Dodecad Ancestry Project

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.