Black Irish come from R1b Iranians?

I would be absolutely thrilled to be called "bambina"..."cocca" or "ninnina" would be nice too, or how about "ciao bella"?!

Obviously, it's time for people to re-read Ralph and Coop, et al, 2013...
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

Based on extensive and exhaustive IBD analysis, which has not been challenged to date, the authors concluded the following:

"Two of the more striking examples of substructure are illustrated in Figure 2. Here, we see that variation within countries can be reflective of continuous variation in ancestry that spans a broader geographic region, crossing geographic, political, and linguistic boundaries. Figure 2A shows the distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland. It is natural to guess that there is a north-south gradient of recency of common ancestry along the length of Italy, and that southern Italy has been historically more closely connected to the eastern Mediterranean.

There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years, as seen in Figures S16 and S17S17. The rate of genetic common ancestry between pairs of Italian individuals seems to have been fairly constant for the past 2,500 years, which combined with significant structure within Italy suggests a constant exchange of migrants between coherent subpopulations.

Patterns for the Iberian peninsula are similar, with both Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period.

In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16). Also recall that most populations show no substructure with regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries, substructure that was not homogenized during the migration period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy from diverse sources."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...G1bVvzCnXam8mrS5EADUaUCw&ust=1397920436573814
 
Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of their large sample size.

Yes the Spanish chicos def. stand out when it comes to African admixture in comparison to all other Europeans that were tested (which included Tuscany and North Italians); And using a larger sample set makes the result the more credible; And that "may harbor" turned out (by proper Method described in the previous page) as being 14.8% African (Mozabite/Yoruba/Mbuti) and the K=20 analysis also shows a good doze of East African [Ethiopian] Admixture apart from the overwhelming Mozabite amount and occurance in every Spanish sample i.e. thus every Spanish ''Celt'' is actually part African (Lazaridis et al 2013);

Thats the K=20 analysis (a comparison to other South Europeans)
Mirr1.png
 
Yet when actual ADMIXTURE analysis of these samples was made, it is your fellow Italians who still showed some sub-Saharan African admixture (blue on the graph) at K=6: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7307/k36fig3.png

k36fig3.png


Doesnt this admixture result [K=6] also debunk Brisighelli given that only one sample has a minimal amount of sub-saharan admixture where as all the other Ita samples have absolutely none and all the Tuscany (Tsi) samples have also absolutely none; So this is yet another study (Botigue 2013) that has a completely diff. result as Brisghelli did as did also all studies before it (Moorjani 2011 / Behar 2010 /Henn 2012) and all studies after it (Lazaridis 2013 / DiCristorfero 2013 / Rhagavan 2013 / Chauby 2014) thus making the Brisighelli result (and its dubious method) quite unique; But despite its uniqueness and great love for it you always fail to mention the 7.1% sub-saharan admixture for North Spain and Portugal;

And have you also noticed (Botigue 2013 / ADMIXTURE) the masses of African and Near East admixture in Spain (especially "Celt-Iberian" Galicia / not quite like your fantasy i.e. just like the British); Whereas Ita and Tsi (Tuscany) only have a decent amount of Near East which gets the more minor at K=10 (and no African at K=10 unlike Spain); And there is yet another study (Mallick 2013) which has a K=7 admixture analyses (and once again a completely diff. result than Brisighelli - yet another study) in which the Spanish samples are once more the most with sub-Saharan admixture (not Sardinia, Italy or Tuscany);

Mallick et al 2013 -
Figure_S2 (corr. to the chron. of Table_S8)
Download Figure_S2 for better visual of K=7;
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003912

I even sketched it out for you;
red block is the Spanish sample (almost all have sub-saharan admixture);
yellow block is the Italian group 1. Sardinian block 2. Italian block 3. Tuscany block (only 3 samples from all these blocks have sub-saharan admixture an at the most minimal level and far less than the average Spanish sample);
inyfci.png
 
Funny how these concepts change over time... in the days when the Mediterranean was the center of the world, Greeks prided themselves in being olive-skinned and in being darker than the "barbarians" from the North (and also in being lighter than the Egyptians, it's true). Now that we live in an era of Anglo-Germanic "supremacy", everyone in Southern Europe (and other places) wants to claim light skin and light eyes, and abuse each other for possibly being slightly darker than the other.

