0

| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 32/0 Given: 0/0 |



| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2/0 Given: 0/0 |
North + Central European 35%
North East Eurasian = 0%
South + West European (Basque/Sardinian) = 27%
North Atlantic 35%
Sub-Saharan = 0%
Baltic = 3%
I think this is more realistic, although I' still quite surprised by the Baltic score. Karl said that it's probably linked to the Scandinavians having Baltic admixture. It seems very feasible, really.


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 1,538/309 Given: 1,428/181 |



| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2/0 Given: 0/0 |
I think I need something explained to me. That is, why when current geneticists say three-quarters of the population of the British Isles directly descends from the Basques and has little admixture from the migrations/invasions of different stock why do I, and other Britons score 20-50% North Central European?
I for instance score 35% North + Central European.
![]()



| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2/0 Given: 0/0 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 1,538/309 Given: 1,428/181 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 1,538/309 Given: 1,428/181 |



| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 295/1 Given: 132/0 |
Because they are/were of the old belief that Y-DNA R1b = paleolithic Basque-like Europeans. I haven't heard someone claim what you stated in years. That used to be the accepted theory around 2006. A lot of studies have came out since then and the popular opinion has changed.
If looking at autosomal results, it is easy to see that the notion of the Brits being 75% paleolithic and similar to the Basques is absurd.



| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2/0 Given: 0/0 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 12/1 Given: 2/0 |
Whoops, last night's analysis was a flop. I ran the whole thing on the wrong markers by mistake. I'll re-run everything tonight. Apologies.
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)
Bookmarks