0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 295 Given: 132 |
I somehow forgot about a certain request so here it is, Ms. Fresa Salvaje.
![]()
Last edited by Rochefaton; 07-10-2011 at 08:01 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 295 Given: 132 |
If you click here you will find the spreadsheet that acts as a RMSD calculator for this latest run of the Eurogenes project. It is pretty self explanatory once you look at it and pretty easy to use. All you have to do is place your values into the designated cells and your chart will be produced at the bottom along with your numerical distances from each population. You will need Open Office to use this.
Let's see those charts, people.![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 19,728 Given: 5,851 |
cheers! got it working
![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 295 Given: 132 |
While Graham's results look to be what one would expect from a Brit, Impervim, your chart is not, bro. You're lack of North Atlantic and relatively high West Euro on this run seems to seperate you from the pack. Your closest matches are the Netherlands and then France.
![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 32 Given: 0 |
All hail AlabamaMan!
Keltic? Germans on the graph look closer to me than the Irish no? A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.
I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison?![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 295 Given: 132 |
I meant British, my mistake! I was posting that @ 2:30 AM, bro. Give me a break.
Polako used samples from S.W. Scotland, Cornwall, Kent, and the usual UK participants in this run. My calculations did not seperate them into distinct clusters. What you are seeing in your results is that you are most similar to the folks from Kent followed by the average Brit that has joined the Eurogenes Project.A measure in between the Scottish and Cornish bars, the Netherlands and Denmark don't seem to be all that distant either, suggestive of Kelto-Germanic blend methinks, would make sense with the UK and "Kent" being closest to myself.
I'm curious how Kent was able to be separated from the UK category? Maybe some day a sub-regional England genetic comparison?![]()
Last edited by Rochefaton; 07-10-2011 at 02:23 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 364 Given: 0 |
Of course, but how does that relate to the issue in question?
As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.
I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.
The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here. They being shared to a greater extend with extra-European Europids than dark blue, but are nevertheless a constitutive part of the European genetic and racial make up, only the proportions vary somewhat geographically.
We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.What pre-Semitic people ? What makes you believes the populations have changed in the now semitic areas ? Sounds to me like a fairy tale.
There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.
In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.
Just read up the anthropological and historical facts of the Near East.
We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?Sorry, that's all fantasy. There is no reason to believe that Ancient West-Asians where a different population than now.
If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?
There are many sources, but here is one available online:
http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergil...1049/12664.pdf
Some quotations:
Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.Hacılar: This is the earliest-known agricultural settlement in Anatolia.
It is located 25 km west of Burdur. The skulls of the Eurafrican and
Proto-Mediterranean types of the Mediterranean race were found here at
a level dated to approximately the first half of the seventh millennium and
the skeletons of the same types, though in limited numbers, came from a
level dated ca. 5400-5050/5000 B.C. (Mellaart, 1975).
Çatal Höyük: This, the largest known Neolithic site in the Near-
East, is located 11 km north of Çumra in Konya. 81 percent of the 268 skeletons found here belong to a period between ca 6200 and 5830 B.C. 59
percent of these skeletal remains represent the Eurafrican type and 17
percent of them are of the Proto-Mediterranean type, while 24 percent
represent that of the Alpine (Mellaart, 1975; Angel, 1971).
And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.
You find similar variants up to the North in the LBK-group, with a fluent border over time and space even to the Nordoids (process of Nordisation).
Also, the European Neolithic culture bearers were closest to the Çatal Höyük and similar variants, not other Neolithic groups of the Near East.
So the main genflow happened from certain parts of the Neolithic World in the Near East, not undifferentiated and by bringing all elements into Europe (!), with selective processes and local mixture further shaping what came onto the continent.
Right, there are however studies done on surrounding populations...That's because we don't have in-between populations to fill the gaps, that's why they seem to look isolated. If we were to include surrounding areas we would see a continuum.
Basques or Basque like individuals were included though, as the Spaniard and French samples prove, just look at my graphics.Btw, basques and Sardinians were NOT used in this run. They were included AFTER the run, which means after the components were already settled based on the populations included. And you cannot talk of the mediterranean component as isolated, since it peaks in North-Italians and Spaniards. Once the sardinians were inlcuded after the initial run, they showed the highest frequency.
Also, I don't question Sardinians being largely unaltered Mediterraneans, what I questioned is when did this component come to the island and from where?
Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.
Look here:
Compare with the Mediterranean component in Dodecad 12-K:
Look at the Levantine samples!
And look at the distribution in Europe!
How can you be sure, that it wasn't spread that way, while the WA and related Western European was spread ON LAND and BOTH during the Neolithic period?!
How can you know that?
That would also explain, why some Mediterranean people have virtually nothing West Asian, even little Western European (Dod run), because they were part of the other route.
I highly doubt however, that the Sardinians were unchanged since Mesolithic times, that is very unrealistic. But it seems the biggest change they made in time, was with the Neolithic colonisation and Cardium Pottery culture, after that, not much.
