PDA

View Full Version : Prompt from what haplogroups consist Y-DNA "white"-not europeans: USA, canadians, aus



BM-31
09-02-10, 01:56
"white"-USA peoples, "white"-canadians peoples, "white"-australians peoples? I heard that "white"-americans USA are not faultlessly white as 30 % of the african blood have been found out in them

Maciamo
09-02-10, 12:09
There are no "white" haplogroups. For example R1b, the most common haplogroup in western Europe, is also very common in central Africa.

BM-31
09-02-10, 13:14
German haplogroup "I" same not white race?

I want that to me would announce from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians

Maciamo
09-02-10, 13:56
German haplogroup "I" same not white race?
I want that to me would announce from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians

That's about all the haplogroups in the world.

BM-31
09-02-10, 14:20
Maciamo You know the answer to this question or not: "from what haplogroups DNA consist: USA, english-speaking canadians, australians " References (site) to the official data on these people are necessary to me

Wilhelm
09-02-10, 16:16
Yes, i've read that white-americans on average have 2% sub-saharian admixture based on Autosomal DNA

Wilhelm
09-02-10, 16:19
There are no "white" haplogroups. For example R1b, the most common haplogroup in western Europe, is also very common in central Africa.
but it is not the same branch of R1b. Europeans have the M269 branch

Cambrius (The Red)
09-02-10, 18:37
"white"-USA peoples, "white"-canadians peoples, "white"-australians peoples? I heard that "white"-americans USA are not faultlessly white as 30 % of the african blood have been found out in them

Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.

rms2
09-02-10, 21:34
Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.

In the past there was a very rigorous social stigma (with attendant severe economic and social consequences) attached to what was called "miscegenation" (racial mixing). It prevented it from ever becoming widespread. As a result, there are few North American whites who have any real proportion of Subsaharan African ancestry.

On the other hand, there is a fairly substantial number of North American blacks who have European ancestry, usually on the y-dna side.

That social stigma and its consequences have eased in recent years, so white/black mixing is becoming more frequent than it used to be, but it's still not that widespread.

BM-31
09-02-10, 23:12
Maciamo Has decided to ignore criticism of the USA:)
Yes, i've read that white-americans on average have 2% sub-saharian admixture based on Autosomal DNA

Not 2 % and 30 % of percent of the black person I have read article that the american contains an anglo-saxon origin. You know where it is possible to look a picture of DNA of "white" people of the USA?

BM-31
09-02-10, 23:28
Where did you get such information? Totally untrue.

In some regions of the U.S. there are traces of Sub-Saharan DNA (mainly mt-DNA) among the white population, but it is quite trivial and no higher than the European average. In several old U.S. slave states, approximately 40% of individuals who can trace their ancestry in the region back four generations have tiny amounts of Sub-Saharan DNA.

I have read this information in one article, there was said that such result about DNA of "white" Americans has been revealed after the spent genetic researches in the late sixties years . In article it is not enough about that was told, the organisation name has not been named. There have written that "the white" american became on 30 % the afro-american. Whence you know, what it is a lie? You know the truth about a DNA-picture of "white" Americans of the USA? So tell this truth and confirm the words with a reference to the source (site). Give the reference to the data of Americans of an Anglo-Saxon origin and then all my questions will disappear.You cite the data on DNA of americans, you mean know about DNA to a picture of the American. Well, then give the reference to a full picture of DNA of Americans.

Nasturtium
11-02-10, 00:24
Forgive me, but what exactly is the original question? Is it..."Do Americans who self-identify themselves as 'white' actually have upwards of 30% saharan DNA"? Being a member of 23andme and deCODEme, and frequent forum contributor to both sites, I would say absolutely not.

I think that African Americans often have 30% (or more) of European DNA, but your average WASP (euphamism for White Anglo Saxon Protestant, but I'm using it in the place of average white person from the USA) has little, or most often no Saharan or Asian DNA. deCODEme is more generous w/Asian and African DNA and most self-identified Europeans have a small percentage of each. Me: 100% Euro 23andme; deCODEme 97% Euro, 3% African and Asian. I have recent immigrants as ancestors (post 1850), and folks from the colonial period seem to have a higher chance of both African and Asian (native American) DNA, but nowhere near 30% based on the many posts on the subject.

