Are you happy with your haplogroups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mont

Mine is not J1b, it's J1a.

---

This form of writing whitout SNPs like "J1b1a1" is confusing and outdated, at the time his clade might have been considered J1b but on yfull it seems to be downstrean of your "J1a" branch?https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z2215/
To avoid confusion focus only in the first letter and terminal snps.These nomenclatures even changes from time to time,from 2011 to now, E3b for example is not used anymore, its all E1b, some I2b turned into I2a2, and so on.Anyway his thread have more of the samples i told you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petalpusher

ANE and AG are closer to WHG than to any East Asian population. ANE did split with Kostenki from something close to Ust-Ishim, which ultimately leaded to something more West Eurasian in the Paleolithic, then WHG and in between (SHG-EHG). Everything is from that ENA cline in the "hunters" stuff with a parallel basal Eurasian line staying closer to the near east and probably some interactions in between (until it really formed the Anatolian hunter Pibarsi with some WHG in the Balkans).

40Ky to 25Ky yes everything was more East Eurasian in today's terms but because nothing was that West Eurasian yet in that branch. It's the same for East Asians though, as result they became more and more removed from West Eurasians. We both drifted several ways apart from a common intial branch of Eurasians or Eastern Non Africans. It doesnt make much sense to see ANE as Japanese or Chinese admixed today, it was just one step with Kostenki on the path west for things to become more West Eurasian.

IEs were not 100% ANE or AG anyway. They were 1/3 ANE like when entering Europe and most Euros don't score real East Asian today, which is only mechanical as nothing is more removed West in Eurasia than Europeans so that can only be the reference for being 0% or close to 0% East Asian. In the same way East Asians are zero West Eurasian or ANE conversely. It's more a matter of perspective how much Eurasians all have in common and at what point in time. What's important is the end result and how far apart each populations have become, which is pretty much a nice triangle between Europe, East Asia and Africa, each being one corner.

---

PCA with all samples up to 6,000 BC excluding SSA and Amerindians. Interesting how all most ancient samples (e.g. those prior to 30,000 BC) are dragged toward the center of the PCA. I wonder what they must have looked like...

https://i.imgur.com/IO2YvYC.png

I don't really care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tongio

Ok than lets all celebrate the incipient east asian like genetic component R1 carried into Europe yehh.

---

We should send the r's back to asia and make europe i again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tongio

This form of writing whitout SNPs like "J1b1a1" is confusing and outdated, at the time his clade might have been considered J1b but on yfull it seems to be downstrean of your "J1a" branch?https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z2215/
To avoid confusion focus only in the first letter and terminal snps.These nomenclatures even changes from time to time,from 2011 to now, E3b for example is not used anymore, its all E1b, some I2b turned into I2a2, and so on.Anyway his thread have more of the samples i told you.

---

There are still J1b subclades classification-wise in the most modern update, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tongio

R1 is siberian in origin dude, ancient north eurasian ,the ones that introduced it to Europe, were 25% east asian.

---

25% ching chong? thats interesting...

I'm not happy. It's not white enough.

Yeah, I share the same Ydna with my niggas Teutone and Nas


https://youtu.be/mlp-IIG9ApU

I am Haplogroup R-L2 which is R1b so, yeah I find it very cool and interesting. Not like I had a choice in choosing it lol.

My mtDNA is T2b which I don't know much about it, and would like to learn more. Can't complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petalpusher

ANE and AG are closer to WHG than to any East Asian population. ANE did split with Kostenki from something close to Ust-Ishim, which ultimately leaded to something more West Eurasian in the Paleolithic, then WHG and in between (SHG-EHG). Everything is from that ENA cline in the "hunters" stuff with a parallel basal Eurasian line staying closer to the near east and probably some interactions in between (until it really formed the Anatolian hunter Pibarsi with some WHG in the Balkans).

40Ky to 25Ky yes everything was more East Eurasian in today's terms but because nothing was that West Eurasian yet in that branch. It's the same for East Asians though, as result they became more and more removed from West Eurasians. We both drifted several ways apart from a common intial branch of Eurasians or Eastern Non Africans. It doesnt make much sense to see ANE as Japanese or Chinese admixed today, it was just one step with Kostenki on the path west for things to become more West Eurasian.

IEs were not 100% ANE or AG anyway. They were 1/3 ANE like when entering Europe and most Euros don't score real East Asian today, which is only mechanical as nothing is more removed West in Eurasia than Europeans so that can only be the reference for being 0% or close to 0% East Asian. In the same way East Asians are zero West Eurasian or ANE conversely. It's more a matter of perspective how much Eurasians all have in common and at what point in time. What's important is the end result and how far apart each populations have become, which is pretty much a nice triangle between Europe, East Asia and Africa, each being one corner.

---

Its true that ANE were 100% caucasoids? Or at least 75%?

There's some members saying that they were "mong" admixed.