PDA

View Full Version : False study ?? What do you think



Wilhelm
30-10-09, 03:25
I've discussed with many people about Iberian genetics, and they always refer me to this rubbish study :
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929708005922
wich says that North African ancestry is 10.6% and Sephardi Jewish is 19.8%

My conclusions are as follows :

1. According to all historians, the Muslims (Moors, Berbers, etc) were always a minority, about 1% in the first 400 years, and 5% in the last 400
The Jewish peak population was of 3% (Netherlands was bout 4%, just in case..:innocent:)
And, as we all know, more than half of them were expelled.
So, according to this demographical statitics, the numbers don't add up : where the hell does this 20% jewish come from ??
Where the hell does this 10% North African comes from ?


2. According to most widely Haplogroup studies of both Y-DNA and mtDNA done in Iberia, the levels of Haplogroup E (North African & Near Eastern) and J2(wich comes from Greeks and Phoenicians ) are comparable to those of other European countries, and are about 6% for E1b1b and 4% of J2 (J1 is even lower) .
The J1 is the typically Semitic haplogroup, and it is very low (0.5%?), insignificant, and the same as in all Europe.
Again, this is typical in Europe, even lower than average


3. Additionally, the data seems to contradict well stablished History. Asturias is the area were "Reconquista" started. Asturias was one of the few places not conquered by Muslims.
Thus, Asturias should show the least Northern-African genetic heritage. On the other hand, Andalucia, where Moors and Jews remained the longest, should be the regions with highest Northern-African and Jewish heritage, and they show one of the lowest in all Iberia.


4. Most widely , accurate and serious studies done in Iberia say the following :

"In fact, a European wide study including Spaniards states: No significant correlation is apparent between North African admixture and geography. Genetic exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, and especially in its western-most part where the geographic distance between continents is smallest (Spain), seem to have been limited or very limited, establishing the North African contribution at 2.5/3.4%.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-Dupanloup2004-23)"

"A wide ranging study (published 2007) using 6,501 unrelated Y-chromosome samples from 81 populations found that: "Considering both these E-M78 sub-haplogroups (E-V12, E-V22, E-V65) and the E-M81 haplogroup, the contribution of northern African lineages to the entire male gene pool of Iberia is 5.6%."[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-40)

"DNA analysis shows that the Spanish are most closely related to other populations of central and western Europe, such as the Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people), the Italians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians), the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people), the British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) and to a slightly lesser extent to the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people), the Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans), and the Swiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_%28people%29).[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-22)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-Dupanloup2004-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-nytimes.com-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-25)

A 2007 European-wide study including Spanish Basques and Valencian Spaniards, found Iberian populations to cluster the furthest from other continental groups, implying that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. In this study, the most prominent genetic stratification in Europe was found to run from the north to the south-east, while another important axis of differentiation runs east-west across the continent. It also found, despite the differences, that all Europeans are closely related.[27]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards#cite_note-26)
What is your opinion ?

Cambrius (The Red)
30-10-09, 04:59
The people who produced the referenced study are not even sure their conclusions are accurate. The study makes no sense and has been heavily criticized.

I suggest you take a look at the excellent Beleza, et al. Y-DNA study, published in 2006 by Imperial College, London. Although the study is of Portuguese samples, much of it could apply to Spain as well.

Remember, there are many sick, racially and politically motivated types out there who sponsor genetic "research" that is methodologically structured to produce certain desired results. Of course these "studies" always show serious deficiencies, are challenged and eventually debunked. We live in a bizarre world, my friend.

Maciamo
30-10-09, 11:58
There are two major flaws in the authors' interpretation of the data they collected.

1) They confuse Sephardi Jewish and Phoenician. It is very improbable (not to say impossible) that 20% of the Y-DNA Spain be of Jewish origin. On the other hand, if you say that it is Phoenician , or better stilll "Near Eastern" (Phoenician + Sephardi Jewish + Greek + the Etruscan element in the Romans), then it is much more believable. There is no way of distinguishing many of the Near-Eastern haplogroups anyway. A J2* could just as well be Levantine (Phoenician or Jewish), Greco-Anatolian or Italian in origin. Same for E-M78, J1 or T.

2) It is a mistake to attribute all North African haplogroups to the Muslim conquest period. Iberia and North Africa are neighbouring regions. Trade and migration has happened in both direction for a very long time, certainly since the Paleolithic. During the Antiquity, the Carthaginians, who were mostly based in North Africa, could well have brought local Berbers to their Iberian colonies. In fact, population exchange between the two regions has slowed down, rather than increased over time - especially since the Reconquista because of the new religious gap. What I mean is that the E-M81 in Iberia could have been there since prehistoric times. This is the most likely scenario for Galicia, which is a E-M81 hotspot. I don't see how the Muslims could have brought E-M81 in the north-western corner of Iberia since it was a Christian stronghold.


So I do not put the validity of the data in doubt, but as usual lab scientists suck at history, and should not be trusted with interpreting their own data. This is mostly why I created a genetic section on this site - to correct all the prevailing ubiquitous nonsense that can be found on the web about historical genetics, and give a broader and more coherent overview.

Wilhelm
30-10-09, 16:23
Exactly. The E-M81 comes from 5000-4000 BCE , wich means it has little to nothing to do with the Islamic conquest.
The Islamic conquest was in 711 AD
The E-M81 (E1b1b1b) is a subclade of M78 (E1b1b1a ) , and both are descendants of E1b1b1 (M35) . They are very closely related. The M78 is found in all Europe. The E-M81 is found also in France and Italy
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Spread_hg_E.gif

Wilhelm
30-10-09, 16:27
What surprises me is also the sample size : only 1140 males
I also wonder how 'native' are the people tested.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-10-09, 17:04
What surprises me is also the sample size : only 1140 males
I also wonder how 'native' are the people tested.

Want to take bets on how many gypsies, mixed North Africans, etc. were included?... :innocent: As with some other Iberian genetic projects the samples are likely NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-10-09, 17:08
E-M81 is the subclade most associated with original native origin Berbers who were / are (what remains of them) Eurasian.

Wilhelm
30-10-09, 18:47
E-M81 is the subclade most associated with original native origin Berbers who were / are (what remains of them) Eurasian.

There is also another contradiction with History :

"The highest frequency of this clade found so far in Europe has been observed at 40% the Pasiegos from Cantabria.[2]"

And as we know, there was very little presence of Moors in Cantabria.

Also another contradiction with History : there is no significant levels of E-M81 in Algarve :

"One fact worth mentioning is the complete absence of this lineage
in the most southern Portuguese region, Algarve,
the area that is described as one of those most influenced
by the Islamic rule (Torres, 1993), " page10

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118548798/PDFSTART

So, it's quite clear that E-M81 comes from Neolithic farmers or even Paleolithic.

Cambrius (The Red)
30-10-09, 22:59
There is also another contradiction with History :
"The highest frequency of this clade found so far in Europe has been observed at 40% the Pasiegos from Cantabria.[2]"
And as we know, there was very little presence of Moors in Cantabria.
Also another contradiction with History : there is no significant levels of E-M81 in Algarve :
"One fact worth mentioning is the complete absence of this lineage
in the most southern Portuguese region, Algarve,
the area that is described as one of those most influenced
by the Islamic rule (Torres, 1993), " page10
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118548798/PDFSTART
So, it's quite clear that E-M81 comes from Neolithic farmers or even Paleolithic.

Your logic is spot on... :good_job: E-M81 is very, very old and quite likely of Eurasian origin. Also, a great deal of L in Iberia, given the subclades detected to date, probably originated in Asia, not Sub-Saharan Africa.

Maciamo
31-10-09, 10:25
Your logic is spot on... :good_job: E-M81 is very, very old and quite likely of Eurasian origin. Also, a great deal of L in Iberia, given the subclades detected to date, probably originated in Asia, not Sub-Saharan Africa.

Are you talking about Y-DNA hg L (native of South Asia) or mtDNA hg L (native of subSaharan Africa) ? I am wondering because I don't see how mtDNA L could come from Asia. And there is no Y-DNA L in Adams' study of Iberia in link in the OP.

Maciamo
31-10-09, 10:39
What surprises me is also the sample size : only 1140 males

1140 is a big sample for a research study. Let's not forget that these are all newly tested people, not collected data from other studies or from commercial tests. I think it is the biggest study on Iberia to date. In comparison, Flores' study (2004) (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf) had half the number of samples.


I also wonder how 'native' are the people tested.

They separated Iberians by region, so there is no reason to believe they are not native from that region. North Africans are in a separate category. The sampling process is explained under "Subjects and Methods".

Cambrius (The Red)
31-10-09, 16:40
Are you talking about Y-DNA hg L (native of South Asia) or mtDNA hg L (native of subSaharan Africa) ? I am wondering because I don't see how mtDNA L could come from Asia. And there is no Y-DNA L in Adams' study of Iberia in link in the OP.

mt-DNA... There are certain subclades of "Sub-Saharan" mt-DNA in dispute as regards origin. It may not be L related, however. Have to check.

