Why do Irish people look so different from Scandinavians if they're so close genetically?

[Septentrion]

I think populations have their unique looks. This is my opinion but I think someone like Colin Morgan has a unique Irish/Isles look that would be rare in Scandinavia even though it is still quite a Northern European look.

Colin Morgan, I would say «Isles» look more than Irish. It is a unique look attributed to that part of insular NW European populations.

[Septentrion]

Well I never said he is the typical Scandinavian, I just said that he's one of those people that are found almost exclusively in Nordic countries and Northern Germany/Netherlands that you will rarely see in Ireland.

You also exaggerated. These two blond - haired, blue - eyed women, I posted below are from Ireland and Sweden. They look almost like identical twins although are not related at all!
https://i-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.amppro...0287744943.jpg

So I think your agenda of separating Irish from other Northern Europeans should stop. The OP way before you, tried but was stopped. Irish are a Northern European people and they look Northern European. Their complexion tells it pretty well, apart from Britain, no other European can compete for paleness with the Irish.

[Grace O'Malley]

You also exaggerated. These two blond - haired, blue - eyed women, I posted below are from Ireland and Sweden. They look almost like identical twins although are not related at all!
https://i-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.amppro...0287744943.jpg

So I think your agenda of separating Irish from other Northern Europeans should stop. The OP way before you, tried but was stopped. Irish are a Northern European people and they look Northern European. Their complexion tells it pretty well, apart from Britain, no other European can compete for paleness with the Irish.

I don't think they have an agenda. All populations look a bit different especially the average look in a population which I think group pictures show quite well. I'm more interested in the genetics though and I'm sure more studies will come out in the future.

Of interest to me is after the Bronze Age what groups contributed to the Irish whether they be Celts, Normans or other groups? That's the type of genetic study I'd be very interested in.

[Septentrion]

With regards clustering this is what I mean. These are not done using amateur methods but by Ancestry and the Novembre study. You can see some groups are more separated but this isn't the case with populations like the Irish who do not form any cluster of their own.



This is the old Novembre plot. It is still used by a lot of geneticists. As you can see also the Irish do not form their own cluster which you would expect if a population is isolated. Look at the Iberians for example. Why is there separation there? These are the types of things you would have to be able to answer? Of course the Finns are quite distant from other populations including the Scandinavians.

You are right. Finns for example despite being fully as blonde - haired as Scandinavians, genetically are further away. Swedish people are genetically closer to the Irish and British than they are to Finns. The Irish are genetically closer to Norwegians than the Dutch or Germans as well despite being predominantly Celtic.
This genetic map adds to what you already have.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WDxSAjMZS...h_Euro_PCA.png

[Gota_type_]

The phenotypical differences between Irish people and Scandinavians are definetely pretty big given their genetic distance don't you think? Otherwise how do you explain the fact that the Dutch and Germans pass FAR better in Iceland/Western Norway than Irish people if the latter are much more closer to them genetically? What % of Irish people do you think can pass for typical in Denmark or Norway? Definetely no more than 50%.

Dont't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no overlap at all between Scandinavians and Irish people, I'm just simply saying that I do find it a bit strange that you rarely see Irish people looking like Dolph Lundgren or that Swedish athlete Carolina Klüft given their genetic distance.

The phenotypical differences only account less than ¿0.01%? of our genes, so it does not matter how close or far some populations are since if the genes accounting for phenotypes traits are different they will end looking quite different. For eye color there is like 80 SNP´s involved (already known), for hair color maybe the same, for skull geometry it would be many more but always a small %.

In Spain, you can find from the purest Nordid looking individuals to semitic types and they will get the same averages if they did a DNA test. Even in the same family you can find people that look totally different: a typical Med, a blond blue eyed, and an alpine looking. And they come from the same parents. I get the same averages as most Spaniards yet I look further north. These 2 are brothers:






They could not look more different. So, having mostly the same genetic vinculation (100% brothers) yet completely different looks. And their shared ancestry is like 1800cM probably. In genetic distances they will get 0.0000011.

[Septentrion]

I don't think they have an agenda. All populations look a bit different especially the average look in a population which I think group pictures show quite well. I'm more interested in the genetics though and I'm sure more studies will come out in the future.

Of interest to me is after the Bronze Age what groups contributed to the Irish whether they be Celts, Normans or other groups? That's the type of genetic study I'd be very interested in.

Yes, I do agree that all populations look different from each other in some way or the other. Even the Irish look different from the English or the Dutch look very different from Germans as well. However, people with «agendas» tend to say that the Dutch and Germans look the same or identical and in turn they look like Scandinavians. They do not! Germans are much more diverse than the Dutch to begin with, let alone Scandinavians. The fact that quite a few of my Dutch fellows are blonde - haired especially in childhood, doesn’t make them looking like Scandinavians. There could an Englishman with dark hair who looks more Danish or has «Scandinavian» features more than a blond - haired German.
Now concerning the Isles, apart from the Bronze Age people who replaced over 90% of the existing populations at the time. The second group to have had such an impact are the Anglo - Saxons who originated in Denmark with their strongest genetic influence in eastern, central and southern England. Others such as Vikings left their influence in parts of the Isles. Romans and Normans influence are not that significant or of a little importance, genetically that is.

[Septentrion]

For istance Frisians people are around 65% blond to light brown haired.

Norwegian women scored 83% light - haired ( red + blonde + light brown ). Norway is Scandinavia’s blondest nation.

[Hialt]

Oh you mean those Punch illustrations that were meant to disparage the Irish? You really think the Irish looked like that?

Irish genetics have been quite well looked at. No idea where you're getting a North African connection. Care to elaborate on that?

They were insensitive caricatures, though I suppose the author of the jokes might have been alluding to something rather different about the Irish, on a phenotypical level. I've thought many of the Irish to have a certain "chimerical" elfish look, in general. Or the Keltic people, in other words, that is.

On the Africa connection, I recall reading that in ancient history, when the very first humans set foot in Ireland, they were of an ocean "coastline," shared with Africa, within which a boating culture had developed ("Sea Peoples"). I would assume that this North African "people" had next to zero Sub-Saharan genetic influence.

[Septentrion]

They were insensitive caricatures, though I suppose the author of the jokes might have been alluding to something rather different about the Irish, on a phenotypical level. I've thought many of the Irish to have a certain "chimerical" elfish look, in general. Or the Keltic people, in other words, that is.

On the Africa connection, I recall reading that in ancient history, when the very first humans set foot in Ireland, they were of an ocean "coastline," shared with Africa, within which a boating culture had developed ("Sea Peoples"). I would assume that this North African "people" had next to zero Sub-Saharan genetic influence.

Ha! Ha! Ha! You are hilarious! Really? If the Irish are Northern Africans, that all of us Northern Africans, right? Ireland is an island in NW Europe, just so you know.
It sounds so ridiculous!

[Septentrion]

Why do chimpanzees look so different from humans if they're so close genetically?

Yankee! What is wrong with you? What would you come up with a stupid statement like that? Stop eating hamburgers, start thinking before you write!