So the obvious question is if blacks have a substantial amount of Euro DNA, then surely whites must mirror this, right? No...at least not yet. You have to realize that segregation was common, and mandatory in some states and marrying between races was very uncommon, and illegal in some states. This only started to change significantly in the 50's and 60's. If a mulatto child was born, that child was considered black, most likely segregated in black communities and had children within that community. There were exceptions of course, but for the most part, DNA flowed one way between white and blacks in the US, and stayed that way for a long time. I suspect with changes in society, and some time, you'll find that will change.

So, in conclusion, I think that 30% is not for "white" people, but actually "black" people from the USA.

BM-31
13-02-10, 15:59
Nasturtium I wish that I had been given a reference to data on the DNA of "white" USA, on which there are about Europeans eupedia. com
Not about "black" people in that article was talking about. It spoke about the "white" people. Because of the segregation of "black"
"white" is not able to mingle with them?And yet, strangely, surprisingly but for the article about American DNA turns out that Americans are mixed in their blood of blacks.This may happen as surprising as the fact that Russian does not have any significant mongoloydnyh gene itself, not looking at the fact that Russia was the mongol-tatar yoke.
We have russian finno-ugric asian 25%, but this is not tatar mongoloydnost.And these 25% belong to the North European part of Russia. In the genetic history of the amazing logical accidents happen, such as from the bottom of this example with the Russian - they are not mixed with non-white people and I am "white" USA - are mixed with non-white peoples ak expected

rms2
15-02-10, 19:55
You have not been paying attention to the answers you have received.

Nasturtium
16-02-10, 01:21
BM-31-

I still disagree with the assertion that "white" people (anywhere) have such a large percentage of African DNA but I decided to try and find your source. I didn't...but this is the closest I got:

"According to the study all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans consistent with the hypothesis that all non-Africans are descended from a single African population. Europeans are most closely related to East Asians and least related to Africans. However of all the non-African populations, Europeans are most closely related to Africans. As the genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) is shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6) and even much shorter than the Genetic distance from Africa to Australia. Cavalli-Sforza proposes that the simplest explanation for this short genetic distance is that substantial gene exchange has taken place between the nearby continents. Cavalli-Sforza also proposes that both Asian and African populations contributed to the settlement of Europe which began 40 000 years ago. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Europe has a genetic variation in general of about a third of that of other continents.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people/Archive_19#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people/Archive_19#cite_note-CavalliSforza-1)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people/Archive_19

"white" people from the USA are decended from white European ancestors. If the assertion above is true (don't know, don't care), and Europeans are the most closely related to Africans based on genetic distance, than fine. But I believe you are saying something entirely different...and false...regardless if you once had a link for it. A wise person once told me..."Believe nothing you read, and only half of what you see". Sage advice.

BM-31
20-02-10, 20:41
Nasturtium I read that people here have written that "white" americans do not have 30% afro-american blood. They repeated the words of the previous people and neither of them gave me a link to the DNA of the USA.

BM-31
20-02-10, 21:18
Nasturtium You, like, whatever, I gave a link to it, which stated that "white" Americans are 30% of afro-americans? That link w w w. kommersant. ru / doc.aspx? DocsID=611986

Joro
20-02-10, 23:04
how can that be,does that mean that for ex. Tom Cruise can be of black origin

rms2
21-02-10, 20:41
how can that be,does that mean that for ex. Tom Cruise can be of black origin

No. The vast majority of white Americans have no African ancestry. African-Americans carry about 30% European ancestry.

Up until quite recently, there were serious social and economic penalties and stigmas associated with what was called miscegenation (mixing) between whites and blacks in the USA. That meant that the practice was never widespread and that when it did occur the offspring were regarded as black and became part of the black community.

Even today, when to a great extent things have changed, the practice is still not all that common.

BM-31
22-02-10, 18:22
I prefer to trust not to words, and proceedings references on which give. To me here only distances (it has made Nasturtium) the reference not on the official data, on simple conversation on wikipedia. I very strongly doubt that it is possible to name "white" USA anglo-saxons because they consist of different blood of DNA: irish, slavic, mediterranean and so on. It not anglo-saxons.

