Eurogenes Biogeographic Ancestry Project

[Pallantides]

NAZI voodoo magic.

:icon_cheesygrin:

[Loki]

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.

The sample sizes are obviously a problem at this stage. This should improve as time goes by, but already we can see patterns emerging that seem to make sense from a historical point of view. Not perfect yet, but amazingly insightful - even at this early stage.

[Frederick]

If samplesizes are large enough to allow it, one could analyse the results for the gaussian norm.

(rough version: In any natural number series are 1/3 who are outside the norm and 2/3 who represent the norm.

So, theoretically, a sample size of 12 should contain 4 freaks and the other 8 beeing inside of the norm fluctuation range.

Its often claimed, results that do not follow a gaussian norm bell, cant be right or are man made. (checking the size of Yeti feet and all that ha ha)

[Sikeliot]

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.

But when you get enough people and start to see trends, you can begin to see beyond reasonable doubt that a real discovery has been made.

[Agrippa]

lets not fill this thread with off topic stuff.

This is about Eurogenes admixture analysis of aDNA and not NAZI voodoo magic.

First of all, like Polako said and corrected us, aDNA is not the correct term for autosomal DNA but ancient DNA.

Secondly typology has nothing to do with "Nazi" per se and obviously phenotypes are of great importance and it is interesting to compare genetic results with the phenotypical variation, because after all, like I said before, what really matters are phenotypical traits and especially qualities, the rest is scientific-genealogical playgrounds.

Thirdly, I don't know what's up with you, as you can see and I have proven, if you rely blindly on results of a program, results you can't even prove by yourself, you are the last to talk about scientific purity and truth.

You are just mad at me, because you were so deeply into the speculation of what this components might be, when there was in reality a methodological problem.

Also, phenotypical studies and racial studies are not voodoo but science too, you can only question something specific, but hardly if I say something which was proven by anthropometric or other phenotypical studies.

Calm down and don't piss me off with your lowest level comments.

What you are doing is actually trolling, because I didn't introduce Coon's map here to explain the random distribution of the related components. Now you are done with it, you want me to shut up, when I just explain the misinterpretation of the maps made?

Bad behaviour of yours, nothing else.

I for one am none too trusting of these recent amateur (and professional) genetic studies which seem to claim that a dozen or two dozen often self-reporting individuals truly represent populations running into millions of people.

The point is, the results make perfect sense for the populations in question, if you put in the latest run Northern + North Atlantic and Western + Southern together.

Then you see a clear gradient from Northern Europe to Southern Europe, with the additional third Baltic/North Eastern component.

The deviations inside of the samples are, if you sum those related components up and reduce everything to 3, in the range of what should be expected.

If you count the related components on their own, everything is spoiled. There is virtually no population in which it isn't random, with the exception of some individuals which seem to make up a component of their own, like the Basques for Western.

Actually it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that especially populations like the Swedes and Norwegians, but also the others, vary THAT MUCH, in the sense of one individual having 70 percent of A and zero of B, another component common in the population and again another individual has 70 percent of B and zero of A.

That is, to say it blunt, absurd, especially for smaller and rather homogeneous populations.

If it happens in more than one individual, it's against the experience of population genetics, one has always to question the method first!

That's a golden rule.

I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.

One has to combine both approaches, but right not genetics is just making baby steps to say it that way and unless you have concrete genetic variants for concrete genetic traits, it is largely pointless if you want to grasp the variation of phenotypes, but can only help to understand how phenotypes came up - f.e. through mixture/genflow.

[Loki]

The point is, the results make perfect sense for the populations in question, if you put in the latest run Northern + North Atlantic and Western + Southern together.

But you do believe that a Northern east-west split could be achieved? There has to be some difference between a Swede and an Irishman somewhere. We know it.

[Agrippa]

But you do believe that a Northern east-west split could be achieved? There has to be some difference between a Swede and an Irishman somewhere. We know it.

Yes, but my guess is, like for the Southern-Western, that a specific component which is more regional but dominant, spoiled all the results and led to a distortion.

I don't know if something went wrong with the program, or one would have to exclude the individuals which caused it, but obviously these very strong components of specific individuals are not suitable for differentiating the rest of the sample.

It really seems to me as if the program didn't knew what to do and therefore put some individuals completely in one category, which is in no way representative.

You just have to look at the results, a natural population can't have such, especially not if there was a longer term genflow which surely was present, because there can't have been the same isolates EVERYWHERE with some Italians having just Southern, some just Western, some just Northern, some just North Atlantic - same for Swedes, Norwegians etc.

Its not that such a component can't be found, I guess, but in this run something went wrong, that's it.

[Loki]

Off-topic discussion of phenotype vs genotype moved here.

[Turkophagos]

Spaniards don't like this analysis because it gives them 1% nig.

[Agrippa]

Spaniards don't like this analysis because it gives them 1% nig.

If you sum it up, it is one percent in the Dodecad analysis too, so this seems to be a constant:

Behar study in Dodecad Neo-African 0,4, East African 0,4 and Palaeo-African 0,2 - in the Dodecad participants the same, just Paleo-African down to 0,1.

But that's really unimportant, one percent is close to nothing, unless selection would have been involved to promote certain traits, like in some Uralic variants like Lappid and Eastbaltid for the Mongolid inspired context, which is not likely nor visible.