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

Here it is...

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

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

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

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



http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translat...DocsID=611986&lp=ru_en&.intl=us&fr=att-portal
 
BM-31 said:
I prefer to trust not to words, and proceedings references on which give. To me here only distances (it has made Nasturtium) the reference not on the official data, on simple conversation on wikipedia. I very strongly doubt that it is possible to name "white" USA anglo-saxons because they consist of different blood of DNA: irish, slavic, mediterranean and so on. It not anglo-saxons.
Click to expand...
are you writing with google translator?:embarassed:
 
I'm writing what got translated, as the link is only found in Russian. :annoyed:

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

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

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

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


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/351
DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet BAMSHAD et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?

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

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high , holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike , however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/



subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Turakulov and Easteal 2003; Tang et al. 2005; Lao et al. 2006). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”
 
Here is one of the (many) links that points out that 2 people from the same group can show more variation than 2 people from different groups:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Frankly, I'm surprised the Europeans are content to let Maltesekid's assertion that no one is pure except Chinese or inbreds go unchallenged. I guess you're more interested in picking me apart and mocking my computer's version of translator. I guess you can now switch to critisizing my format, spelling, name...Enjoy!
 
Nasturtium said:
The original assertion is that Americans who classify themselves as "white" (aka European ancestors) have 30% African admixture, or even 2% if you will, has been lost. Interesting that Europeans are for the most part silent on the obsurdity of the claim, and the obvious propaganda that BM-31 is using to prove it.
Click to expand...
This is the study that BM-31 was referring to :

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

Frankly, I'm surprised the Europeans are content to let Maltesekid's assertion that no one is pure except Chinese or inbreds go unchallenged. I guess you're more interested in picking me apart and mocking my computer's version of translator. I guess you can now switch to critisizing my format, spelling, name...Enjoy!
Click to expand...
We know it is stupid that chinese are the only pure, but all his posts are ignorant, don't worry...
 
Last edited:
That 30% with 10% non-european dna might work at deCODEme but not 23andme, assuming that people who opt to test their DNA are considered average. I respect the Dienekes Anthropology website so I'll begrudgingly accept it...with the caveat that it may be region specific. Thanks.
 
Another study* showed 0.5% to 1.2% introgression of Sub-Saharan African genes into the European American gene pool.

*Esteban J. Parra et al., Estimating African American Admixture Proportions by Use of Population-Specific Alleles, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 63:1839-1851, 1998
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 30510 times.

Back
Top