic and the Oriental." (Which would be J1 and E1)

"Greece is predominantly Mediterranean (Mediterranean-Hither Asiatic-Dinaric)" (R1b E1 I2 which is close enough I guess?)

"The Spaniards have always been astonished at the likeness of their Berber foes in Morocco with themselves. In all these regions of north-west Africa, however, there are found also Oriental, Negro, and (especially, it would seem, in Algeria and Morocco) Hither Asiatic strains."

---

There is no 'Jewish nation.' There are a number of ethnicities, some of which are related to each other and some of which are not, that are Jewish. If you're referring to Ashkenazis then J1, J2 and E3b would be the majority components but that's not to say they were the founding components.

But you're missing the point. Yes, E3b is more common in SJs than Finns, and Germans than Brits. But it still doesn't affect your race on a noticeable level. You are basically saying 'on average N1c people are more Finnic/Asiatic than non-N1c peoples' which is true, but you seem to be drawing the conclusion 'thus, N1c makes you Finnic/Asiatic.'

This is not so. Your haplogroups are but a fraction of your aDNA. You do not seem to comprehend that surely, a higher proportion of N1c people will be Finns than R1b people, but N1c doesn't make the Finn, and conversely lack of N1c doesn't break the Finn.

No genes found on your Y-chromosome have been shown to affect racial appearance (and why would they, girls don't have them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

No genes found on your Y-chromosome have been shown to affect racial appearance (and why would they, girls don't have them).

---

It hasn't been researched so obviously no correlations have been found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

It hasn't been researched so obviously no correlations have been found.

---

How much do you think they correlate?
60% Finnish males carry N1c subclades L1022, L550, L1025 and Z1936, what is the percentage of mongoloid features that causes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

It hasn't been researched so obviously no correlations have been found.

---

It hasn't been directly researched but we know what most of the genes do.

I think 23andme made an error with my ydna xD :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ukko

How much do you think they correlate?
60% Finnish males carry N1c subclades L1022, L550, L1025 and Z1936, what is the percentage of mongoloid features that causes?

---

The 60% is based on the DNA of 95 Finns, which is an inadequate sample size.

N1c is probably the cause of the alcohol problems in Finland, which would be a typical Siberian trait. 95% of alcoholics are males which makes it a likely Y-linked trait.

Traits selected for in the autosomal DNA would also be selected for on the Y chromosome, so N1c skulls should be broader and rounder, which is a cold adaption trait. The degree of expression would be 10% at the minimum but might be as high as 40%.

Absent brow ridges are supposedly a mongoloid trait (no clear sources on this) and it's unclear how haplogroup D, C, NO, and QR express these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

The 60% is based on the DNA of 95 Finns, which is an inadequate sample size.

N1c is probably the cause of the alcohol problems in Finland, which would be a typical Siberian trait. 95% of alcoholics are males which makes it a likely Y-linked trait.

Traits selected for in the autosomal DNA would also be selected for on the Y chromosome, so N1c skulls should be broader and rounder, which is a cold adaption trait. The degree of expression would be 10% at the minimum but might be as high as 40%.

Absent brow ridges are supposedly a mongoloid trait (no clear sources on this) and it's unclear how haplogroup D, C, NO, and QR express these.

---

Or more likely an environmental one.

Your approach is pseudoscientific and is based on presumptions and not facts. Do I 'look E3b?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Or more likely an environmental one.

Your approach is pseudoscientific and is based on presumptions and not facts.

---

Looks like research is backing up my presumptions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22445/

Quote:

---

Our results indicate that the risk of alcoholism in Finnish males is influenced by differences in Y chromosomes. Risk ratios suggest that males within clades 1-49, 1-21, and 1-57 were 1.5 times more likely to be alcoholic than males with other Y haplotypes, and the risk for alcohol dependence with ASPD was increased 2-fold within clade 1-57. However, the majority of the risk of alcoholism in these Finnish males is not Y chromosome-associated, and in fact, alcohol dependence is observed with Y haplotypes distributed throughout the cladogram. Twin studies suggest that alcoholism has a heritability of ≈50% (50, 51). Using this figure and data from our population sample, we estimate that Y chromosome variability may account for ≈7% of the total variance and 15% of the genetic variance of alcoholism in these Finnish males.

---

Haven't been able to figure out what haplogroups they are referencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Do I 'look E3b?'

---

Classifying people is a bit of a pseudo-science. I would at the very least need a side profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanley

I think here at TA we had a thread a while ago polling people with I1 Y-DNA on their heights. Yeah...

