Im not arguing you would be more similar to the english man im saying both carries certain informations about you and historyQuote:
Originally Posted by Universe
Printable View
Im not arguing you would be more similar to the english man im saying both carries certain informations about you and historyQuote:
Originally Posted by Universe
They are higher in qpAdm fstats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugo
Regardless, their R1b lineages have persevered from their BA ancestors.
Yes that is equally important and carries more informations about your family history im not arguing from a toxic male perspective or that haplogroups solely define your race but it is also not true that they tell nothing they can reveal deep origins a white man with native american hg could reveal distant native ancestorI for example i find the whole debate silly anywaysQuote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
I am talking archaeo-genetics and how you can trace migrations through haplogroups.
I am not interested in ethno-centric pissing contests.
By all means, you can be related to mickey mouse more for all I care.
Stating you're sharing more DNA with x than y is stating the reality, not ethnocentrism.Quote:
Originally Posted by eupator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
I suggest you re-read my posts carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer
Focusing on y-chr is not 'toxic male perspective', it's solely due to the fact that it mutates really fast producing further subclades and thus can be used to trace detailed pathways of migrations throughout the span of history.
Im not personally saying it is but some think it is or that it is aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by eupator
No you don’t. Everyone keeps saying “The reality is I share more” well show us proof then? It’s good to talk but you need proof instead of talking randomly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
I’ll save you time here is the proof. You share 2% of your entire genome with other members of your haplogroup while you barely barely share 0.001 with your Hungarian buddies. Your haplogroup cousins are closer to you than 3rd cousins and above, let alone your countrymen. That’s only talking genetically let alone talking about ancestors, mutations and etc.
Autosomal warriors are funny. Ethnic nationalism is absolute nonsense.
Now I’m waiting for you to show me the evidence you are more related to a Hungarian neighbour then your cousins
So where's your proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
So why is it more popular than your haplo-nationalismQuote:
Ethnic nationalism is absolute nonsense.
My haplo-cousins are not closer to me than my 3rd cousins, that's something you made up because it ifts into your y-dna propaganda.
You're stupid for focusing on that 2%. Why are you ignoring the remaining 98%?
The remaining 98% is similar? Are you serious???????? Even your mother is only 50% similar to you so a random I1 Swede is more related to a R1b Swede than his mother? I’ve read many silly things here but I think this tops it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
You share only 12% with a first cousin and 0.7% with a third cousin.
Today I learned that a Swedish I1 is more related to a Swedish R1b than his own mom. Very fascinating.
Haplo-cousins? They’re your cousins and with more impactQuote:
Originally Posted by Universe
What is the remaining 98%? You tell me. You share 50% of that with your parents, siblings and 12.5% with your first cousin. I really am curious where you think that the 98% means a Swedish neighbor??
I ordered during Black Friday 4 y haplogroup tests. For all my future boyfriends who will come along. And ofc some male friends
Is R1b unacceptable to you :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarzyna
It’s not unacceptable. But more of I’m kinda put off by the idea that most Europeans were fathered by only a handful steppe men. I’m sure that they feel the biggest ego boost now- that their bloodlines are still alive (I believe in life after death). And I just don’t want to give them that satisfaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopi
But then again. If I really love a guy I can definitively deal with his R1b. But not with haplogroup N. Under no circumstances would I date someone who is N. No offence, it’s just not my thing.
Where do you get that by sharing a haplogroup you are already 2% similar to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
I only share 0.9% of my closest non-family relationship, I can see it in the DNA matches of commercial companies. Most are 0.5% or below.
I also share 7.7% with my father's first cousin and she is by far the one with whom I share the most DNA.
People tend to share more DNA with people who come from the same ethnic/racial background than with people who come from different background. That's why they tend look more similar to each other than to people from other backgrounds (similar looks are result of shared DNA). This is quite obvious when you compare Swedes to Nigerians and not so obvious when you compare Swedes to Germans because the genetic distance is lower in that case. It's ridiculous that you focus on that 2% but ignore the 98%. That I share less DNA with my 3rd cousins than with a black man who has the same HG as me, is just your personal idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
2002, different times: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/u...geography.html
Today we have commercial autosomal dna tests and calculators like gedmatch to measure genetic similarities between different groups, but you probably think that's fake or something. (You're way too fanatic). BTW the DNA responsible for looks is not the only DNA that we share with people who come from same ethnicity as us.Quote:
Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.
The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.
The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.
''What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from,'' said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.
The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.
The study, published today in Science, finds that ''self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry.'' In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.
Using self-reported ancestry ''is less expensive and less intrusive'' said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.
Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.
''Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said,'' Dr. Feldman said.
The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.
The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.
But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.
Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.
Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like ''population structure'' and ''self-reported population ancestry.''
But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.
''We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be,'' he said.
Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.
The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that ''race is a social construct'' and warned of the ''danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological.''
Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, ''there is no biological basis for race.'' The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.
But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.
''Sociologists don't have the competence to go there,'' he said.
Commercial DNA tests don’t include the Y chromosome when checking relatedness. It’s simple. Your Y chromosome represents 2% of your entire genome, people from the same haplogroup share around 90-100% of the full Y dna including its unique mutations & genetic material. In short you have the same 2% as someone else from your haplogroup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon2
If they included Y chromosome to check matches, everyone would have millions of match with second cousins.
Here are some articles that link haplogroup with cardiac diseases:
Haplogroup Linked to Higher Risk of Early Heart Attacks
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381015/
Haplogroup and it’s links to Heart Attack Susceptibility
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793196/
Yes that’s what they are Commercial. They are not used by professionals. The way they work is they compare your autosomal dna with samples they have to see which they look similar too and give you ethnicity based on that. That’s not how society worked back then with patrilineal tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
I’m not denying autosomal but it’s useless and is a fun science for people that want to know where they’re from in a simpler way. What do you think sells more, a percentage of what you are or random letters denoting your haplogroup? Of course people will want the fancy numbers to see where they’re from when it’s useless.
Yes they will tell you genetic similarities but that means nothing genetically. You still share around 1.9% to 2% with members of your haplogroup making you second cousins while sharing the same grandfather like a tribe or family, the modern concept of “race” is inaccurate and a fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
Is that 2% of the entire human genome? Or 2% of just what the commercial companies test for? Since most of the commercial companies like 23&me only test a fraction of the entire human genome.
Entire genome, because it's XY in the 23rd pair. So you get one X from each parent to form a pair of XX for each chr. but your 23rd chr. has XY, the Y coming from your father.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinshen
Commercial companies test for 600K SNPs or so, that's less than 1% of your total genome, you need a whole genome sequence to test the total.
Thank you for your answer, in that case the percentage of Y chromosome would add up to much more than 2% of what the commercial companies test factoring 600K SNPs instead of the 3 Billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by eupator
It’s not my personal idea but the facts. I think your problem is you don’t want to be associated with black people. Genetically me and the African-American man have the same grandfather, share 2% making us second cousins and thousands of mutations. You only need 2 mutations for blue eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
If we add the context as well that the haplogroup came from the steppes and immigrated to Europe as a tribe and were all patriarchal like Yamnayas, Bell Beakers or even Corded ware then there is your answer. The modern racial ethnicity you hold on to is meaningless and you need to look at it from a tribe/family perspective not modern ethnicities.
You can keep denying all you want
Hey it's not goatfucker land where people copulate with their cousins and siblings here. In the real world your direct ancestors are your parents and grandparents. Your parents accounts for 50+50, your grand parents for 25% each and so on as the tree grows down. Your first cousin could be half Chinese or Black or whatever for all we know. Your parents can't be that, or you would be proportionally too. Cousins are not in your line of ancestors, that's what really matters, let's remember that. Cousins are like the leaves on the sides, while your ancestors are the branch, and you are the tip of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
Sounds like obvious sauce but apparently it needs to be restated for the challenged minds around about every 3 years when we reset the Matrix on Apricity.
