PDA

View Full Version : What surprises would a total population sampling bring?



EAB
04-09-15, 17:40
Hi,

I am new to the forum but I am curious about a lot of things that to me seem like broad guesses made in DNA (on good faith) about the European and in particular UK genetic make up. I was wondering the opinion of people on the board about how representative claims by Oppenheimer and others that the British population was mainly unchanged by various invasions or emigrations.

The method used by the welcome trust was to take the DNA of people with all four grandparents that had grown up in a similar area. This is interesting, and it reveals a map of Britain that kind of ties in with cultural regions. However, isn´t it basically measuring those less inclined to travel and not the majority of the population? My grandparents moved about and came from the following locations:

Maternal: GF Poole, GM Swansea, Paternal: GF Ipswich, GM Lincoln.

My Y chromosome is in the U106 clade which is typical of the Benelux and thus perhaps the Anglo Saxons. However, this is R1b along with the vast majority of those believed to live in the UK before the Saxons.

If the whole country was measured for an accurate database of what everyone actually was, would the regional map represent the majority of people or indeed the regions? In other words, are the people measured by the Wellcome Trust the fringe of UK genetics, rather than the norm?

I am curious about this for a few reasons, but such things as the A (Yorkshire) and K (Thomas Jefferson) Y Chromosomes being found made me wonder what else we don´t know about Britian that would be revealed if this happened. I am also really interested in what genetic information could be enveloped within the way the Y chromosome is only paternal. For example, if we could work out a way of finding out the Y Chromosome of a woman´s father, what could this reveal about any past vanquished males from the island if the theory that men traveled alone and took local wives is indeed true.

LeBrok
04-09-15, 18:21
Welcome to Eupedia EAB. There are few threads discussing GB folks genomes, and addressing few research papers. Look for them.

Angela
04-09-15, 18:51
I basically agree with you, EAB. Starting with the industrialization period, in particular, there has been massive movement of populations within the nation states of Europe.

That's why these studies use the "four grandparents from the same area" rule; they're trying to uncover the history of the "peopling" of Europe, or the formation of the various "national" groups. To do that they would ideally need local ancestry even further into the past. Better yet is the use of ancient dna.

As to Oppenheimer, his claims can no longer be taken seriously.

Fire Haired14
05-09-15, 01:28
Y DNA A and T(subclade of K) in Britain are novelties. They don't reveal anything that made a big genetic impact on the island. Almost every haplogroup/lineage exists in every population, just some are very very very rare.

Sampling people with 4 grandparents from the same area is smart. It's to reveal regional variation. It might not represent the majority of people in those regions today, because some of their ancestors immigrated from another region.

Sile
05-09-15, 01:57
Hi,

I am new to the forum but I am curious about a lot of things that to me seem like broad guesses made in DNA (on good faith) about the European and in particular UK genetic make up. I was wondering the opinion of people on the board about how representative claims by Oppenheimer and others that the British population was mainly unchanged by various invasions or emigrations.

The method used by the welcome trust was to take the DNA of people with all four grandparents that had grown up in a similar area. This is interesting, and it reveals a map of Britain that kind of ties in with cultural regions. However, isn´t it basically measuring those less inclined to travel and not the majority of the population? My grandparents moved about and came from the following locations:

Maternal: GF Poole, GM Swansea, Paternal: GF Ipswich, GM Lincoln.

My Y chromosome is in the U106 clade which is typical of the Benelux and thus perhaps the Anglo Saxons. However, this is R1b along with the vast majority of those believed to live in the UK before the Saxons.

If the whole country was measured for an accurate database of what everyone actually was, would the regional map represent the majority of people or indeed the regions? In other words, are the people measured by the Wellcome Trust the fringe of UK genetics, rather than the norm?

I am curious about this for a few reasons, but such things as the A (Yorkshire) and K (Thomas Jefferson) Y Chromosomes being found made me wonder what else we don´t know about Britian that would be revealed if this happened. I am also really interested in what genetic information could be enveloped within the way the Y chromosome is only paternal. For example, if we could work out a way of finding out the Y Chromosome of a woman´s father, what could this reveal about any past vanquished males from the island if the theory that men traveled alone and took local wives is indeed true.

Most ydna markers where already in europe before the Youngest R1 arrived, so you are basically left with subclades of markers to determine what happened.

K of Thomas jefferson is now noted as K1b from mid 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup

epoch
06-09-15, 17:43
Hi,

I am new to the forum but I am curious about a lot of things that to me seem like broad guesses made in DNA (on good faith) about the European and in particular UK genetic make up. I was wondering the opinion of people on the board about how representative claims by Oppenheimer and others that the British population was mainly unchanged by various invasions or emigrations.

The method used by the welcome trust was to take the DNA of people with all four grandparents that had grown up in a similar area. This is interesting, and it reveals a map of Britain that kind of ties in with cultural regions. However, isn´t it basically measuring those less inclined to travel and not the majority of the population? My grandparents moved about and came from the following locations:

Maternal: GF Poole, GM Swansea, Paternal: GF Ipswich, GM Lincoln.