Nasturtium
22-02-10, 23:02
Well BM-31, you were correct that the link does exist. The reason I couldn't find it is it's in Russian and for some reason hasn't made it to the rest of the world's science journals. Maybe some of you can see why:

"The Soviet state ideology of internationalism prevented long time the self-identification of Russian people. As additional obstacle served crushing defeat in the Soviet Union of genetics as sciences and substitution by its [michurinskoy] pseudoscience, according to which heredity not at all there existed in nature. Situation began to change only at the end by 1960- X of the years, when American scientists published the sensational results of investigating the genotype of typical American. The result of genetic [skrinninga] of the population of the USA actually exceeded the scope of academic science and caused in American citizens present shock. It turned out that in the incomplete 200 years of American statehood its standard citizen - white, anglo-saxon origins and protestant religions - became genetically to 30% negro. The results of Americans interested Soviet officials; therefore in the USSR were created the first laboratories for population genetics of man."

" Result amazed even scientists themselves, who considered that a basic difference in the carriers of [yuzhnorusskikh] surnames is not in the ability to lead enormous power, but in the increased sensitivity of their skin it is finger and palms. The scientific analysis of [dermatoglifiki] (papillary patterns on the skin of palms and it is finger) of Russian people showed that the complexity of pattern (from the simple arcs to the eyelets) and the associating them sensitivity of the skin grows from the north to the south. “Man with the simple patterns on the skin of hands can without the pain hold in the hands container with the hot tea, clearly explained the essence of differences doctor [Balanovskaya]. - A if eyelets is many, then from such people left unsurpassed pilferer- pickpockets”. However, “authority” in the interview with the chief geneticist of the country academician Sergey [Inge]-[Vechtomov] (see #24 in 2004) already warned that the underestimation of genetics of man in his professional orientation brought and it continues to bring enormous losses to the country. And again it turns on this attention: indeed it is absolutely clear that from the point of view of an increase in productivity of labor to more advantageous place thin highly technological assembly-line productions in the south of Russia, where the fingers of population are most adapted for assembling of microprocessors, but hot and the not requiring the thin motor activity of hands productions (steel foundry and a similar type) - on the north. "

Now, can someone find the 1960's study in which American scientists shocked the American public by proclaiming the typical WASP was 30% "negro"? :good_job:



http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kommersant.ru %2Fdoc.aspx%3FDocsID%3D611986&lp=ru_en&.intl=us&fr=att-portal

Joro
22-02-10, 23:19
I prefer to trust not to words, and proceedings references on which give. To me here only distances (it has made Nasturtium) the reference not on the official data, on simple conversation on wikipedia. I very strongly doubt that it is possible to name "white" USA anglo-saxons because they consist of different blood of DNA: irish, slavic, mediterranean and so on. It not anglo-saxons.
are you writing with google translator?:embarassed:

maltesekid
08-03-10, 06:37
no ones pure unless your chinese maybe or inbred

Nasturtium
10-03-10, 22:38
I'm writing what got translated, as the link is only found in Russian. :annoyed:

Maltesekid- how exactly is a Chinese person the benchmark of pure? If I follow that faulty logic, the only "pure blooded" person could be an African, right? As far as an inbred person, isn't that just a concentrated version of the same? Illogical.


no ones pure
...depends on how you define it. Genetic distance between racial groups exists...still the level of individual variation can be greater among 2 people in the same racial group than 2 people from different racial groups. Does that mean there's no such thing as race? Are you suggesting that Europeans by default are not a distinct racial group? If you look through science and medical journals, they seem to go out of their way to study them (me). I guess they only need 2 groups: Chinese and everyone else, right? I doubt BM-31 would agree with that, although he/she really seems to be vested in the idea that America is truly a "melting pot", figuratively and literally.

Btw, I stand behind my assertion.

Wilhelm
11-03-10, 03:04
still the level of individual variation can be greater among 2 people in the same racial group than 2 people from different racial groups.
Actually this is not true.

Sprinkles
11-03-10, 08:53
...depends on how you define it. Genetic distance between racial groups exists...still the level of individual variation can be greater among 2 people in the same racial group than 2 people from different racial groups. Does that mean there's no such thing as race? Are you suggesting that Europeans by default are not a distinct racial group? If you look through science and medical journals, they seem to go out of their way to study them (me). I guess they only need 2 groups: Chinese and everyone else, right? I doubt BM-31 would agree with that, although he/she really seems to be vested in the idea that America is truly a "melting pot", figuratively and literally.

Btw, I stand behind my assertion.
How can you state something so stupid and desire to be taken seriously?


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/351


DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet BAMSHAD et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?

All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and "race." In particular, the AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (1997, p. 1) stated that "data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world" (subsequently amended to "about as different"). Similarly, educational material distributed by the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT (2001, p. 812) states that "two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world." Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of BAMSHAD et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high , holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike , however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.

Wilhelm
11-03-10, 16:24
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/



subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12493913), 2005 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16355252); Bamshad et al. 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12557124); Turakulov and Easteal 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12890924); Tang et al. 2005 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622); Lao et al. 2006 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16532397)). Risch et al. (2002) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#bib27) and Edwards (2003) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#bib25)). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#bib27), p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”

Nasturtium
12-03-10, 17:07
Here is one of the (many) links that points out that 2 people from the same group can show more variation than 2 people from different groups:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2010/02/what_average_genetic_variation.php

Btw, I agree 2 Europeans would be more alike than 1 European and 1 Chinese (African), but thats because of the nature of founder effects, population bottlenecks, etc.

Accept it or don't, I don't care.



How can you state something so stupid and desire to be taken seriously?Nice, Sprinkles. Don't forget that when you throw mud, everybody get's dirty.


The original assertion is that Americans who classify themselves as "white" (aka European ancestors) have 30% African admixture, or even 2% if you will, has been lost. Interesting that Europeans are for the most part silent on the obsurdity of the claim, and the obvious propaganda that BM-31 is using to prove it. Nevertheless, here is further evidence that I believe helps substantiate my claim based on my real, average white American, DNA. deCODEme has a nice little function whereby you can compare yourself to reference populations for overall shared percentages:

(1MB)
Bantu Kenya 1.8
Biaka Pygmy 1.8
Yoruba 2.6
Bantu S. Africa 2.7
Han N China 9
Mayan Indian 9.4
Japanese 9.7
Cambodian 10
Mongolian 10.3
Bedouin 14.5
Uygur 15.5
Palestinian 15.9
Russian 19
Orcadian 20.2
Icelander 20.3
French 20.3

Now I suppose you can claim I'm not average...whatever. There is no African group that I compare better than 2.7% overall, no European less than 17%. My comparison's at 23andme come out the same way: Northern Europeans are highest...my 2 lowest, African Americans.

Frankly, I'm surprised the Europeans are content to let Maltesekid's assertion that no one is pure except Chinese or inbreds go unchallenged. I guess you're more interested in picking me apart and mocking my computer's version of translator. I guess you can now switch to critisizing my format, spelling, name...Enjoy!

Wilhelm
12-03-10, 20:19
The original assertion is that Americans who classify themselves as "white" (aka European ancestors) have 30% African admixture, or even 2% if you will, has been lost. Interesting that Europeans are for the most part silent on the obsurdity of the claim, and the obvious propaganda that BM-31 is using to prove it.
This is the study that BM-31 was referring to :

"About 30% of white-americans have 10% or more non-european ancestry"
http://dienekes.awardspace.com/blog/archives/000110.html


Frankly, I'm surprised the Europeans are content to let Maltesekid's assertion that no one is pure except Chinese or inbreds go unchallenged. I guess you're more interested in picking me apart and mocking my computer's version of translator. I guess you can now switch to critisizing my format, spelling, name...Enjoy!
We know it is stupid that chinese are the only pure, but all his posts are ignorant, don't worry...

Nasturtium
13-03-10, 01:36
That 30% with 10% non-european dna might work at deCODEme but not 23andme, assuming that people who opt to test their DNA are considered average. I respect the Dienekes Anthropology website so I'll begrudgingly accept it...with the caveat that it may be region specific. Thanks.

Wilhelm
17-03-10, 22:13
Another study* showed 0.5% to 1.2% introgression of Sub-Saharan African genes into the European American gene pool.

*Esteban J. Parra et al., Estimating African American Admixture Proportions by Use of Population-Specific Alleles, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 63:1839-1851, 1998

willy
18-03-10, 03:39
Actually this is not true.

I agree !!!