Now let's be serious for a minute and see what the reality is. There are a few reasons people in general get hung up on haplos:
1) First they are kind of cool, and unique. You get a special code for yourself, if you dig deeper you get many letters and numbers. Almost like a Terminator identification tag. Neat.
2) It's something you can easily associate with a group of people around the world, so more than others, but in general people will see that if you are R1 let's say, you have a good chance of being European since it's overwhelmingly the dominant lineage pretty much everywhere in Europe. Same for E or O, etc...and it's usually the first thing you can easily wrap your head around when you don't understand anything about genetic. It's as much ignorance as it is "laziness" and a feel good simplification in an otherwise very complex field. Unfortunately females can't partake since they don't have a Y and almost nobody cares about mt's. Sad face. That should already tell you how important it truely is at that point.
3) Advocating for the importance of the Y, makes it look like you are really badass because only men should count and in traditionnal folklore, the man's family is seen as the dominant one, which turns that way the moment he has a son. It used to be what Rethel was stuttering all day about, only the males count from the paternal side, everybody else ghosted.
4) People who will get an "interesting" haplo for their background is the vast majority of the time individually a draw of luck with just different odds, as pretty much all haplos and even most subclades exist in almost all the countries in Europe, will feel more special and different, at least than what your nationality suggest or what you appear to be. So you want it to matter and it's the easiest escape route from your background (Touijer probably thinks he's white cause he's R). In the same tune "Bro im ethnically Bulgarian but im U106, i must be of super NW descent", in some sort of weird self convincing manifestation, and likely even OWD (cause it never goes the other way around). Nobody parades his EV13 like it's a pride in these circles or it matters anymore, except in an attempt of forced self depreciating humor.
1 and 2 are fine, we ve all been there. 3 is scientifically and spiritually dumb but somewhat understandable in this day and age. 4th is really where the mental fuckery goes deep. Let's say you are from somewhere in the Balkans but your haplo is associated with a super fancy origin or ancient group of conquerors in chariots, masters of crops or spears... whatever you kink is. It doesn't detract from the fact most of what you are made of by your direct ancestors for thousands of years, will align with the haplogroups breakdown of the region you are from, since your beloved paternal lineage has been intertwined each generation with other people's background and haplos that leaded one step closer to you. If you were able to test all your tree leading to you, we would find a proportion regressing to the average of this area, many E as its the case in the Balkans for example. You are x,y,z but sorry most of your ancestors still have been molded by your local distribution of haplos and more relevantly their admixtures. Which is how genetic testing exists in the first place, the demonstrated assumption that people of the same country, and furthermore the same region are, on average, more related and closer ethnically to each others than other parts, regions and countries of the world.
Nevertheless it's very useful to track and make comprehensive assumptions about ancient population movements, genealogy and few cool stories, but for yourself and from an ethnic standpoint, which is what people are really interested in usually in these discusions (let's not kid ourselves), it's not that relevant im afraid.
That’s what I’m against. If you’re R you’re not automatically European or White. The term European and White is inaccurate genetically and means nothing. R is like a tribe itself. The history of the haplogroup is based on coming to Europe, being patriarchal and marrying local women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
The R1b tribes that came in Europe weren’t white (as if this means anything genetically), so why are we saying it’s a white haplogroup? They acted like a tribe and were patrilineal, people can’t grasp that modern nations is a joke
If you’re R, you’re not automatically European or white, but that’s only because European or white means nothing and genetically you are closed to other R’s then Europeans with other haplogroups.
The term European is similar to Canadian or American, means nothing genetically, same thing with whiteness.
