Printable View
On several GedMatch tests, DNA.land and WeGene I score about 1.5% Oceanian/Australoid. How can I figure out if it's noise or not? I'm waiting for my AncestryDNA results. I'd be curious to see if I score pacific islander or I still get similar negrito results on the other calculators. If it does show up on AncestryDNA, where could it come from? Does Latin America have any recent negrito immigration?
http://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/MS0d8b1.jpg
Above 0.3% can't be noise.
If it is coming up consistently, even at such small amounts, it's probably real. I have South East Asian, in very small amounts, which show up just about on every calculator.
there was something litvin had posted on south america and negrito groups i think
I've heard that theory. They just don't seem to consistently score it. I would be interested in getting gedmatch kits for indomestizos or Indios. Especially from Ecuador or Peru.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo
I think that I also mentioned German expeditions to Negrito lands in the 1700s. :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo
https://media.giphy.com/media/9FKYzA9O7l0Os/giphy.gif
Negritos have more progressive features than alpignid veddoid-leaning germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
I see a lot of Europeans get Indian, south asian etc. Calculators made by armchair scientists.
Honestly, 1.5% is a lot actually. It can't be "noise".
Which Europeans? Mostly colonials, which is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceT
I agree it's a lot to be noise. But it ultimately doesn't affect my phenotype. It would be interesting to see if it uncovers any Philippino or Roma ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
At least not if you get it consistently in 23andMe, DNA Land, GEDmatch and Ancestry DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Some GEDmatch kits of people who seem to be unmixed Amerindians:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDaisy
M174237
M192137
M637791
M051413
M283662
M221108 - Mayan
Swede:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
British:Quote:
Originally Posted by Berahthraban
British:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson
Population Percent
1 Neolithic 28.13
2 NorthEastEuropean 27.12
3 Steppe 23.3
4 Caucasian 18.24
5 Amerindian 1.16
6 NorthAfrican 0.93
7 Indian 0.68
8 Australian 0.28
9 NearEast 0.15
Me:
Population Percent
1 Caucasian 34.42
2 Neolithic 31.47
3 NorthEastEuropean 15.86
4 Steppe 15.12
5 NearEast 2.12
6 NorthAfrican 0.39
7 Siberian 0.25
8 Arctic 0.18
9 Oceanic 0.15
10 Australian 0.03
11 SouthEastAsian 0.02
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...results!/page6
Brethrabian and most of these are not colonial. Brethrabian is a ethnic Swede.
I can show you more examples. From French to Irish in other calcs. A lot get some south asian. The ones who dont, usually get more near east or natufian and other components.
No, too small to affect phenotype visibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDaisy
I see. But it's probably real then. My point is that such results would be a minority among non-colonials, not the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceT
The oldest Europeans - such Oase-1 from Romania - also scored Indian-like admixtures:Quote:
Originally Posted by IceT
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4221524
That population generally got extinct, but maybe contributed a bit to modern Europeans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peștera_cu_Oase#Oase_1
Quote:
the Oase 1 specimen likely did not factor significantly into the gene pool of later humans in Europe since he does not share a greater proportion of alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians.[6]
The first kit you posted scored about 2% Indian, but no Australian. Me and my dad both scored no Indian, but about 1.5% Australian. He scored 1.25%, while I scored 1.88%Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Yeah, it is ancientQuote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Not recent.its not to be taken as recent ancestry. Some calcs give me some south asian while others dont. Even you get some ive seen. It makes sense that its ancient.
The.Villager, an armchairchair scientist claims it is recent ancestry from gypsies. He's mad about scoring 7% Egyptian on Dna Land where I get 100% Balkan. Gypsies there score Dravidian. And most likely some even Egyptian.
I didn't choose the results to be so.
Every Albanian and most Euros score some near east, south west asian, anatolian etc. Some score high natufian, those who dont get some indian, south asian etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I suggested that your Oceanian admixture could be present in the Americas already in prehistoric times, or something more recent from Pre-Columbian contacts between Polynesia and America. But it could be something Post-Columbian as well. There are several possible scenarios how you could get that admixture.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDaisy
=====================
There was most likely both Pre- and Post-Columbian gene flow between Polynesia and America:
"Sweet potato DNA indicates early Polynesians traveled to South America":
https://phys.org/news/2013-01-sweet-...lynesians.html
"Polynesians reached South America, picked up sweet potatoes, went home":
https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...oes-went-home/
There was also Amerindian admixture among the Polynesians of Easter Island:
"The Polynesian gene pool: an early contribution by Amerindians to Easter Island":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267125/
But also Polynesian slaves were transported to South America in the 1800s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding
Hard to say if these guys came on their own, or were transported as slaves:
"Two ancient human genomes reveal Polynesian ancestry among the indigenous Botocudos of Brazil":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4370112/
"DNA study links indigenous Brazilians to Polynesians":
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-study...esians-1.12710
There is something about those Botocudos also on this website:
https://dna-explained.com/category/native-american/
Probably prehistoric (?) Negrito-like admixture in some Amazonian tribes:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...f_the_Americas
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ology-science/
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full
Quote:
[B]Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirion%C3%B3
Siriono = Hunter-Gatherer Indians form Bolivia
https://s2.postimg.org/rix8o9lg9/siriono.jpg
AncestryDNA is not that good reading native and stuff. In 23andme I scored 1% native american and Ancestry DNA didnt read it at all.
It's actually not necessarily a minority. Polish example :Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4252389
^ gets 1% south Asian. I didn't get any on this. A lot of Europeans get it.
good finding mateQuote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
I seem to get Oceanian/Negrito in a lot of calculators to.
K13 Oracle
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 54.03
2 Baltic 25.25
3 West_Med 9.71
4 West_Asian 8.06
5 Oceanian 1.26
Dodecad World 9
Admix Results (sorted):
Population
Amerindian 0.96
East_Asian -
African -
Atlantic_Baltic 74.68
Australasian 0.97
Siberian 0.32
Caucasus_Gedrosia 12.06
Southern 10.99
South_Asian -
Eurasia K10 CHG-NAF Oracle
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 WHG 40.83
2 CHG 19.79
3 EHG 17.63
4 Anatolian_Farmers 17.46
5 SW_Asian 2.31
6 Papuan 1.06
it's real and it shows on you. shrug::gossip::patpat:
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z4lto3.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDaisy
Yep, it was mine. In few calcs I score even higher South Asian /ASI but if it isn't a noise, it is connected to North India / Pakistan / Pathan.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceT
Because in those calcs where are South Indian (Dravidian) / Oceanian / Melanesian components I scored close to zero. So sadly I'm not Angry Negrito;/
My most exotic top matches ever:)
Gedrosia K15 (but this calc is suited for non-Euros)
1 92.3% Czech + 7.7% Pathan @ 1.96
2 91.5% Czech + 8.5% Pashtun_Afghan @ 1.97
3 90.5% Czech + 9.5% Tajik @ 1.97
According to this thread http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Angry-Negrito
in Gedrosia K6 I have only:
Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.62