Cambrius (The Red)
31-10-09, 16:52
1140 is a big sample for a research study. Let's not forget that these are all newly tested people, not collected data from other studies or from commercial tests. I think it is the biggest study on Iberia to date. In comparison, Flores' study (2004) (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf) had half the number of samples.



They separated Iberians by region, so there is no reason to believe they are not native from that region. North Africans are in a separate category. The sampling process is explained under "Subjects and Methods".

Separation by region is hardly enough. You need to ask the correct background questions of study participants. And, certain regional pockets need to be avoided altogether, because of things like social isolation (the case of Alcacer do Sal in southern Portugal) and towns with a history of being slave depots / colonies and the like.

One has every reason to suspect that a number of studies in both Spain and Portugal are methodologically flawed, or structured to produce certain results (bad science, to say the least), since the results (particularly Sub Saharan mtDNA) have varied so significantly. It can only mean one thing, the samplings were not representative.

Maciamo
31-10-09, 22:32
Separation by region is hardly enough. You need to ask the correct background questions of study participants. And, certain regional pockets need to be avoided altogether, because of things like social isolation (the case of Alcacer do Sal in southern Portugal) and towns with a history of being slave depots / colonies and the like.
One has every reason to suspect that a number of studies in both Spain and Portugal are methodologically flawed, or structured to produce certain results (bad science, to say the least), since the results (particularly Sub Saharan mtDNA) have varied so significantly. It can only mean one thing, the samplings were not representative.

Why would studies on Spain and Portugal be more flawed than for other countries ? I don't disagree that samples are not always representative, but we have no other choice than rely on the few studies available to us for the moment. Time will tell if they were flawed on not.

Cambrius (The Red)
31-10-09, 22:56
Why would studies on Spain and Portugal be more flawed than for other countries ? I don't disagree that samples are not always representative, but we have no other choice than rely on the few studies available to us for the moment. Time will tell if they were flawed on not.

Spain and Portugal are hardly the only European countries where bad science has resulted in distorted findings. However, I would be surprised if the majority of these countries were not from Southern Europe. Perhaps genetic researchers should be questioned and investigated as to wether or not they have prejudices against certain ethnicities.

Maciamo
03-11-09, 12:41
Spain and Portugal are hardly the only European countries where bad science has resulted in distorted findings. However, I would be surprised if the majority of these countries were not from Southern Europe. Perhaps genetic researchers should be questioned and investigated as to wether or not they have prejudices against certain ethnicities.

I think you are being paranoid.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-11-09, 14:42
I think you are being paranoid.

You really think so? I've just seen too many studies that smack of "bad science". Never know what to expect these days...

Wilhelm
03-11-09, 16:43
I think you are being paranoid.
No, he is not paranoid.

There are way too many Nordicists "studies" out there, that claim they are the purest Europeans, while Southern Europeans are closer to Levants or North-africans. Of course, thats' far from reality.

Maciamo
03-11-09, 19:16
There are way too many Nordicists "studies" out there, that claim they are the purest Europeans, while Southern Europeans are closer to Levants or North-africans. Of course, thats' far from reality.

But of course southern Europeans are closer to the Levant. It's simply due to their greater proximity and colonisation patterns of early farmers, then the Phoenicians and Greeks. In fact, from a genetic point of view the Greeks are generally considered more Levantine/Near-Easterners than Europeans. Although not properly Middle-Eastern, they are indubitably closer to the Turks, and possibly also Syrian and Lebanese (at least the ancient ones, prior to the Arabic expansion) than to northern Europeans.

Iberians though, despite being southern Europeans, are closer to the French or Brits and more distant to the Levantines because of the distance from the Near East. Austrians and Bavarians have as much, if not more Near-Eastern blood than most Spaniards.

