|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
Med vs N. Africa = 0.067 (0.001 closer)
W. Asia vs N. Africa = 0.068 (0.001 far)
Med vs E. Africa = 0.117 (0.006 far)
W. Asia vs E. Africa = 0.111 (0.006 closer)
North/East Africa (everywhere in North Africa) = West Asian is 0.005 closer
No need to put a Word about Southwest Asian.
North and East Africans are different folks.
Just face it that the Medittearean are very close to NORTH Africans, and they even share the same DNA with each other. There's Southwest European DNA in North Africa and there's North African DNA in Southwest Europe!
Why can't you just accept that!
As you can see on this map SothWest Europe HAS African admixture, while West Asia don't have any African admixture.
And please don't start with genetic distances again, because many Europeans are actually West Asian. I mean many Europeans with West Asian roots (R, G & IJ) migrated out of Africa at the same time as the current West Asians did...
You are the only ignorant here who hasn't read the full post to understand why I put this together. Check carefully to get in discussion if you want, because I'll only repeat this one time: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...0/F2.large.jpg
We were talking about to include E-M78 as Mediterranean, for this reason it was relevant to talk about East Africans, since as you can see the distribution includes East Africa. Also Egypt has 12.5% East African, with one of the individuals scoring more than 20%. So yes, IT'S SIGNIFICANT ACCORDING TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE YOUR INTROMISSION.
Got it guy?
An having little admixture does not make Spaniards closer, since Gerogians have a huge amont of West Asian and almost absent Northern European. Not the case of Spaniards, so stop with the nonsense, impossible they are closer than Georgians and similars.
But not genetically closer, that's the fact you don't seem to understand. West Asians are much more intermediate population, like it or not. At least, I hope you got the reason why I used the other figures, since I see in the second issue it's impossible we agree with your behaviour.
One thing is deny facts, and another one put in order the exagerations about the African ancestry.Spaniards are more than 90% European, and Portuguese are quite near of this (86% aprox). How do you pretend there can be a significant genome similarity with such figures between African and Iberian populations?
Quote one post where this has been hide as you say. Come on, I'm wainting.
I don't have anything against you personal. But according to me racial 'purists' are just ridiculous & pathetic folks!
Why? I don't get. And I don't like that!
We haven't deny it man, please read the thread. Being honest, I'm really tired discussing the same things all days with you.
Most African ancestry in Iberia looks quite old as has been pointed in the post, and does not represent a drastic percent. So as you can imagine, the Genome wide similarity between Spaniards an Africans is very low, much lower than the one showed by more intermediate populations, even if the don't have African ancestry. And yes, you can include West Asians there, even if they don't get such reports.
Scandinavians & Eastern Europeans don't deny any gene flow from Turkic people (N & Q folks).
But you guys deny any gene flow from Africa. Aren't you tired???
That's why you get so much resistance!
READ the name of this thread!!! This thread is all about the AFRICAN ADMIXTURE!!!!!
"Thread: Autosomal map : African ADMIXTURE (from Dodecad)"
There's a gene flow detected from NorthWest Africa to SouthWest Europe. FACT!
The 25 person Zing sample is only based on 13,000 snps so I understand why that would not be factored into the computation. The Henn et al study, however, uses 195,000 snps, which should give a certain amount of confidence. That provides a figure of l.l % for north west African, and again 0 for the sub-Saharan and East African groups.
In the case of Tuscany then, an approximately 1% figure for North West African seems reasonable.
However, more generally, I am uncomfortable with a methodology for the making of maps (which are then widely distributed) which picks which studies to include strictly based on sample size. Indeed, I think that barring some generally acknowledged problem with a particular academic study, no such results should be excluded. For me, it calls into question the reliability of the maps in general.
Last edited by Cambrius (The Red); 18-09-11 at 01:10.
Last edited by Cambrius (The Red); 18-09-11 at 01:11.
No one is denying N. African gene flow into Iberia. Have you been selectively tuning out?
The essential point is that the gene flow is ancient and too insignificant to have any impact on genetic distance and clustering. Autosomally, Spaniards and Portuguese have scores well within the range of other Western European countries. That is abundantly clear.
Also, there is no evidence suggesting that the Iberian Paleolithic genome had any DNA directly associated with NW Africa. If you take a close look at the autosomal percentages (see Maciamo's comments on this thread) you will realize that practically all African DNA present in Iberia is ancient, and not the result of Muslim invasions or anything else.
Last edited by Cambrius (The Red); 18-09-11 at 01:12.
I do believe that a gene flow between the Mediterranean countries in Africa & Europe is a natural process. Even 100 Adolf Hitler's together can't stop that. The only 'final' solution is to kill / genocide all Africans, and even then I'm not sure that there will never be any gene flow from Africa!
There always has been an interaction between the 2 continents and there always will be an interaction between the 2 continents!
You can also move to the Moon, but I truly believe that Africans will go after you too. I don't know why but they like your kinsmen very much.