---

Yeah what? Majority of South slavs are I something or other and are taller than majority of Europeans. Neolithics(J,E etc) are the ones that brought short stature and gracile builds to Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guapo

Yeah what? Majority of South slavs are I something or other and are taller than majority of Europeans. Neolithics(J,E etc) are the ones that brought short stature and gracile builds to Europe.

---

Making things up again ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyra

Making things up again ...

---

High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia.

Regueiro M1, Rivera L, Damnjanovic T, Lukovic L, Milasin J, Herrera RJ.
Author information
Abstract

Quote:

---

Whether present-day European genetic variation and its distribution patterns can be attributed primarily to the initial peopling of Europe by anatomically modern humans during the Paleolithic, or to latter Near Eastern Neolithic input is still the subject of debate. Southeastern Europe has been a crossroads for several cultures since Paleolithic times and the Balkans, specifically, would have been part of the route used by Neolithic farmers to enter Europe. Given its geographic location in the heart of the Balkan Peninsula at the intersection of Central and Southeastern Europe, Serbia represents a key geographical location that may provide insight to elucidate the interactions between indigenous Paleolithic people and agricultural colonists from the Fertile Crescent. In this study, we examine, for the first time, the Y-chromosome constitution of the general Serbian population. A total of 103 individuals were sampled and their DNA analyzed for 104 Y-chromosome bi-allelic markers and 17 associated STR loci. Our results indicate that approximately 58% of Serbian Y-chromosomes (I1-M253, I2a-P37.2 and R1a1a-M198) belong to lineages believed to be pre-Neolithic. On the other hand, the signature of putative Near Eastern Neolithic lineages, including E1b1b1a1-M78, G2a-P15, J1-M267, J2-M172 and R1b1a2-M269 accounts for 39% of the Y-chromosome. Haplogroup frequency distributions in Western and Eastern Europe reveal a spotted landscape of paleolithic Y chromosomes, undermining continental-wide generalizations. Furthermore, an examination of the distribution of Y-chromosome filiations in Europe indicates extreme levels of Paleolithic lineages in a region encompassing Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, possibly the result of Neolithic migrations encroaching on Paleolithic populations against the Adriatic Sea.

---

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310393

Quote:

---

According to one study on remains of early Europeans, prior to 16,000 BC, European males stood 179 cm tall, or 5’10.5″, and females stood 158 cm, or 5’2″. Between 8,000 to 6,600 BC, average heights had dropped to 166 cm for males. Heights fell even further in Neolithic populations, dropping down to 164 cm for males and 150 cm for females, only reaching and surpassing 170 cm at the end of the 19th century.


Another source found that Paleolithic humans living between 30,000 and 9,000 BC ran almost 5’10”, which is close to the average modern American male’s height. After agriculture was fully adopted, male height dropped to 161 cm, or 5’5.4″. Females went from 166.5 cm to 154.3 cm under the same parameters.

---

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-c...#ixzz3JTyeUBkq

It comes about by accumulation. Maternal lines should also be considered, they are just as important and the vast majority are Neolithic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

Looks like research is backing up my presumptions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22445/

Haven't been able to figure out what haplogroups they are referencing.

Classifying people is a bit of a pseudo-science. I would at the very least need a side profile.

---

I have two classification threads, both of which came up as overwhelmingly Western European.

Your presumption is this:

1) Women don't have YDNA
2) Ergo YDNA makes all the difference between the sexes
3) Ergo YDNA determines all masculine traits

Wrong. Most of these traits exist in women but are dormant or diminished. All YDNA does is 'activate' the genes in question. YDNA does not include the genes for 'brow ridges' and other things.

It also doesn't contain the genes for reaction to alcohol as women have those too.

Seriously. Stop. It's pseudoscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

The 60% is based on the DNA of 95 Finns, which is an inadequate sample size.

N1c is probably the cause of the alcohol problems in Finland, which would be a typical Siberian trait. 95% of alcoholics are males which makes it a likely Y-linked trait.

Traits selected for in the autosomal DNA would also be selected for on the Y chromosome, so N1c skulls should be broader and rounder, which is a cold adaption trait. The degree of expression would be 10% at the minimum but might be as high as 40%.

Absent brow ridges are supposedly a mongoloid trait (no clear sources on this) and it's unclear how haplogroup D, C, NO, and QR express these.

---

The 60% is close to the truth looking at all the studies and projects.