What is important to understand (and accept) is that all Europeans have some fairly recent (Neolithic or Bronze Age) Near-Eastern ancestors. The Finns have the least Near-Eastern blood, but on the other hand have a substanstial percentage of Siberian (Mongoloid) ancestry. There are no "pure" Europeans. In fact, the dominant Western European haplogroup, R1b, could be considered Middle Eastern in origins, since all R1b people lived somewhere between Anatolia and Afghanistan during the Ice Age, and only left Anatolia for Europe about 5000 years ago. With that in mind, there is no denying that even the Irish or the Danes are quite Middle Eastern.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-11-09, 19:51
But of course southern Europeans are closer to the Levant. It's simply due to their greater proximity and colonisation patterns of early farmers, then the Phoenicians and Greeks. In fact, from a genetic point of view the Greeks are generally considered more Levantine/Near-Easterners than Europeans. Although not properly Middle-Eastern, they are indubitably closer to the Turks, and possibly also Syrian and Lebanese (at least the ancient ones, prior to the Arabic expansion) than to northern Europeans.
Iberians though, despite being southern Europeans, are closer to the French or Brits and more distant to the Levantines because of the distance from the Near East. Austrians and Bavarians have as much, if not more Near-Eastern blood than most Spaniards.
What is important to understand (and accept) is that all Europeans have some fairly recent (Neolithic or Bronze Age) Near-Eastern ancestors. The Finns have the least Near-Eastern blood, but on the other hand have a substanstial percentage of Siberian (Mongoloid) ancestry. There are no "pure" Europeans. In fact, the dominant Western European haplogroup, R1b, could be considered Middle Eastern in origins, since all R1b people lived somewhere between Anatolia and Afghanistan during the Ice Age, and only left Anatolia for Europe about 5000 years ago. With that in mind, there is no denying that even the Irish or the Danes are quite Middle Eastern.

Problem is only well-educated people understand such, my friend.

Wilhelm
03-11-09, 20:58
But of course southern Europeans are closer to the Levant. It's simply due to their greater proximity and colonisation patterns of early farmers, then the Phoenicians and Greeks. In fact, from a genetic point of view the Greeks are generally considered more Levantine/Near-Easterners than Europeans. Although not properly Middle-Eastern, they are indubitably closer to the Turks, and possibly also Syrian and Lebanese (at least the ancient ones, prior to the Arabic expansion) than to northern Europeans.

Iberians though, despite being southern Europeans, are closer to the French or Brits and more distant to the Levantines because of the distance from the Near East. Austrians and Bavarians have as much, if not more Near-Eastern blood than most Spaniards.

What is important to understand (and accept) is that all Europeans have some fairly recent (Neolithic or Bronze Age) Near-Eastern ancestors. The Finns have the least Near-Eastern blood, but on the other hand have a substanstial percentage of Siberian (Mongoloid) ancestry. There are no "pure" Europeans. In fact, the dominant Western European haplogroup, R1b, could be considered Middle Eastern in origins, since all R1b people lived somewhere between Anatolia and Afghanistan during the Ice Age, and only left Anatolia for Europe about 5000 years ago. With that in mind, there is no denying that even the Irish or the Danes are quite Middle Eastern.

well,

Levant people, including Turks, have haplogroups wich are absent or very low in Southern Europe. For example, the y-dna L , the y-dna J1 , y-dna N, and others.
Also one has to consider the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) absent in all Europe, but present in the Levant, among Jews, Palestinians and middle-easterns.

Also , like you said Spain is more of an Atlantic country than Mediterrenean, genetically speaking.
Like you said, it is closer to Brits of French. That's is something some people can't or don't want to understand.
Italians are also closer to other Europeans, at least in the half north of the Peninsula
As for the mtDNA, all souther europeans are typically euroepan and closer to other europeans.

But that's when it comes to Haplogroups. If we talk a about alleles, clusters and distances , it's clear that Greeks, Italians are closer to other europeans than to Levant people, thus falling into the European clusters.

Cambrius (The Red)
03-11-09, 21:31
well,
Levant people, including Turks, have haplogroups wich are absent or very low in Southern Europe. For example, the y-dna L , the y-dna J1 , y-dna N, and others.
Also one has to consider the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) absent in all Europe, but present in the Levant, among Jews, Palestinians and middle-easterns.
Also , like you said Spain is more of an Atlantic country than Mediterrenean, genetically speaking.
Like you said, it is closer to Brits of French. That's is something some people can't or don't want to understand.
Italians are also closer to other Europeans, at least in the half north of the Peninsula
As for the mtDNA, all souther europeans are typically euroepan and closer to other europeans.
But that's when it comes to Haplogroups. If we talk a about alleles, clusters and distances , it's clear that Greeks, Italians are closer to other europeans than to Levant people, thus falling into the European clusters.
Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Irish and the British (including Scots, Welsh and Cornish) clearly share a common genetic substratum. All are predominantly Atlantic peoples and deeply related genetically and, to a fair extent, culturally as well. "Celticity" is a predominant thread among all Atlantic European fringe populations.
The majority of Italians are closer to Greeks and Middle Eastern peoples. The exception is far northern Italy which is more Alpine and Dinaric and clusters "European".

Maciamo
04-11-09, 14:10
Problem is only well-educated people understand such, my friend.

People discussing haplogroups are usually more educated than average, or willing to learn.

^ lynx ^
08-02-10, 19:46
Francesc Calafell (one of the authors) already dismissed this study in an interview for "Science News".