Actually it would fit perfectly, if being true and not just fantasy of mine
The biggest impact further North West might have been transformed and included into the West European component - in which there were other influences too however, probably from the Southern route (Med) and pre-Neolithic (East), which is the reason, why it is so close to WA, but essentially "close to all".
I wouldn't wonder, honestly, if the WA you see in certain runs, especially if reaching the lower levels, is actually past the initial Neolithic expansions, probably even Metal Age - or just what stood behind and wasn't transformed.
Me neither.
They are somewht borderline though and one has to distinguish between ancient and modern populations.
I mean the ancient population of Central Asia is different from the modern one too - for example.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,980 Given: 1,062 |
How not ? The behar et al. shows clearly a dark-blue European component, since it's highest frequencies is found in Europeans (except Cyprus which is genetically closer to levantines).
Actually the equivalent of the West-Asian in the Behar would be the light-green, as you can see it also peaks in Georgians and Middle-easterns.As you can see in this run, there are relatively clear borders, what is West Asian in Dodecad is not clear at all.
Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).I just see that the shades of red and yellow are foreign, dark green largely so as extra-European Europid.
They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component.The other components are all quite European, like dark blue, light blue and green here.
What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??We have the remains, we have the ancient depictions, we have the genetic comparisons and we have history.
There were the Sumerians, various Indo-Europeans and of course Caucasian and related people.
In many of those areas Semitic influences were significant and virtually low to non-existent before.
Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.We have the remains, we have the archaeology, we have the typological comparisons to this day, what are you saying?
If they were pred. long headed Mediterranoids then, but are now short headed Armenoids, what do you need?
This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.Eurafrican ~ robust Mediterranoids.
And so on. What you find are primarily Mediterranoids, some Alpinoids.
Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ?? Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.Interestingly, there were two Neolithic routes into Europe, one coming over land, probably related to Proto-Proto-Indo-Europeans even, going from the South East along the open lands and rivers, forming the LBK-group and the other jumping around the Mediterranean, expanding by sea, forming the Cardium Pottery group.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 32 Given: 0 |
Finally got Open Office downloaded and installed, these are the numbers to go with the graph for my ID:
1. Kent 3.13
2. UK 3.62
3. Cornwall 5.15
4. Germany 5.46
5. Scotland 5.66
Though on the graph Scotland and Denmark are close Scotland is the more close of the two and thus took the #5 spot kicking Denmark out of the top 5.
What I found interesting about these results is they mirror some recent revelations in my traditional genealogy work, previously I had grossly over estimated the number of Northern English ancestors as I assumed all Appalachians had to be either Northern English, Borders, or Scots-Irish folks, however the parts of Appalachia that go into Eastern Middle Tennessee via the Cumberland Plateau are less harsh and more fertile than the Blue Ridge for comparison and thus was more suitable for plantation lifestyle that frequented Eastern Virginia and Eastern North Carolina and as such attracted settlers from those parts who were of a strong Southeastern English stock, despite my lineage being Northern from Yorkshire most of the other families in the genealogy are from the Southeast and had rather wealthy properties in Eastern Middle Tennessee, nothing compared to the disgusting wealth of some South Carolinians but wealthy enough to set them apart from someone from the Blue Ridge. This is not to neglect great grandma who's half East Anglian half Hampshirite or however a person from Hampshire would be called, Kent a Southeastern region would be a naturally close match to someone with recent East Anglian ancestry as East Anglia is also Southeastern or so I would think.
Last edited by Barreldriver; 07-10-2011 at 03:57 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 364 Given: 0 |
The only Europeans which don't have it are non-Indo-Europeans btw.
I never said dark green is European...Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).
.They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component
Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?
Let's count them - oh its none!
Not all are that different, but many are in particular those shown as deviating form European phenotypes more strongly, for example Turkish people with foreign/new influences:What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...anatolian.html
The Western Turkish people without strong foreign/Eastern admixture are phenotypically often rather European too...
And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.
So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!
Here is a newer study for example:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...06747.g003.png
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08...ture-into.htmlMoreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.
Genetic perspective is on-line with what physical anthropologists SINCE GENERATIONS already knew, if being more competent in their field.
I'm just waiting for the first data from Kurgan groups remains and that of Anatolian-South Eastern European Neolithics...
Nonsense. The intepretation in detail varies, but how can it vary if comparing Mediterranoids with Armenoids?This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.
You don't even need to measure to see the difference, what you say is ridiculous.
Do you think all the generations of anthropologists were not capable of measuring the skull? Even if they would have measured wrong, some militers, in the larger samples this doesn't change the whole result.
You are in denial...
To begin with, West Asian is much stronger in Europe than the other components, to go on, it also depends on the runs, because the same names might not mean the same thing in any case.Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ??
But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.
Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.
Well, I'm not even 100 percent sure all of WA entered Europe in early Neolithic times, SWA even less sure - it seems most likely by now, but it might have entered later (Late Neolithic to Metal Ages) too.Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.
That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.
There are only older and younger, more or less related, more or less European components, if they being distributed so evenly in most European populations.
Also, the Fst distance is crucial:
If you make West European "the golden standard", which is reasonable, you get see who's closer...
Below 0,1 is Europid one could say for example.
Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks