Autosomal map : African admixture (from Dodecad)

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.
Cool, whatever you say boy. But you can't hide the fact that SouthWest Europeans have African DNA / GENES directly from Africa!
 
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.
 
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.
Which is the same as the rest of Europe. Spaniards average 91% european, just like British, French, Irish, Dutch, etc.
 
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 populations?

Quote one post where this has been hide as you say. Come on, I'm wainting.
I'm not saying that SouthWest Euro's are Africans. According to me they're 100% Europeans, but I just don't understand why people like you deny any geneflow from other parts of the world?
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!
 
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!
We are talking about genetic distances here, not admixture. A person without african admixture can be closer to Africans than a european with minor admixture, which is the case with West-Asians.
 
We are talking about genetic distances here, not admixture. A person without african admixture can be closer to Africans than a european with minor admixture, which is the case with West-Asians.
WHAT??? Dude, you have some serious issues / mental problems.

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!
 
I have modified the map too for Tuscany too. I was the first map on the Tuscan samples from Dodecad members, but it's true that the HapMap TSI is more representative as there are over 100 samples

The fact that the TSI sample is much larger (102) than the HGDP sample(8) does not necessarily mean that it is more representative of Tuscany as a whole, as the entire TSI sample was taken from one small village outside Florence, and genetic variation does exist within Tuscany. For example, the HGDP sample, (which shows .3% North African) lists the Mediterranean component as 47.8% versus 37.6% in the TSI sample. There are other differences as well.

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.

I
 
SouthWest Europeans are MORE African. FACT!

What you don't understand is that it does not matter since the major genetic components (West, North, South, N. Atlantic European) dominate in Iberia. As a consequence, Iberians are far, far closer genetically to other Europeans than are West Asians. North Africans cluster nowhere near Iberians. What is the point of harping on a very minor (and essentially ancient) contribution from NW Africa, unless you are motivated by unreasonable / illogical thought processes?
 
Last edited:
The fact that the TSI sample is much larger (102) than the HGDP sample(8) does not necessarily mean that it is more representative of Tuscany as a whole, as the entire TSI sample was taken from one small village outside Florence, and genetic variation does exist within Tuscany. For example, the HGDP sample, (which shows .3% North African) lists the Mediterranean component as 47.8% versus 37.6% in the TSI sample. There are other differences as well.

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.

I

These maps are useful only in a very general sense. Autosomal DNA research is becoming more are more refined by the day and the map figures currently presented are unlikely to hold.
 
WHAT??? Dude, you have some serious issues / mental problems.

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!

So??? Any number of people here have stated many times that it does not impact genetic distances / clustering because the admixture is too minor and too ancient. Why is it so hard for you for to grasp this fundamental fact?
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that SouthWest Euro's are Africans. According to me they're 100% Europeans, but I just don't understand why people like you deny any geneflow from other parts of the world?
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!


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.
 
Other than Iberia's apparent geographic location which lends itself nicely to a pre-IE LGM refuge, its proximity, or rather distance from the Middle East and Anatolia, suggests North African genetic input since the earliest migrations took place. The word 'diluted' is perhaps condescending but it could explain high R1bpenetration with certain isolated regions suggesting elevated levels of pre-IE haplogroups. African genetic input may include introductions from long before the introduction of Celtic influences to more recent times. We should expect some diffusion from North African Muslim invaders but also remember that a large section of the Iberian population converted to Islam. Portuguese diffusion into Spain is also a factor throughout recent times. Many an Angolan and Mozambican with mixed ancestry have integrated themselves into the Iberian community. The relative strength of the region lies in its heterogeneity, this has provided Iberia with a low-cost labor force. As the endemic increasingly began to resist being exploited by the wealthier classes so more South American and African migrants were being used to fill these basic functions. Roman societies used local servants from surrounding areas, we can expect Iberia to have been no different. These may have been to some extent from North African Roman colonies.

First of all mixed Africans from the old Portuguese colonies are obviously not a component of the Iberian genome, for obvious reasons. Such individuals are never (or never should) be included in indigenous genetic studies. If they ever are, the research becomes invalid, as has been the case in a handful of ostensibly political motivated efforts - there have been several in Iberia and at least one or two in other areas of Europe.

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:
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.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere!

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.
 
WRONG !!! Tartessians spoke an Indo-European language, is impossible the came from Phoenicians or North-Africans.

Actually, Tartessisan was a non-Indo-European language.
 
Actually, Tartessisan was a non-Indo-European language.
Wrong. Specialists have classified as Indo-European, some even as Celtic.
 

This thread has been viewed 140208 times.

Back
Top