I can imagine Germans 2000 years ago having these passionate disputes over who had darker hair and darker eyes (and thus more similar to the Romans)

Please don't include me in this sorry crew...or the vast, vast majority of Italians! Even Raoul Bova needs a nice tan to look really good.
grin.png

francesca_e_nunziata_raoul_bova_lina_wertm_ller_004_jpg_ztmf.jpg


1f66d7dc65e5.jpg


Discussions like this are a prime example of why scientists in this field have to constantly defend themselves against charges of racism, and why I feel like a criminal every time I try to access this site in a public venue only to be told it's blocked as a racist site.

@Nobody 1
As you yourself said, there's no reasoning with certain people. Logic, science, math, it's all useless in the face of obsession and self-delusion. I just have him on "ignore", and he's one who will never be taken off!




If you want to predict skin color, a simple way is to look carefully at a good map of UV radiation in Europe. It's not going to be far off.
 
Yes the Spanish chicos def. stand out when it comes to African admixture in comparison to all other Europeans that were tested (which included Tuscany and North Italians); And using a larger sample set makes the result the more credible; And that "may harbor" turned out (by proper Method described in the previous page) as being 14.8% African (Mozabite/Yoruba/Mbuti) and the K=20 analysis also shows a good doze of East African [Ethiopian] Admixture apart from the overwhelming Mozabite amount and occurance in every Spanish sample i.e. thus every Spanish ''Celt'' is actually part African (Lazaridis et al 2013);

Thats the K=20 analysis (a comparison to other South Europeans)
Mirr1.png

That's only your wishful spin, as usual. These are IBDs, not exactly admixture, plus the authors themselves mention the larger Spanish sample size as an explanation for the seemingly larger "African" results.
 
That's only your wishful spin, as usual. These are IBDs, not exactly admixture, plus the authors themselves mention the larger Spanish sample size as an explanation for the seemingly larger "African" results.

No;
The authors only mention that the Spanish result [for African admixture] stands out in comparison to the other Europeans; Which has nothing to do with the result itself; And the result is of course more reliable given its a larger sample set; And the method with the 3 African ref. pops was admixture linkage disequilibrium to determine the extent of admixture p.84 (older PDF p.64);

Talk about a wishful spin - you spin great DracII;
 
k36fig3.png


Doesnt this admixture result [K=6] also debunk Brisighelli given that only one sample has a minimal amount of sub-saharan admixture where as all the other Ita samples have absolutely none and all the Tuscany (Tsi) samples have also absolutely none; So this is yet another study (Botigue 2013) that has a completely diff. result as Brisghelli did as did also all studies before it (Moorjani 2011 / Behar 2010 /Henn 2012) and all studies after it (Lazaridis 2013 / DiCristorfero 2013 / Rhagavan 2013 / Chauby 2014) thus making the Brisighelli result (and its dubious method) quite unique; But despite its uniqueness and great love for it you always fail to mention the 7.1% sub-saharan admixture for North Spain and Portugal;

Moorjani et al. found more sub-Saharan in southern Italy alone than in all Spain put together, we've been over this. Brisghelli et al. 2012 used AIMS, and Italians were found to have the most sub-Saharan of all sampled Europeans using this method. That study only included NW Spanish samples, not from all the north. We've been over this many times already.

And have you also noticed (Botigue 2013 / ADMIXTURE) the masses of African and Near East admixture in Spain (especially "Celt-Iberian" Galicia / not quite like your fantasy i.e. just like the British); Whereas Ita and Tsi (Tuscany) only have a decent amount of Near East which gets the more minor at K=10 (and no African at K=10 unlike Spain);

Apparently you need your eyes checked, because the yellow (Near Eastern) is higher in the Italian samples. Notice the difference between it (and also its African & Jewish) and that of German samples, BTW. Not the "kinship" of your dreams, surely.

