Actual Importance of Haplogroups

[Touijer]

You are obviously some kind of brown anti-white Muslim who holds a grudge against Europeans. I don't know if you're a sockpuppet of someone banned but I can see you through pretty clearly. So my advice for you would be to get the fuck out!

That’s some good sources you got here buddy, wonderful job. I can’t hold grudge for something that means nothing. I can’t grasp why some can’t stand the fact that haplogroups are useful. Is it because you’re insecure that it breaks the European wall you stand behind thus are afraid you’re not labeled as such? Weird behaviour

I always said there’s no such thing as European being a united race. I will repeat it for the 100th time the haplogroup came from the steppes and immigrated to Europe as a tribe and were all patriarchal like Yamnayas, Bell Beakers and even Corded ware and had descendants so you need to remove the concept of ethnic-nationalism because it’s baseless

Asked you for sources and you come with a story from up your butt. I don’t care about your insecurities, bring sources or don’t talk.

[Smeagol]

You are obviously some kind of brown anti-white Muslim who holds a grudge against Europeans. I don't know if you're a sockpuppet of someone banned but I can see you through pretty clearly. So my advice for you would be to get the fuck out!

Muslims are just retarded from 1000 years of inbreeding.

[thisismyaccount]

Yes that’s what they are Commercial. They are not used by professionals. The way they work is they compare your autosomal dna with samples they have to see which they look similar too and give you ethnicity based on that. That’s not how society worked back then with patrilineal tribes.

I’m not denying autosomal but it’s useless and is a fun science for people that want to know where they’re from in a simpler way. What do you think sells more, a percentage of what you are or random letters denoting your haplogroup? Of course people will want the fancy numbers to see where they’re from when it’s useless.

Yes they will tell you genetic similarities but that means nothing genetically. You still share around 1.9% to 2% with members of your haplogroup making you second cousins while sharing the same grandfather like a tribe or family, the modern concept of “race” is inaccurate and a fallacy.

I mean, academics uses qpadm, admixture and other tools to determine autosomal data? Autosomal/genetical groups do exists though.

Haplogroups are important however, passed from paternal ancestor to descendant for generations

[thisismyaccount]

Being European is akin to being African or Asian. These terms are used today and hold no significance. What do Europeans have in common genetically? It’s good talking but it’s better backing it with evidence.

I’m tired of repeating the same things over and over, this should be basic knowledge. What separates you from Americans that people consider as lacking knowledge thinking that Africa and Asia are actual unified countries?

To be fair, Asia is much more diverse than Europe is. So is Africa.

Europeans are rather a results of pastoralists into-europeans and local farmers with varying ancestry, if we dont go more than 5000 years back.

Asia is basically a big continent with several continents on its own. Africa has North Africa, horn Africa and rest of Africa, with latter being very diverse too.

I think Asia and Africa cant really be compared to Europe? It would be better to compare example South Asia with Europe instead, even though South Asia is more diverse than Europe is. But Europe is diverse on its own.


I dont want to give my opinion on whiteness and whatnot though

[Touijer]

To be fair, Asia is much more diverse than Europe is. So is Africa.

Europeans are rather a results of pastoralists into-europeans and local farmers with varying ancestry, if we dont go more than 5000 years back.

Asia is basically a big continent with several continents on its own. Africa has North Africa, horn Africa and rest of Africa, with latter being very diverse too.

I think Asia and Africa cant really be compared to Europe? It would be better to compare example South Asia with Europe instead, even though South Asia is more diverse than Europe is. But Europe is diverse on its own.


I dont want to give my opinion on whiteness and whatnot though

South Asia has the same haplogroups which is H for natives and the R1a invaders. Europe has 8. This tells everything

[Touijer]

I mean, academics uses qpadm, admixture and other tools to determine autosomal data? Autosomal/genetical groups do exists though.

Haplogroups are important however, passed from paternal ancestor to descendant for generations

I didn’t see archeologists use autosomal to test Pharaohs like Tutankhamen

[thisismyaccount]

I didn’t see archeologists use autosomal to test Pharaohs like Tutankhamen

Because haplogroups dont change as much as autosomal do, but that probably wasnt their focus anyways. They probably used the data to show Tutankhamen was descendant of the Irish, even though he probably was 98%+ Egyptian.

These studies with haplogroups are either because their main focus is haplogroups which has a story on its own, or is just for the public to watch. The Tutankhamen article had westerners as its target focus. Normal with westerners being interested in anything with europe and sometimes Egypt or china. Specially when you link them with europe

You cant deny that academics dont go on autosomal data though. Example there are dna papers with autosomal data such as Central Asia or xiangjiang in china

[thisismyaccount]

South Asia has the same haplogroups which is H for natives and the R1a invaders. Europe has 8. This tells everything

There are L haplogroups, J, G, H, R1a, C. Forgot to mention the other ones too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_..._of_South_Asia


Their languages are more diverse as well.

South Asia is by the way a continent in itself. I only compared it to europe. By landmass it's smaller though.

But you cant say Europe is more diverse than South Asia is though. West asia is diverse too, probably even more diverse than both Europe and South Asia with Turkics, Arabs, assyrians, persians/kurds too. These are basically continents on their own

[gixajo]

I didn’t see archeologists use autosomal to test Pharaohs like Tutankhamen

Paleogeneticists or Archaeogenetists, and not Archaeologists, used Ydna&mtdna because the necessary technology to correctly use autosomal data did not yet exist.

First, blood groups from ancient/modern samples were used, then Ydna&mtdna and finally autosomal, which requires more advanced computing technology.

In any case, if there is any expert here, please correct me if I am wrong, but due to the dates of the studies and the type of data that are used in the timeline, this is what I have observed.

[kingmob]

That’s some good sources you got here buddy, wonderful job. I can’t hold grudge for something that means nothing. I can’t grasp why some can’t stand the fact that haplogroups are useful. Is it because you’re insecure that it breaks the European wall you stand behind thus are afraid you’re not labeled as such? Weird behaviour

You got westerner R-L23 branch. Have you looked at it further downstream?