My Y chromosome is in the U106 clade which is typical of the Benelux and thus perhaps the Anglo Saxons. However, this is R1b along with the vast majority of those believed to live in the UK before the Saxons.

If the whole country was measured for an accurate database of what everyone actually was, would the regional map represent the majority of people or indeed the regions? In other words, are the people measured by the Wellcome Trust the fringe of UK genetics, rather than the norm?

I am curious about this for a few reasons, but such things as the A (Yorkshire) and K (Thomas Jefferson) Y Chromosomes being found made me wonder what else we don´t know about Britian that would be revealed if this happened. I am also really interested in what genetic information could be enveloped within the way the Y chromosome is only paternal. For example, if we could work out a way of finding out the Y Chromosome of a woman´s father, what could this reveal about any past vanquished males from the island if the theory that men traveled alone and took local wives is indeed true.


As the example of a father who has six daughters married, and who therefore would have none of his Y-DNA propagated but have left quite a print on the autosomal DNA of his community demonstrates, Y-DNA may give a tad skewed image. That means that old ancestry is best investigated by old autosomal DNA. I think this might interest you:

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2015/03/british-origins-leslie-et-al-2015.html

Also, this may interest you:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html

epoch
06-09-15, 18:34
Hi, I was wondering the opinion of people on the board about how representative claims by Oppenheimer and others that the British population was mainly unchanged by various invasions or emigrations.

If there is one thing that the unraveling of ancient DNA has shown it is these kind of claims having been wiped of the board. However, it does seem Anglo-Saxon settlement was not a complete people replacement. I think the current idea is about 1/3 of the ancestry in historical Anglosaxon areas is from settlers.

The debate, if I recall correctly, was between people who thought that the clear Celtic influences in for instance burial gifts (to wit the Celtic hanging bowl (http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/rufus-project/cgi-bin/images/imagedatabase/escutcheon.JPG)) at Sutton Hoo showed Celtic continuity whereas the almost total absence of any linguistical trace of Celtic languages in early Anglo-Saxon was seen as proof of total people replacement.


For example, if we could work out a way of finding out the Y Chromosome of a woman´s father, what could this reveal about any past vanquished males from the island if the theory that men traveled alone and took local wives is indeed true.

Maybe this misrepresents marital dynamics. In Europe, later in history, late middle ages, first sons took wives in with the ancestral farm whereas second or third sons married out. But don't misunderstand that back in the days the children of rich families survived far better than those of poor, so even that skews the paternal DNA image. We are pretty sure the invasion and/or settlement of the Indo-Europeans left a large imprint. We know that in India several castes show far more relatedness between them than to local population so it may be a safe bet that imposing an ethnically distinct ruling class upon indigenous people was something all Indo-European invaders and settler did. It sure would explain a number of things, especially the abundance of R1b and R1a in Europe.

LeBrok
07-09-15, 04:10
Few "shocks" from global sampling:

R1b in Sub Saharan Africa

R1 in East America among Natives

Population replacement in Europe due to first farmers from Near East

Quick diminishing of Y hg G2a, the main haplogroup of first farmers through Neolithic.

EAB
07-09-15, 19:21
What I think would happen if a country as large as England was sampled is that a whole new haplogroup (or more) would be discovered, and with that, maybe one of them would be recently mutated. If haplogroups can have a time frame of about 20,000 years or so, how come we haven't seen a few new groups already yet? Maybe we haven't looked hard enough.

I am not completely against Oppenheimer's theory, as of course he has done his best with the evidence available. It is just we can't know. For example, if the Normans came in and left their descendants mostly in cities as they didn't bother with the agricultural work, and they left 10% of modern Britains genes, how would we know from these samples? That is why I am curious. It might also show some interesting things like is there a propensity among people with different gene types to do different things with their lives. Or is that going too far into labelling?

As far as G2a goes, though the "wrapping" of the y chromsome may be waning, this doesn't mean that the genes it once contained aren't thriving. It would be very curious to see if we could ever find this.

The biggest thing I am curious to discover is this. We have people in Britain tested for DNA and they come up with profiles like Mediterranean, north European etc etc, did any body actually ever exist who would have scored 100% as any of these labels? Maybe this has already been answered. If not, then these are just zombie profiles right?

MOESAN
11-09-15, 20:19
as a whole, the greater the town, the greater the chances to become more level, less regional, in old Europe
it's true that some recent or elite arrivals could be found more in cities than in rural populations;
a curious statement: Coon said the mediterranean dark type, whatever the imprecision of the term, had a tendancy to densify itself in towns of England , the same in Glasgow industrial area. !?! - what cause, it true??? selection can apply, and a finer level, even if more cultural than genetical: it seems that Northern Italians in France become more often craftsmen when southern Italians become mor often little trademen (Corsicans prefer high enough work stations in administration but here I risk an accusation of racism!!! LOL) - So immigration doesn't erase totally the differences sometimes, and not only at the geographic level but also at the social class level: a high class man in South America has more chances to wear a germanic name and to be purely "white" than a poor suburbs workman - and also, immigration can apport new types in some urban areas, making them new "regions"!

&: Oppenheimer went too far into his dream!
&&: concerning History, a agree with other posts here: