PDA

View Full Version : Genetic structure of West Eurasians by Dienekes (April 2011)



Alonzo
29-04-11, 21:14
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-structure-of-west-eurasians.html

Dienekes generated a new major data dump of ADMIXTURE results. In comparison to previous such experiments:


The focus is entirely on West Eurasians (Caucasoids).
He has excluded all potential relatives from the source datasets, as well as several populations that tend to create uninformative clusters of their own (e.g., Druze or Ashkenazi Jews); exceptions are populations of great anthropological interest (e.g., Basques).
He has included all relevant Dodecad Ancestry Project populations with 5+ participants.
He has developed a new way of "framing" the region of interest by choosing appropriate sets of individuals from outside of it.
I post here an interesting table of African ancestry (North Africa, East African and West African) in all populations included. Only a few European populations : Portuguese (about 10%), Spanish, South Italians etc get numbers > 1%. All others are below 0.5%:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6531/dienikes.jpg

Mzungu mchagga
29-04-11, 21:26
I am sick of threads and posts like this. Which European ethnicity is the most or least African, Asian, European, Alpha Centaurian etc... ??? We had these talks over and over and they are leading to nowhere. Go to the next supermarket and buy yourself some self-esteem!

Alonzo
29-04-11, 21:35
Sorry but that is one of the main purpose of Admixture analysis.... Moreover, I am of Portuguese ancestry and proud of my (little) Moorish ancestry. Do you have any problems with that? I haven't read you were "sick" when Finns talk about their little "siberian" ancestry and so on...

Wilhelm
29-04-11, 22:13
There are many other admixture runs were spaniards have 0% west african and east-african, such as this:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHczTnJQaG5MOUpMUHdxQllSOGl2L VE&hl=en&authkey=CNLCn5EH#gid=0

Alonzo
30-04-11, 11:25
There are many other admixture runs were spaniards have 0% west african and east-african, such as this:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHczTnJQaG5MOUpMUHdxQllSOGl2L VE&hl=en&authkey=CNLCn5EH#gid=0

Thanks for the link. Very interesting as well. Here are the African results for Europeans which are higher than at Dienekes and you are right maybe even more acccurate.

We, Portuguguese, get an average of about 13.50% of African ancestry (vs 10% at Dienekes) while Spanish participants gets around 10% (vs 4% at Dienekes).

What is important in these 2 studies is the total not the breakdown as this African total is very likely a contribution from Maghreb instead a direct contribution from other parts of Africa.

http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/04/neolithic-belt-and-surrounds-at-k8.html

What is also interesting is that a Spanish ES3 get the second highest number, very close to our numbers. Do you know from which part of Spain is he?

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/7124/neolithicbelt.jpg

Angela
30-04-11, 20:06
And your point...?

I somehow doubt it is to advance our understanding of population movements into Europe, or to further refine the analysis of the Out of Africa theory.

I have some sympathy for you if this is an attempt to get our Iberian friends to stop their everlasting chattering about how "Celtic" they are, and their attempts to jettison the rest (the Basque, Sardinian, West Asian, South West Asian, and indeed perhaps minority African components) of their heritage, but perhaps I give you too much credit.

However, this is a dangerous game you play. There are closet racists aplenty who visit these sites, with their half baked ideas, and little to no training in, or understanding of, the science being discussed. What is the point in presenting information like this to these kinds of people without context?

Just as a general proposition, genetic differentiation is clinal, and is a function of location; that is why the genetics of Finland or the Baltic shows different influences than the genetics of Italy or Spain. On an even more basic level, I think it's still safe to say that most population movement into West-Eurasia was generally out of Africa. Setting aside any more recent minor population movements into southern Europe, Northern Europe is a more isolated sub-set of Southern Europe. Is all of this anything to put any rational person's knickers in a twist?

I hesitate to say this, for fear of appearing to be some sort of uber nationalist(to love one's own culture does not necessarily mean one wishes to degrade or de-value that of others), but I am extraordinarily proud of my heritage, and as our genetic make-up must have contributed in some measure to our cultural accomplishments, I embrace each and every ancestor who contributed to the mix. A fortuitous combination IMHO.

The whole internet obsession with "fairness" also sets me off to be honest. Is a de-pigmentation mutation for the purpose of increasing the ability to process vitamin D from the sun in colder latitudes really something of which one should be "proud"? (All it's gotten me is a visit to the dermatologist every three months, and terror that one of these lesions will turn cancerous before they can be removed.) It's ludicrous; it never occurred to me that intelligent, educated people could think this way until I started exploring the world of genetic genealogy.

I have news for some of these people. These kinds of prejudices stem from the fact that, particularly in the last few centuries, the wealthy "elites" primarily came from northern Europe. That has changed, and may change further. Given the way things are going, perhaps in a couple of hundred years, people will be going in for surgery to make themselves more "East Asian" looking. John Hersey wrote a prescient book about the subject years ago: The White Lotus. It was a civil rights era book and discusses conquest and slavery, not economic domination alone, but it still is absolutely modern in its sensibility, and a real eye-opener.

how yes no 2
01-05-11, 00:51
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wk9_ST1CKC4/TbFOmpaIlGI/AAAAAAAADiQ/jhw64bHM1G4/s1600/ADMIXTURE_11.png

I find this clustering very interesting...
of course if sample size is not large enough then results may be somewhat inaccurate, but it does give fairly good picture that matches some expectations....
remarks:
1) proto-Turks make only small part of genetic pool of nowdays Turks (east Asian cluster part)
2) Slavic and Germanic people are differentiated in last clusterization
3) Turkic Chuvash have largely Slavic genetics and much less Turkic...this is in accordance with their supposed origin from Sabir tribes who match in posiotion previous Serboi recorded by Ptolomey in Caucasus...
4) Finish people cluster with Slavs
5) there is significcant Sardinian component everywhere in Medterranean basin
6) Greeks have several equally dominant components...kind of bridge between Anatolia and Europe...
7) Balkan in total has significantly more northwest and northeast Europe components than Greece..
8) Portugal has more north African (Berber) influence than Spain...though in both it is rather small part of genetic pool..
....

Carlitos
01-05-11, 16:58
It's really stressful to demonstrate the continued insistence that this or that country are less than Africa, and curiously obsessed members usually belong to southern European countries, much to my regret including Spain, it is true that after surreptitiously shameful demonstration Nazi ideologies lurk despite having been defeated by the coherent world capable of germinating in any country, but what if the few African values ​​in Europe were seen as a treasure instead of a show: You see that few Africans are!