The rest is drivel, pseudoscience and speculation, is your previous name Butlerking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Seriously. Stop. It's pseudoscience.

---

I prove you wrong and your response is rather dramatic. Has anyone with half a brain been ran off of this board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Void

I prove you wrong and your response is rather dramatic. Has anyone with half a brain been ran off of this board?

---

You haven't come close to proving me wrong. YDNA doesn't do what you think it does. You have hijacked a thread that was supposed to remind people that ydna and mtdna are the smallest and least relevant parts of your adna and not only do you strive to deny this, you fill the thread with a) irrelevant and b) incorrect OT. You're wrong, as I have explained to you.

Your paper is interesting. Please provide one that backs up anything else you've said and I won't point out the obvious flaw in it.

I think they are much less important that people make them to be. It shows nothing about our ancestry other than ancient migration path of oldest ancestor which is fun but still, you have tousands of other ancestors in non-direct male/female line that probably belonged to different haplogroups.

Probably to understand population migrations and melting pots. And how genetics of population changes after time and /mixing when comparing to more ancient dna

but yea its not race , although people like to associate identity with lineage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjerpander

but yea its not race , although people like to associate identity with lineage.

---

I feel it's rather silly to feel associated with a certain group just because of a Y cromossome that dates back thousands of years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos

I feel it's rather silly to feel associated with a certain group just because of a Y cromossome that dates back thousands of years ago.

---

Callate. Gib Palestine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Callate. Gib Palestine.

---

I wouldn't want to be relocated to a frozen wasteland.

It is interesting how haplogroup I1 (Y-DNA) matches with the settlements of the Germanic people.

Lundman was interested in blood types. Did he get to know haplogroup research during his lifetime?

Absolutely irrelevant gives a man a dick. In my case a massive E-V13 balkanigger dick the length of the Congo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Бes

Absolutely irrelevant gives a man a dick. In my case a massive E-V13 balkanigger dick the length of the Congo.

---

Your clade is irrelevant, not YDNA itself, pls read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justalittlevisit

It is interesting how haplogroup I1 (Y-DNA) matches with the settlements of the Germanic people.

Lundman was interested in blood types. Did he get to know haplogroup research during his lifetime?

---

Because I1 was spread by Germanic people, but being I1 doesn't make you Germanic, and being Germanic doesn't make you I1.

Well the human genome wasn't read until the 90s so no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Your clade is irrelevant, not YDNA itself, pls read.

---

Hai nolevay, take a joke bruder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Бes

Hai nolevay, take a joke bruder.

---

My sandnigga clade doesn't allow me to.

You're absolutely right but perhaps in certain cases, haplogroups can be interesting, especially if your haplogroup is atypical for your ethnicity/region.
My mtDNA is extremely rare in NorthWest Africa (less than 1%) and is more likely revealing of a distant maternal European ancestor.
I'm not an expert in genetics but I often got North Slavic/Scandinavian small % in my results and I strangely have many distant Scandinavian "cousins". Could be related to my haplogroup, I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsSPF

You're absolutely right but perhaps in certain cases, haplogroups can be interesting, especially if your haplogroup is atypical for your ethnicity/region.
My mtDNA is extremely rare in NorthWest Africa (less than 1%) and is more likely revealing of a distant maternal European ancestor.
I'm not an expert in genetics but I often got North Slavic/Scandinavian small % in my results and I strangely have many distant Scandinavian "cousins". Could be related to my haplogroup, I have no idea.

---

Interesting but not particularly relevant.

Very interesting post. I agree it's not relevant for determining who or what you are. Be that intrinsically to your nature or what you are made of autosomally. I do believe it is useful for population migration of ancestral groups. Even then though, people should be very careful, considering little is still known. Especially for the most studied haplogroups, there is still little to no ADNA for a good part of the world. Most reliance is heavily based on modern populations which are not stand ins for ancestral movements. The only people who really think it means something are those with an agenda. What we actually know about these lines or ancient peoples who carried them is very little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

Actual Importance of Haplogroups

---

None, exept as a proving tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rethel

None, exept as a proving tool.

---

A proving tool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longbowman

A proving tool?

---

Yes.

Haplogroups are pretty much completely meaningless on an individual level, but they can be an interesting and useful tool to study entire populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Haplogroups are pretty much completely meaningless on an individual level, but they can be an interesting and useful tool to study entire populations.

---

Populations are builded from individuals, and individuals are a members of populations, so...

They're almost useless