K=10 is not included on the chart for ADMIXTURE results for the main text of that study (fig. 1), but k=6 is included and plainly visible, and it is the Italian samples that still show a bit of sub-Saharan here, not the Spanish. I took a look at the supplement but unfortunately I could not find a clear view of K=10, the graphic provided there is too small.

And there is yet another study (Mallick 2013) which has a K=7 admixture analyses (and once again a completely diff. result than Brisighelli - yet another study) in which the Spanish samples are once more the most with sub-Saharan admixture (not Sardinia, Italy or Tuscany);

Mallick et al 2013 -
Figure_S2 (corr. to the chron. of Table_S8)
Download Figure_S2 for better visual of K=7;
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003912

I even sketched it out for you;
red block is the Spanish sample (almost all have sub-saharan admixture);
yellow block is the Italian group 1. Sardinian block 2. Italian block 3. Tuscany block (only 3 samples from all these blocks have sub-saharan admixture an at the most minimal level and far less than the average Spanish sample);
inyfci.png

Where are these samples identified in the text of the study?
 
This has to be the trolliest of your "black Irish" threads yet.

No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans.

Black Irish don't have dark pigment, they just have dark hair. No Black Irish in America are dark. Any dark Irish in Ireland probably come from Basque input or Spanish input from 1600s. Christopher Lee does not have Irish features at all.
 
No;
The authors only mention that the Spanish result [for African admixture] stands out in comparison to the other Europeans; Which has nothing to do with the result itself; And the result is of course more reliable given its a larger sample set; And the method with the 3 African ref. pops was admixture linkage disequilibrium to determine the extent of admixture p.84 (older PDF p.64);

Talk about a wishful spin - you spin great DracII;

The study itself is about IBDs, and you know very well what their quote says regarding sample size. They use it as a possible argument to explain this "stand out" of the Spanish sample in their analysis. Meaning that had it been like the other samples maybe the "stand out" may not have been there.
 
Moorjani et al. found more sub-Saharan in southern Italy alone than in all Spain put together, we've been over this. Brisghelli et al. 2012 used AIMS, and Italians were found to have the most sub-Saharan of all sampled Europeans using this method. That study only included NW Spanish samples, not from all the north. We've been over this many times already.

The Moorjani 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
(averages of the total sample-sets tested)
N Italy 1.1%
Greece 1.9%
Spain 2.4%
S Italy 2.7%
Portugal 3.2%

And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (not even close) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on average (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average;

Apparently you need your eyes checked, because the yellow (Near Eastern) is higher in the Italian samples. Notice the difference between it (and also its African & Jewish) and that of German samples, BTW. Not the "kinship" of your dreams, surely. K=10 is not included on the chart for ADMIXTURE results for the main text of that study (fig. 1), but k=6 is included and plainly visible, and it is the Italian samples that still show a bit of sub-Saharan here, not the Spanish. I took a look at the supplement but unfortunately I could not find a clear view of K=10, the graphic provided there is too small.

Obviously you need your eyes checked because there are plenty of K=10 analysis on p.11 of the supp. material;
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

And one can clearly see that [on a) K=10 (from which the snippet is from)] has a more minimal Near East admix in Ita and Tsi (Tuscany) whereas the African component is still grasading in the Spanish samples (And/Gal/Spa); And the sub-saharan admixture in K=6 is limited to one sample of Ita and that at the most minimal amount (as also in other European pops.) while all the other Ita samples and all the Tsi (Tuscany) samples have absolutely none sub-saharan admix [K=6];

Where are these samples identified in the text of the study?

As i have written:
Table_S8
- List of populations included in the ADMIXTURE run along with their geographic region and source of study;
 
The Moorjani 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
(averages of the total sample-sets tested)
N Italy 1.1%
Greece 1.9%
Spain 2.4%
S Italy 2.7%
Portugal 3.2%

And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (not even close) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on average (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average;

The figure that you seem to have in mind does not show exactly that. If we were to interpret it like you want to, then the British samples would have almost as much sub-Saharan as the NW Spanish, Portuguese and even Italians, something that would hardly have gone unnoticed in the study. The sample size seems to be reflected in the size of the rectangles for each group in that graph.

Obviously you need your eyes checked because there are plenty of K=10 analysis on p.11 of the supp. material;
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf


And one can clearly see that [on a) K=10 (from which the snippet is from)] has a more minimal Near East admix in Ita and Tsi (Tuscany) whereas the African component is still grasading in the Spanish samples (And/Gal/Spa);

Obviously you need to check your reading skills, since I did point out that they included it in the supplement, but it's just too small to see any details. Maybe you have Superman's vision and can see it, but I can't. It's not clearly visible like k=6 in the main text, where they included a nice big visible graphic of it.

And the sub-saharan admixture in K=6 is limited to one sample of Ita and that at the most minimal amount whereas all the other Ita samples and all the Tsi (Tuscany) samples have absolutely none sub-saharan admix [K=6];

Aha, and the Spanish have zero sub-Saharan here at K=6. And the Italians still have larger Near Eastern (and Jewish) here as well.

As i have written:
Table_S8
- List of populations included in the ADMIXTURE run along with their geographic region and source of study;

OK, just saw it, it's an Excel doc. How did you correlate the samples of each population to the graphic? It does not seem to be plainly indicated in the graph itself. Are they in the same order as they appear on the Excel doc?
 
The figure that you seem to have in mind does not show exactly that. If we were to interpret it like you want to, then the British samples would have almost as much sub-Saharan as the NW Spanish, Portuguese and even Italians, something that would hardly have gone unnoticed in the study. The sample size seems to be reflected in the size of the rectangles for each group in that graph.

Maybe they should present the British results on their own and not lumped together; In order to than judge how obscure that method actually was; That study was corrected (for the Y-Haplogroups) a year later anyways maybe they can pass that info in later as well;

Obviously you need to check your reading skills, since I did point out that they included it in the supplement, but it's just too small to see any details. Maybe you have Superman's vision and can see it, but I can't. It's not clearly visible like k=6 in the main text, where they included a nice big visible graphic of it.

One can still see it and also certain components but not as detailed as in the snippet of K=3-6;

Aha, and the Spanish have zero sub-Saharan here at K=6. And the Italians still have larger Near Eastern (and Jewish) here as well.

But much more North African and the Jewish is given at less than 2% [p.5] not sure which K analysis based on however; More Near East in Italians, Tuscans and also Greeks what a shocker;

OK, just saw it, it's an Excel doc. How did you correlate the samples of each population to the graphic? It does not seem to be plainly indicated in the graph itself. Are they in the same order as they appear on the Excel doc?

Yes Table_S8 lists the blocks in the chronological order of the K=7 analysis; One can also simply double check the chronology with the results given at K=7 i.e. Sardinia is easily spotted (and on that position as in Table_S8) and so is Lithuania after Tuscany and the end with the Chuvashs (most E Asian comp.) all corresponding to the chronology given in Table_S8;
 
Maybe they should present the British results on their own and not lumped together; In order to than judge how obscure that method actually was; That study was corrected (for the Y-Haplogroups) a year later anyways maybe they can pass that info in later as well;

Different authors seem to lump populations together at their whim and fancy, while others they leave on their own. Unfortunately, they do not always explain what criterion they used for such decisions.


One can still see it and also certain components but not as detailed as in the snippet of K=3-6;

Let me know if you find a more detailed view of K=10, because I really can't tell much from looking at the small pictures in that PDF. I was not kidding or teasing you about this, I really can't tell much from such pictures.

But much more North African and the Jewish is given at less than 2% [p.5] not sure which K analysis based on however; More Near East in Italians, Tuscans and also Greeks what a shocker;

Yes, I never contested the North African. I am well aware that this one is more common in Iberia than Italy.

Yes Table_S8 lists the blocks in the chronological order of the K=7 analysis; One can also simply double check the chronology with the results given at K=7 i.e. Sardinia is easily spotted (and on that position as in Table_S8) and so is Lithuania after Tuscany and the end with the Chuvashs (most E Asian comp.) all corresponding to the chronology given in Table_S8;

Why are the North African/Middle Eastern samples apparently in just three single blocks in the graph when there's more sampled populations from these areas in the Excel doc? It makes it hard to correlate which of the blocks in the graph belongs to which of the populations in the Excel doc.
 
Drac is a clown. Me and Nobody1 have already debunked all his "arguments" on this forum, but he still thinks he can win with "words".

He is not even an Iberian, but a fat 1.50 m tall brown mestizo in the US who lives on welfare and wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters.

Leave the clown alone.
 
Last edited:
The Moorjani 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
(averages of the total sample-sets tested)
N Italy 1.1%
Greece 1.9%
Spain 2.4%
S Italy 2.7%
Portugal 3.2%

And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (not even close) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on average (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average;

Brisighelli et al. uses an Admixture analysis with 52 SNPs. Do not quote anymore that rubbish for God's sake.

Moorjani et al. uses a Structure 2.2 analysis with about 13 K SNPs. Structure is an outdated and unreliable computer algorithm.
 
Last edited:
k36fig3.png


On the K=6 only one Italian (probably a Sicilian) scores some SSA, whereas several Portuguese, Canarians and even a Basque score some SSA. Beside that all the Iberians have a great amount of Magrebi admixture, that Italians and other Europeans completely lack.

And this genius still thinks that Italians are more African than his Iberian slave masters, doesn't he? ROFL!

Drac II the average Mexican mestizo is 40% Amerindian and 5% African. Beside that Mexicans have a mean IQ of 85, while Italians have a mean IQ of 102. Enjoy that stuff and stop messing with the white man.
 
you're both in the same ship buddy, i really feel bad for all these insecure south Europeans
 
Leaving aside all the discrepancies and quirks of these genetic researches, I don't think anyone non-Spanish and non-Italian really views one or the other group as being particularly "whiter" or "darker"... At the end of the day, any given Spaniard can perfectly blend in with a crowd of Italians and vice-versa. Rome ruled Hispania for centuries, Aragon/Habsburg Spain ruled (most of) Italy for centuries... Italy probably achieved more in the arts and culture, Spain carved itself a global empire... both are pretty damn good at football and have beautiful women... as someone who traces a part of their ancestry to both countries, I say have a Birra Morretti and a Estrella Damm and celebrate the draw:beer1:


^ I agree with Angela, Eupedia does feel like Stormfront lite sometimes, lol
 
Leaving aside all the discrepancies and quirks of these genetic researches, I don't think anyone non-Spanish and non-Italian really views one or the other group as being particularly "whiter" or "darker"... At the end of the day, any given Spaniard can perfectly blend in with a crowd of Italians and vice-versa. Rome ruled Hispania for centuries, Aragon/Habsburg Spain ruled (most of) Italy for centuries... Italy probably achieved more in the arts and culture, Spain carved itself a global empire... both are pretty damn good at football and have beautiful women... as someone who traces a part of their ancestry to both countries, I say have a Birra Morretti and a Estrella Damm and celebrate the draw:beer1:


^ I agree with Angela, Eupedia does feel like Stormfront lite sometimes, lol


Hello, R1b Df27 brother. I discovered about a week ago(through FTDNA) that i am a member of Df27 and have recent(300-400BP) paternal relatives living in Spain and France, and that my paternal lineage is from Spain. My overall Spanish ancestry is only around 6%, but still it's exciting because i had no idea i had any Spanish ancestry.

We'er both members of mtDNA U5b to, and both our maternal lineages are probably descended of Mesolithic central-western Europeans.
 
Brisighelli et al. uses an Admixture analysis with 52 SNPs. Do not quote anymore that rubbish for God's sake.

Moorjani et al. uses a Structure 2.2 analysis with about 13 K SNPs. Structure is an outdated and unreliable computer algorithm.

As usual trying to desperately invalidate studies that don't go along with your agenda. Brisighelli et al. used AIMS, you don't need such huge amounts of markers. Perhaps the only thing they can be accused of is of having obtained inflated results by using a smaller panel of AIMS (but that goes for the results of all the populations they sampled, not just Italians.) And one of the few things that Moorjani et al. can be accused of is very likely having passed North African input as "sub-Saharan".
 

This thread has been viewed 146561 times.

Back
Top