European does mean something genetically, so cut that bullshit. There are ethnically European peoples just as there are ethnically Sub-Saharan African, East Asian or Polynesian ones. American is a nationality whereas there is no European nationality, it means being from the continent of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
Being European is akin to being African or Asian. These terms are used today and hold no significance. What do Europeans have in common genetically? It’s good talking but it’s better backing it with evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
I’m tired of repeating the same things over and over, this should be basic knowledge. What separates you from Americans that people consider as lacking knowledge thinking that Africa and Asia are actual unified countries?
You are obviously some kind of brown anti-white Muslim who holds a grudge against Europeans. I don't know if you're a sockpuppet of someone banned but I can see you through pretty clearly. So my advice for you would be to get the fuck out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
That’s some good sources you got here buddy, wonderful job. I can’t hold grudge for something that means nothing. I can’t grasp why some can’t stand the fact that haplogroups are useful. Is it because you’re insecure that it breaks the European wall you stand behind thus are afraid you’re not labeled as such? Weird behaviourQuote:
Originally Posted by Leto
I always said there’s no such thing as European being a united race. I will repeat it for the 100th time the haplogroup came from the steppes and immigrated to Europe as a tribe and were all patriarchal like Yamnayas, Bell Beakers and even Corded ware and had descendants so you need to remove the concept of ethnic-nationalism because it’s baseless
Asked you for sources and you come with a story from up your butt. I don’t care about your insecurities, bring sources or don’t talk.
Muslims are just retarded from 1000 years of inbreeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
I mean, academics uses qpadm, admixture and other tools to determine autosomal data? Autosomal/genetical groups do exists though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
Haplogroups are important however, passed from paternal ancestor to descendant for generations
To be fair, Asia is much more diverse than Europe is. So is Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
Europeans are rather a results of pastoralists into-europeans and local farmers with varying ancestry, if we dont go more than 5000 years back.
Asia is basically a big continent with several continents on its own. Africa has North Africa, horn Africa and rest of Africa, with latter being very diverse too.
I think Asia and Africa cant really be compared to Europe? It would be better to compare example South Asia with Europe instead, even though South Asia is more diverse than Europe is. But Europe is diverse on its own.
I dont want to give my opinion on whiteness and whatnot though
South Asia has the same haplogroups which is H for natives and the R1a invaders. Europe has 8. This tells everythingQuote:
Originally Posted by thisismyaccount
I didn’t see archeologists use autosomal to test Pharaohs like TutankhamenQuote:
Originally Posted by thisismyaccount
Because haplogroups dont change as much as autosomal do, but that probably wasnt their focus anyways. They probably used the data to show Tutankhamen was descendant of the Irish, even though he probably was 98%+ Egyptian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
These studies with haplogroups are either because their main focus is haplogroups which has a story on its own, or is just for the public to watch. The Tutankhamen article had westerners as its target focus. Normal with westerners being interested in anything with europe and sometimes Egypt or china. Specially when you link them with europe
You cant deny that academics dont go on autosomal data though. Example there are dna papers with autosomal data such as Central Asia or xiangjiang in china
There are L haplogroups, J, G, H, R1a, C. Forgot to mention the other ones tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_..._of_South_Asia
Their languages are more diverse as well.
South Asia is by the way a continent in itself. I only compared it to europe. By landmass it's smaller though.
But you cant say Europe is more diverse than South Asia is though. West asia is diverse too, probably even more diverse than both Europe and South Asia with Turkics, Arabs, assyrians, persians/kurds too. These are basically continents on their own
Paleogeneticists or Archaeogenetists, and not Archaeologists, used Ydna&mtdna because the necessary technology to correctly use autosomal data did not yet exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
First, blood groups from ancient/modern samples were used, then Ydna&mtdna and finally autosomal, which requires more advanced computing technology.
In any case, if there is any expert here, please correct me if I am wrong, but due to the dates of the studies and the type of data that are used in the timeline, this is what I have observed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Touijer
You got westerner R-L23 branch. Have you looked at it further downstream?