PDA

View Full Version : New Paper on Consanguinity in the Middle East and its effects



Angela
28-07-16, 17:59
This is the paper:

"http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3592.html

Eric M. Scott et al:

"Characterization of Greater Middle Eastern genetic variation for enhanced disease gene discovery"

"The Greater Middle East (GME) has been a central hub of human migration and population admixture. The tradition of consanguinity, variably practiced in the Persian Gulf region, North Africa, and Central Asia1 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3592.html#ref1), 2 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3592.html#ref2), 3 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3592.html#ref3), has resulted in an elevated burden of recessive disease4 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3592.html#ref4). Here we generated a whole-exome GME variome from 1,111 unrelated subjects. We detected substantial diversity and admixture in continental and subregional populations, corresponding to several ancient founder populations with little evidence of bottlenecks. Measured consanguinity rates were an order of magnitude above those in other sampled populations, and the GME population exhibited an increased burden of runs of homozygosity (ROHs) but showed no evidence for reduced burden of deleterious variation due to classically theorized 'genetic purging'. Applying this database to unsolved recessive conditions in the GME population reduced the number of potential disease-causing variants by four- to sevenfold. These results show variegated genetic architecture in GME populations and support future human genetic discoveries in Mendelian and population genetics."

You can see what they're talking about very clearly in this graphic. However, despite this, and in contradiction to many studies showing high rates of recessive diseases, they're not finding genetic purging.

It's annoying that it's behind a pay wall.


http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images_article/ng.3592-F2.jpg

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images_article/ng.3592-F2.jpg

Petros Houhoulis
28-07-16, 18:18
Did anyone realize that the persistence of consanguinity among Muslim migrants in Europe might be one of the main causes of the presence of gullible Muslim young men and women who chose to become terrorists and/or join ISIS?

Although a certain number of individuals who have joined the ranks of terror groups are beyond doubt above average intelligence, many of the grunts who fight the wars of the Islamic state are far from intelligent. IQ studies in Britain among different ethnic groups are indicative:

http://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pupil-background-cat-scores.jpg

The difference between schoolchildren of Indian extract and Pakistani or Bangladeshi extract are quite significant, for ethnic groups which are not so varied from each other. The lower scores of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis could possibly be explained by the marriages between first cousins which are allowed and frequently practiced in Islam. The result is Muslims with lower IQ who fail in life and whose only choice to become "important" is to join a terrorist organization.

The situation in the Middle East is of course beyond salvation...

Angela
28-07-16, 20:25
It's usually a good idea to read studies, or in this case the abstract, before commenting on them. They found that the inbreeding does not seem to correlate with recessive genetic disease.

Intelligence is not discussed at all.

We're getting tired of your perpetual attacks on people from the Middle East, Albanians and on and on. That kind of racism and hyper-nationalism isn't what we're about here. Keep it up and you'll be out of here very quickly.

Tomenable
28-07-16, 22:02
Percent of Muslim population by state:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/800px-World_Muslim_Population_Map.png

Prevalence of consanguinity (in 2014):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg/2000px-Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg.png

https://tommyblomqvist.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/global_prevalence_of_consanguinity_svg.png

Tomenable
28-07-16, 22:05
They found that the inbreeding does not seem to correlate with recessive genetic disease.

Excuse me - where did they write this ??? Already the first statement from the Abstract says:

"The tradition of consanguinity (...) has resulted in an elevated burden of recessive disease."

OTOH, they did not find evidence of genetic purging of deleterious genes (which is bad news).


Intelligence is not discussed at all.

Yes but there are other studies about effects of inbreeding on intelligence.

These studies established that inbreeding lowers IQ by ca. 10 to 15 points.

The gap between Pakistan and India is exactly of this order of magnitude.

Angela
28-07-16, 23:37
Tsk, tsk,...I should have included the quote, but you should know better than to doubt me, Tomenable...

7892

Petros Houhoulis
29-07-16, 00:14
It's usually a good idea to read studies, or in this case the abstract, before commenting on them. They found that the inbreeding does not seem to correlate with recessive genetic disease.

Intelligence is not discussed at all.

We're getting tired of your perpetual attacks on people from the Middle East, Albanians and on and on. That kind of racism and hyper-nationalism isn't what we're about here. Keep it up and you'll be out of here very quickly.

These traits are not racial, but religious/cultural, and they do have a very significant toll upon those affected:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-OA6tYJoF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eszqhCjBL5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyGWhBnEA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZkUB_UXfiE

Inbreeding has more than definitely an increased risk of genetic diseases, some of which affect intelligence.

This practice is literally ruining peoples' lives.

If you think that we should keep quiet and let these thing happen, so that we do not disturb the "cultural sensitivity" of some folks, then I think that you are making yourself a fool of protesting Renzis' "cultural sensitivity" because he decided to cover some nude statues.
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31916-When-Has-quot-Cultural-Sensitivity-quot-Gone-Too-Far)
Are statues more important than human lives for you?

Furthermore, I fail to see any sort of "hyper-nationalism" from my part. I doubt that you could find a single post of mine bragging about my nationality.

Angela
29-07-16, 06:25
Many of us try to alert our other members about recently published studies or discoveries. Sometimes it's just to inform or share the information. Sometimes we seek clarification and hope someone else can help. Some of the results of the study are surprising. The abstract doesn't seem to fit with the quote published by Razib Khan on his twitter account. Unfortunately, I can't get access to the paper itself. I was hoping that someone could brainstorm it with me. You know, some one who could point out something I might have missed, some problem with their methodology, some way to reconcile the findings with other papers we've already discussed, or indeed reconcile the abstract with the quote. Most importantly, I was hoping someone had access to the whole paper so we could get to the bottom of it.

What isn't helpful is anecdotal internet videos, and most especially it's neither helpful nor appropriate to use every thread, every paper, as grist for your mill, your goal of degrading in any way possible Near Easterners, Muslims, Albanians, whatever. I'm sure blacks are on your list too, and who knows whom else. Nationalism doesn't merely entail "bragging" about the superiority of one's own "nation" or ethnicity; it also entails degrading other "nations".

I again have trouble following your logic in the remainder of the post. Maybe because there isn't any? I never expressed any opinion as to whether first cousin marriage should be permitted and widely practiced in any given society. What I did was post a scientific paper which I find a bit confusing.

If you're actually interested in my opinion: while I think an occasional first cousin marriage marriage only raises the likelihood of inbreeding depression for the children to a very small degree, I don't think a society wide practice of it is a very good idea. I don't base that opinion on internet videos or prejudice against any particular ethnic group or even on the old wives tales from my ancestral villages, but on scientific research. I recommend it to you for formulating your own opinions.

As for your rant about "statues", it's off topic, illogical, makes no sense and is ridiculous. Who is talking about statues? If you must know, I thought the Italian government was out of line in agreeing to "drape" them for that state visit. That has absolutely nothing to do with posting and discussing the results of a scientific study. As I said, I initially expressed no opinion about such cultural practices. I also don't much care about offending people's "cultural sensitivities" if it is a question of human rights or harm to children. You would know that if you had been on this site for a while. You should read the thread on the burka to lessen any of your remaining doubts. Neither am I, however, an Islamophobe, or a young, poorly educated, European male who has been living in an ethnic bubble his whole life and feels threatened by anyone "different" from him, or has been fed hate and distrust his whole life and has so little experience in the outside world that he hasn't yet realized what nonsense it all is.

Angela
29-07-16, 06:44
All right now...some serious information. Khan has posted a blog post on the paper.

He thinks the population genetics portion is off; it certainly seemed that way to me from looking at the graphics, but I have to think about it more.

As to the mutational load portion...

" It confirms in the broadest outlines a lot of what we knew. The further you go from Africa the less genetically diverse populations get when it comes to looking at polymorphism diversity. Native Americans have fewer segregating polymorphisms than Eurasian populations, for example. One way to model this is as serial bottlenecks out of Africa. I think that’s too simple of a picture, as there has been a lot of gene flow and admixture over the last 10,000 years, but on the coarsest of all scales it’s not totally misleading.But a peculiar aspect of these dynamics is that when you look at runs of homozygosity in the genome, which usually measure more recent inbreeding, the Middle East and South Asia tends to have higher lower genetic diversity. "

"Because of caste/jati endogamy a lot of the South Asian groups have less genetic diversity than you might expect. This has disease implications.Middle Eastern, North African, and Pakistani populations are even more extreme."

"That’s because of this:
From 20–50% of all marriages in the GME are consanguineous (as compared with <0.2% in the Americas and Western Europe)1, 2, 3, with the majority between first cousins. This roughly 100-fold higher rate of consanguinity has correlated with roughly a doubling of the rate of recessive Mendelian disease19, 20. European, African, and East Asian 1000 Genomes Project populations all had medians for the estimated inbreeding coefficient (F) of ~0.005, whereas GME F values ranged from 0.059 to 0.098, with high variance within each population (Fig. 2c). Thus, measured F values were approximately 10- to 20-fold higher in GME populations, reflecting the shared genomic blocks common to all human populations. F values were dominated by structure from the immediate family rather than historical or population-wide data trends (Supplementary Fig. 8). Examination of the larger set of 1,794 exomes that included many parent–child trios also showed an overwhelming influence of structure from the immediate family, with offspring from first-cousin marriages displaying higher F values than those from non-consanguineous marriages (Fig. 2d)."


Khan goes on to say:

"The theory is simple. If you have inbreeding, you bring together deleterious recessive alleles, and so they get exposed to selection. In this way you can purge the segregating genetic load. It works with plants. But humans, and complex animals in general, are not plants. More precisely the authors “compared the distributions of derived allele frequencies (DAFs) in GME and 1000 Genomes Project populations.” If the load was being purged the frequency of deleterious alleles should be lower in the inbreeding populations. It wasn’t."
Great, but how does this jive with the other quote?"

The paper is behind a pay wall. If someone has access, perhaps you can help to clarify things.

Tomenable
29-07-16, 09:07
Genetic purging (elimination of deleterious alleles) would only work if 100% of marriages were consanguineous.

If just 20% to 50% of marriages are consanguineous, this is not going to work.

bicicleur
29-07-16, 12:56
what does higher lower genetic diversity mean?
islands of low genitic diversity with lots of distance between the islands?

Petros Houhoulis
29-07-16, 16:02
Many of us try to alert our other members about recently published studies or discoveries. Sometimes it's just to inform or share the information. Sometimes we seek clarification and hope someone else can help. Some of the results of the study are surprising. The abstract doesn't seem to fit with the quote published by Razib Khan on his twitter account. Unfortunately, I can't get access to the paper itself. I was hoping that someone could brainstorm it with me. You know, some one who could point out something I might have missed, some problem with their methodology, some way to reconcile the findings with other papers we've already discussed, or indeed reconcile the abstract with the quote. Most importantly, I was hoping someone had access to the whole paper so we could get to the bottom of it.

What isn't helpful is anecdotal internet videos, and most especially it's neither helpful nor appropriate to use every thread, every paper, as grist for your mill, your goal of degrading in any way possible Near Easterners, Muslims, Albanians, whatever. I'm sure blacks are on your list too, and who knows whom else. Nationalism doesn't merely entail "bragging" about the superiority of one's own "nation" or ethnicity; it also entails degrading other "nations".

What you still fail to grasp is that I never attacked ethnic groups at random, but specific cultural practices of various groups which are - without a doubt - negative, first and foremost to themselves. Alerting those people about the negative consequences of their cultural traits is not just "an attack on them", but an effort to help them depart from actions which are certainly not to their benefit.


I again have trouble following your logic in the remainder of the post. Maybe because there isn't any? I never expressed any opinion as to whether first cousin marriage should be permitted and widely practiced in any given society. What I did was post a scientific paper which I find a bit confusing.

You seem too much concerned about keeping an imaginary order in your "white tower" rather than engaging with the real world. If you never expressed any opinion about first cousin marriage, what is your objection? That my expression towards first cousin marriage is "offensive" towards some cultural groups? The practice of cousin marriage itself isn't really more important for its' consequences, rather than the "denigration of a culture"? Should we stop "offending" cultural practices which are detrimental to their practitioners, in order not to offend their feelings?


If you're actually interested in my opinion: while I think an occasional first cousin marriage marriage only raises the likelihood of inbreeding depression for the children to a very small degree, I don't think a society wide practice of it is a very good idea. I don't base that opinion on internet videos or prejudice against any particular ethnic group or even on the old wives tales from my ancestral villages, but on scientific research. I recommend it to you for formulating your own opinions.

I've gone beyond that point, but I have noticed that people digest videos much easier than scientific papers, thus my choice of links.


As for your rant about "statues", it's off topic, illogical, makes no sense and is ridiculous. Who is talking about statues? If you must know, I thought the Italian government was out of line in agreeing to "drape" them for that state visit. That has absolutely nothing to do with posting and discussing the results of a scientific study.

It must be really irritating for you to be caught discussing about cultural practices, I assume! My position stands that, while you are making a mountain out of a molehill, you are trying to prevent others from addressing significantly more persistent problems, solely as not to offend some peoples' feelings.


As I said, I initially expressed no opinion about such cultural practices. I also don't much care about offending people's "cultural sensitivities" if it is a question of human rights or harm to children.

Maybe then you should stop pretending that I offend other peoples' cultural sensitivities when I tackle harm towards humans in any form. What I do is not reprehensible, but you keep perceiving it as such.


You would know that if you had been on this site for a while. You should read the thread on the burka to lessen any of your remaining doubts. Neither am I, however, an Islamophobe,

That would not make you an Islamophobe per se, since there is no Islamic tradition ordering the covering of the womens' head.


or a young, poorly educated, European male who has been living in an ethnic bubble his whole life and feels threatened by anyone "different" from him, or has been fed hate and distrust his whole life and has so little experience in the outside world that he hasn't yet realized what nonsense it all is.

Who is that person? Do you even know me? When was the last time you visited Bob Marleys' house and tomb in Jamaica? Have you seen Antarctica with your own eyes? Have you traveled in the streets of Hong Kong, Buenos Aires or St. Petersburg? Do you think YOU are cosmopolitan? You don't even know what that really is...

As for Khans' paper so far, I fail to see something new at all. It is a well known fact that the older the population is, the more genetic - and linguistic diversity, in humans - it has. The fact that inbreeding still results to many genetic defects to populations which are inbred for generations is sufficient proof that "natural selection" didn't purge the deleterious recessive alleles.

Plants, of course, tend to have more DNA than humans, but humans remain more complex. Amoebas have even more DNA! Some plants - and amoebas always - can reproduce by themselves, humans cannot. What works to simple organisms, doesn't necessary work to more complex ones.

Angela
30-07-16, 01:24
what does higher lower genetic diversity mean?
islands of low genitic diversity with lots of distance between the islands?

I don't know, unless it's a typo? I wish I had access to the paper.

Elsewhere someone asked if the data could be used to determine when this practice began, although as some one else answered, the real question is when did it stop in the rest of the world.

This was the pattern in a lot of human history, although better or worse depending on the era and the effective population size. We saw this in the WHG, and in the Neanderthals before them, and I'm sure in the Aurignacians and the Gravettians.

To some extent you could see it in pre-industrial Europe, often having to do with the fact that for a long span of time in Europe lower class populations were not very mobile. In the Middle Ages they were tied to the lord's manor. In places like Poland and Russia serfdom wasn't abolished until relatively recently.

In remote and even not so remote mountain valleys like in the Apennines in Italy or interior Sardinia, or parts of Finland or the Austrian Alps, or the American Appalachian mountains, and on and on, and even in people isolated by religion, like the Amish in the U.S. or the French-Canadians (who also stemmed from a very small founding population), or the Ashkenazim, there have been various levels of inbreeding.

While it's true that even with the proscriptions against close cousin marriage put into place by the Council of Trent, the fact that there was so little population movement in some areas prior to the Industrial Revolution, and the fact that people could and did get dispensations, meant that the actual inbreeding rate is larger in those time perios and aras even than an investigation of the papers would show, it hasn't been for a long time as pervasive as it seems to be in the Middle East, North Africa, or South Asia.

Still, I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been as much "purging" of the genome as one might expect. In the Parma Valley studied for so long by Cavalli Sforza, he found very little evidence of genetic disease. Some of that may have been because they were practicing their own sort of "eugenics" program. Given how little land was available and how difficult it was for hundreds of years to get in and out, only the healthiest and smartest of the children inherited the land, or were apprenticed. The rest were unpaid labor on the farms, or, it must be said, kept in an upstairs room. Perhaps chance played a role as well. Perhaps it depends how much of a genetic load is in the founding population and how many really deleterious mutations crop up.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7800.html

Certainly it doesn't always affect intellectual functioning. Look at the Ashkenazim, although perhaps in their case continually having to struggle to stay alive in the face of constant persecution actually positively selected for intelligence and cleverness.

Why doesn't the same thing happen in these other societies? Indeed, how do some of these children survive to marriage age? Does it have anything to do with the advancements of modern medicine, and perhaps the problem wasn't as pervasive in the past? Or is there something in the extreme patriarchy of their system, and in religious practices like polygamy which add to the problem? Perhaps, in order to cement wealth and tribal relationships, marriages are made even for children who suffer from one disability or another? Or, while relatively "unfit" males don't get access to women, women of less than optimum fitness become "lesser" wives in multi-generational and extended kinship families where the demands are less? I don't know.

Certainly, the fact that the extreme endogamy of the various Indian caste and regional groups leads to increased levels of genetic disease needs no other explanation. It's even worse among diaspora groups, because the marriage pool is smaller.

This is a paper from Egypt which gives a good overview of the topic:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110863013000037
"Comparison between genetic diseases with different modes of inheritance showed that recessive and multifactorial disorders had the highest values of consanguinity (78.8%, 69.8%, respectively), while chromosomal disorders had the lowest one (29.1%). Consanguineous marriage was recorded in 51.5% of our cases with autosomal dominant diseases and in 31% of cases with X linked diseases, all cases of mental retardation (100%) and in 92.6% of patients with limb anomalies (P < 0.001). Stillbirths, child deaths and recurrent abortions were significantly increased among consanguineous parents (80.6%, 80%, 67%) respectively than among non consanguineous parents. "

Bottom line, there has to be concentrated genetic counseling in certain areas explaining the risks, although there seems to strangely be a lot of resistance, as, for example, among Pakistani Brits.

Oh, just found this interesting paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1779.full

" Marriage regulations in Islam permit first-cousin and double first-cousin (F = 0.125) marriages, but uncle–niece unions are prohibited by the Quran. Contrary to common belief there is no encouragement of consanguinity within Islam, and although the Prophet Muhammad married his daughter Fatima to his ward and first cousin Ali, several hadith (sayings of the Prophet) endorse marriage between nonrelatives (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1779.full#ref-14)). It therefore seems that the strong preference for first-cousin marriage in most Muslim countries, principally the parallel paternal subtype, i.e., between a man and his father’s brother’s daughter, reflect both pre-Islamic Arab tradition and the rules introduced in the Quran enabling female inheritance of wealth (15 (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1779.full#ref-15))."

So, control of wealth and patriarchy, not religion.

It also goes into the marriage proscriptions in various religions. Odd that Sephardim still permit uncle/niece marriage. I have some very nice looking cousins, so I can see why the proscriptions are necessary, but that one doesn't pass the "yuck" test.

DuPidh
30-07-16, 02:47
Did anyone realize that the persistence of consanguinity among Muslim migrants in Europe might be one of the main causes of the presence of gullible Muslim young men and women who chose to become terrorists and/or join ISIS?

Although a certain number of individuals who have joined the ranks of terror groups are beyond doubt above average intelligence, many of the grunts who fight the wars of the Islamic state are far from intelligent. IQ studies in Britain among different ethnic groups are indicative:

http://akarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pupil-background-cat-scores.jpg

The difference between schoolchildren of Indian extract and Pakistani or Bangladeshi extract are quite significant, for ethnic groups which are not so varied from each other. The lower scores of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis could possibly be explained by the marriages between first cousins which are allowed and frequently practiced in Islam. The result is Muslims with lower IQ who fail in life and whose only choice to become "important" is to join a terrorist organization.

The situation in the Middle East is of course beyond salvation...


You need help yourself! If you live in USA and see yourself the performance of Muslim students you would not write this comment. In every ethnic group is a 10% of students who score between B+ and A no matter what the religion and nationality. The IQ is a stupid invention that really don't show much. The west beginnings are not in Greece as many want us to believe but in ancient Egyptian civilization.

Angela
30-07-16, 02:54
You need help yourself! If you live in USA and see yourself the performance of Muslim students you would not write this comment. In every ethnic group is a 10% of students who score between B+ and A no matter what the religion and nationality. The IQ is a stupid invention that really don't show much. The west beginnings are not in Greece as many want us to believe but in ancient Egyptian civilization.

Well, not Egypt first, rather further up the coast, but I agree with the general point.

Moi-même
30-07-16, 04:28
Elsewhere someone asked if the data could be used to determine when this practice began, although as some one else answered, the real question is when did it stop in the rest of the world.

Oh! You make me realize we can test homozigoty in old genome at gedmatch, using the "Are Your Parents Related?" tool. Let's see:

F999970, Kennewick : 3019.2 cM;
F999925, Hinxton-5 : 1612.8 cM;
F999921, Hinxton-2 : 864.1 cM;
F999902, Neandertal : 598.3 cM;
F999922, Hinxton-3 : 473.4 cM;
F999903, Denisova : 194.8 cM;
F999924, Ajvide58 : 84.2 cM;
F999928, NE7 : 71.7 cM;
F999906, paleo eskimo : 67.8 cM;
F999964, Bot17 : 40.1 cM;
F999969, RISE601 : 25.9 cM;
F999918, Loschbour: 18.8 cM;
F999942, RISE509 : 18.2 cM;
F999968, RISE548 : 16.4 cM;
F999932, NE6 : 15.8 cM;
F999914, Mal'ta boy : 11.7 cM;
F999961, RISE503 : 7.8 cM;
F999931, KO1 : 7.3 cM;

La Braña, Stuttgart, Motala-12, Clovis, Hinxton-4, NE5, IR1, CO1, BR2, Gokhem2, Ust-Ishim, Kostenki14, NE1, RISE98, RISE174, RISE479, RISE97, RISE552, RISE500, RISE150, RISE395, RISE493, RISE577, RISE499, RISE505, RISE569, RISE00, RISE94, RISE497, RISE495, RISE496, RISE502, RISE504, Bot15, RISE602, RISE523 and RISE511 all have some homozigoty pairs, but not enough to trigger the tool.

Kennewick is impressive, he has very little pairs which are not homozigoty. It's no wonder he is less related to modern people from the Americas than Clovis, he has only about one kind of each gene. o.O

For the Hinxton ones, the one which doesn't trigger the tool, is the oldest one which is about 2000 years old. The three about 1,300 years old are in the Neandertal and Denisova league! what a change in just 700 years. o.O

bicicleur
30-07-16, 05:01
Elsewhere someone asked if the data could be used to determine when this practice began, although as some one else answered, the real question is when did it stop in the rest of the world.

This was the pattern in a lot of human history, although better or worse depending on the era and the effective population size. We saw this in the WHG, and in the Neanderthals before them, and I'm sure in the Aurignacians and the Gravettians.



I'm not sure about that.
Strontium isotope analysis has shown that the HG people living on the Morbihan coast living just before megalithic farmers arrived there got their wives from far inland.
The same about the HG in the Danube gorge 6200 - 6000 BC who did marry farmers duaghters from outside the gorge.

For tribes living in remote areas it was a problem though to find wives from outside the tribe.

bicicleur
30-07-16, 05:06
The west beginnings are not in Greece as many want us to believe but in ancient Egyptian civilization.

both are not true
it is much earlier and much more complicated

but first I should ask you what you mean by 'The west beginnings'

Angela
30-07-16, 06:19
Oh! You make me realize we can test homozigoty in old genome at gedmatch, using the "Are Your Parents Related?" tool. Let's see:

F999970, Kennewick : 3019.2 cM;
F999925, Hinxton-5 : 1612.8 cM;
F999921, Hinxton-2 : 864.1 cM;
F999902, Neandertal : 598.3 cM;
F999922, Hinxton-3 : 473.4 cM;
F999903, Denisova : 194.8 cM;
F999924, Ajvide58 : 84.2 cM;
F999928, NE7 : 71.7 cM;
F999906, paleo eskimo : 67.8 cM;
F999964, Bot17 : 40.1 cM;
F999969, RISE601 : 25.9 cM;
F999918, Loschbour: 18.8 cM;
F999942, RISE509 : 18.2 cM;
F999968, RISE548 : 16.4 cM;
F999932, NE6 : 15.8 cM;
F999914, Mal'ta boy : 11.7 cM;
F999961, RISE503 : 7.8 cM;
F999931, KO1 : 7.3 cM;

La Braña, Stuttgart, Motala-12, Clovis, Hinxton-4, NE5, IR1, CO1, BR2, Gokhem2, Ust-Ishim, Kostenki14, NE1, RISE98, RISE174, RISE479, RISE97, RISE552, RISE500, RISE150, RISE395, RISE493, RISE577, RISE499, RISE505, RISE569, RISE00, RISE94, RISE497, RISE495, RISE496, RISE502, RISE504, Bot15, RISE602, RISE523 and RISE511 all have some homozigoty pairs, but not enough to trigger the tool.

Kennewick is impressive, he has very little pairs which are not homozigoty. It's no wonder he is less related to modern people from the Americas than Clovis, he has only about one kind of each gene. o.O

For the Hinxton ones, the one which doesn't trigger the tool, is the oldest one which is about 2000 years old. The three about 1,300 years old are in the Neandertal and Denisova league! what a change in just 700 years. o.O

Do you know off hand the cultural affiliation of those RISE samples which were much more inbred?

I remember that when the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon samples were analyzed it was mentioned that they were very inbred, one sample so much so that it was as inbred as someone whose parents were siblings.

I never quite understood that, unless the pattern was similar to the one in the Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal, where the first settlers, men, mated with Amerindian women out of necessity. After that first wave, however, some women came from the homeland, and after that initial phase the ruling class became very endogamous, marrying only within its own group. Perhaps something similar happened here?

The statutes passed by the Anglo-Saxons against the Britons, and intermarriage with the Britons, and those of the Langobardi in Italy, could have come from some Jim Crow legislation from the American south. Horrific. That's why I don't understand why some Italians are interested in their so called "Germanic" yDna. "You know what" them; I hope I don't find any of their uni-parental markers in my family trees.

The Romans, for all their faults, were not like this. Once you stopped rebelling and paid your taxes, in a couple of generations your leading men could be Senators. It's called the co-option of local elites. Your lower classes were usually no worse off than they ever were...Neither were French or the Italians in their empires. Not that there wasn't some attempt to prevent it, but no one paid attention, bless them. In many cases they took care of their offspring; they didn't keep them in bondage like the despicable Thomas Jefferson. It just goes to show that someone can mouth pretty words, a la The Declaration of Independence, and be a real you know what in real life. I'm sorry I went to Monticello. If I had read about Sally Hemings and her children beforehand, I wouldn't have gone.

@Bicicleur,
Given the papers written on how inbred the hunter-gatherers of Europe must have been, your example must not have been the norm. Tomorrow, when I have some time, I'll try to find some of them. I know the citations were published somewhere on the Board.

LeBrok
30-07-16, 06:38
Surely it is all confusing. I'm staying on sidelines till we can get the paper to read.

Tomenable
30-07-16, 15:43
Angela,


The statutes passed by the Anglo-Saxons against the Britons, and intermarriage with the Britons, and those of the Langobardi in Italy, could have come from some Jim Crow legislation from the American south. Horrific.

Hinxton samples were an exception. Oakington samples showed evidence of mixing between Anglo-Saxons and Britons.

And remember that modern English people are no more than ca. 30% Anglo-Saxon, the rest of their ancestry is Celtic:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/07/17/022723.full.pdf

http://oi62.tinypic.com/23j65w7.jpg

Tomenable
30-07-16, 15:51
Do you know off hand the cultural affiliation of those RISE samples which were much more inbred?

RISE601 - Iron Age Altai region
RISE509 - Afanasievo culture
RISE548 - Yamnaya culture
RISE503 - Andronovo culture

Angela
30-07-16, 16:24
The statutes speak for themselves. Look them up. The Britons were treated like a lower form of life. That isn't incompatible with the invading men taking concubines or raping, for that matter, the local women.

All geneticists see is the end product of the "gene flow". It doesn't come with a tag labeling it as "rape", concubine, etc.

Tomenable
30-07-16, 17:03
The statutes speak for themselves.

Which ones? I only remember that in statutes of the Kingdom of Wessex fine for committing a crime against a Saxon was higher than fine for commiting a crime against a Briton. But class differences were still more important than ethnic differences.

Fine (weregild (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild)) for killing a Briton noble was still much higher than for killing a Saxon peasant:

Killing a Saxon noble = 1200 shillings
Killing a Briton noble = 600 shillings

Killing a Saxon peasant = 200 shillings
Killing a Briton peasant = 120 shillings

So in Wessex a Briton nobleman was still worth three times more than a Saxon peasant.

And let's remember that it was the legal situation only in the kingdom of Wessex.

Maybe in some other kingdoms Saxons and Britons were equal before the law.


It doesn't come with a tag labeling it as "rape", concubine, etc.

Celtic (Romano-Briton) Y-DNA haplogroups are still very numerous among the English.

Even some R1b-U106 was already present among Romano-Britons (see York samples).


The Britons were treated like a lower form of life.

2004 "King Arthur" is a nice movie but I think you have been watching too much of it. :smile:

It was actually the Britons themselves who invited the Anglo-Saxons. The Britons forgot how to fight under centuries of living under "Pax Romana", and they wanted protection against Picts raiding them from Scotland and other Celts invading them from Ireland. So Vortigern invited Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. Later those Anglo-Saxon males brought also their families across the sea.

Anglo-Saxons noticed that Britain had more fertile soils and better pasture grounds than their native lands.

bicicleur
30-07-16, 18:29
@Bicicleur,
Given the papers written on how inbred the hunter-gatherers of Europe must have been, your example must not have been the norm. Tomorrow, when I have some time, I'll try to find some of them. I know the citations were published somewhere on the Board.

Ok, if you have the time, thank you. I'm interested.

I know archeologists suspected most HG tribes were exogamous, but recent DNA studies should shine brighter light on this.
For the 2 cases I mentioned, there is actual proof of exogamy.

bicicleur
30-07-16, 18:38
As for the Britons, they were mostly R1b-L21.
There is some Germanic DNA in Roman Times, but IMO they were gladiators or mercenaries.
This R1b-L21 arrived allready 4 ka, so the Y-DNA remained quite stable till after Roman Times, alltough before Roman Times allready many Belgian tribes had infiltrated.



Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin1]
M
2026–1885 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c1g
L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521 > DF21/S192
U5a1b1e
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)


Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin2]
M
2024–1741 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c1
L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521
U5b2a2
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)


Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin3]
M
1736–1534 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c
L21/M529/S145
J2b1a
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)




http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L21.gif

Tomenable
30-07-16, 18:45
As for the Britons, they were R1b-L21.

Nope. They were more diverse, including P312(xL21).

Romano-Britons from Eboracum (York) were L21, U152, DF19 and U106:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

R1b-U106 were subclades R1b-S497 and R1b-DF98:

R1b-DF63 is a subclade downstream of R1b-L21:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

Here also mtDNA haplogroups of samples from the table posted above:

1) Pre-Roman Melton (210 BC - 40 AD):

M1489 - U2e1e (female)

1) Roman-era York (years 100-400 AD):

R1b-L21:

6DRIF-18 - R1b-L21 and H1bs
6DRIF-21 - R1b-DF63 and J1c3e2

R1b-U106:

3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497 and H6a1a
6DRIF-3 - R1b-DF98 and J1b1a1

R1b-U152:

6DRIF-22 - R1b-U152 and H2

R1b-DF19:

6DRIF-23 - R1b-DF19 and H6a1b2

Non-R1b:

3DRIF-26 - J2-L228 and H5

2) Anglo-Saxon Teesside (650–910 AD):

NO3423 - I1-S107 and H1a

Tomenable
30-07-16, 18:52
Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin1]
M
2026–1885 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c1g
L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521 > DF21/S192
U5a1b1e
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)


Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin2]
M
2024–1741 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c1
L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521
U5b2a2
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)


Early Bronze
Northern Ireland
Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin3]
M
1736–1534 BC
R1b1a2a1a2c
L21/M529/S145
J2b1a
Cassidy 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Cassidy2015)




Rathlin samples are from Ireland (Latin name: Hibernia) not from Britain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

Ireland is not Britain, and it was NEVER inhabited by ethnic Britons.

Irish Celts were Gaels, which is an entirely different branch of Celts.

Tomenable
30-07-16, 18:59
There is absolutely no evidence that U106s from Eboracum were Germanic.

Analyses of isotopes from their teeth show that they were British-born, not immigrants.

And autosomally they were most similar to modern Scotsmen and Irishmen:

1) 3DRIF-16 (hg R1b-S497) was autosomally most similar to Scottish people.

2) 6DRIF-3 (hg R1b-DF98) was autosomally most similar to Irish people.

They also had some autosomal affinity to Balto-Slavs (Lithuanians and Poles).

As this heat map shows, both were more similar to Poles than to Germans:

https://s24.postimg.org/bb7qx4wmt/gladiatorzy1.jpg

Eboracum ("Ancient York") samples were autosomally most similar to modern Insular Celtic nations:

People in modern East Anglia (especially Norfolk and Suffolk) are least similar to "Ancient York":

East Anglia is where the very first groups of Anglo-Saxons landed and settled during the 400s:

https://s22.postimg.org/59j4p7ffl/Celtic.png

bicicleur
30-07-16, 19:29
Nope. They were more diverse, including P312(xL21).

Romano-Britons from Eboracum (York) were L21, U152, DF19 and U106:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

R1b-U106 were subclades R1b-S497 and R1b-DF98:

R1b-DF63 is a subclade downstream of R1b-L21:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

Here also mtDNA haplogroups of samples from the table posted above:

1) Pre-Roman Melton (210 BC - 40 AD):

M1489 - U2e1e (female)

1) Roman-era York (years 100-400 AD):

R1b-L21:

6DRIF-18 - R1b-L21 and H1bs
6DRIF-21 - R1b-DF63 and J1c3e2

R1b-U106:

3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497 and H6a1a
6DRIF-3 - R1b-DF98 and J1b1a1

R1b-U152:

6DRIF-22 - R1b-U152 and H2

R1b-DF19:

6DRIF-23 - R1b-DF19 and H6a1b2

Non-R1b:

3DRIF-26 - J2-L228 and H5

2) Anglo-Saxon Teesside (650–910 AD):

NO3423 - I1-S107 and H1a

the first has no identified Y-DNA
the driffield skeletons were gladiators, as I mentioned, they were not free men
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1284496/Skeletons-80-gladiators-slaughtered-crowds-unearthed-York.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160119-gladiator-headless-skeletons-dna/
the last is Anglo-Saxon, not Briton

bicicleur
30-07-16, 19:36
Rathlin samples are from Ireland (Latin name: Hibernia) not from Britain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

Ireland is not Britain, and it was NEVER inhabited by ethnic Britons.

Irish Celts were Gaels, which is an entirely different branch of Celts.

Ireland is one of the British Isles.
Britons is the name the Romans gave, and north of them lived the Picts.
But I don't know why exactly the Romans gave them different names.

Maybe the Britons spoke a Belgian language, as England was infiltrated by Belgian tribes.

bicicleur
30-07-16, 19:47
There is absolutely no evidence that U106s from Eboracum were Germanic.

Analyses of isotopes from their teeth show that they were British-born, not immigrants.



is this specific for drif3 and drif 16 ?

because :

Previous analysis of chemical signatures in the bones and teeth of other skeletons from the cemetery had determined that some of the men grew up in colder climates, perhaps Germany or further east in continental Europe. The chemical evidence also indicated some of them ate millet grain—a crop that was unavailable in Britain—as children.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160119-gladiator-headless-skeletons-dna/

Angela
30-07-16, 19:50
Tomenable, please stop spamming this thread with off topic data with which we are already familiar. The topic is consanguinity in the Near East, although I'm willing to discuss it elsewhere. To be honest, it's really annoying trying to wade through post after post that has nothing to do with the topic.

@Bicicleur,

I'll try to find those studies.

Angela
02-08-16, 19:30
Razib Khan points to something about consanguinity I'd forgotten, and gives a historical example: uncle niece mating is equivalent to half sibling matings.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-gods-curse-the-sin-of-incest/#comments

It seems that it's usually man and his brother's daughter. Patriarchy is the culprit once again, and probably control of wealth.

The control of wealth thing, and power, is what got so many of the royal families in the end.

Look at all the hemophilia in Victoria's descendants, and everybody knows about the Spanish Habsburgs.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005174

"The results indicate that inbreeding at the level of first cousin (F = 0.0625) exerted an adverse effect on survival of 17.8%±12.3. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II (F = 0.254) of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis, determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty."

There were a lot of uncle/niece matings in that line too.

When the Medici of Florence inter-married with them over a few generations, their direct line ended too.

Regio X
03-08-16, 21:39
An exception?

http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html (http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html)

(...)
"Mountains in Ogliastra have isolated its villages for generations, leading to a 'high rate of inbreeding' and a genetically homogeneous population. That could mean residents share genetic traits protecting them from certain diseases. 'Part of it is the environment and the diet, of course, but part of it might be something genetic that we don’t yet know about,' Tiziana CEO Gabriele Cerrone tells the Times. Cerrone says Ogliastra is one of only three regions in the world with an impressively high number of centenarians. There are currently 91 living in the province. Its population's longevity rate is second only to that of Okinawa in Japan."

Angela
04-08-16, 01:36
An exception?

http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html (http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html)

(...)
"Mountains in Ogliastra have isolated its villages for generations, leading to a 'high rate of inbreeding' and a genetically homogeneous population. That could mean residents share genetic traits protecting them from certain diseases. 'Part of it is the environment and the diet, of course, but part of it might be something genetic that we don’t yet know about,' Tiziana CEO Gabriele Cerrone tells the Times. Cerrone says Ogliastra is one of only three regions in the world with an impressively high number of centenarians. There are currently 91 living in the province. Its population's longevity rate is second only to that of Okinawa in Japan."




This is what I was getting at when I said that it might depend on what mutations for disease or less than optimal fitness exists in the founding population.

On the other hand I know that they do a lot of studies on recessive autosomal disease on Sardinia, and precise;y in more isolated places, so I don't know. Maybe a certain number of children die, but the ones that survive got all the "good" genes?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n11/full/ejhg201343a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673602079552