Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 267

Thread: Autosomal map : European admixture (from Dodecad)

  1. #201
    Banned Achievements:
    100 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    07-08-12
    Posts
    66


    Country: Canada



    This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data. The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...s-messy-paper/) This thread has gotten ridiculous. Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one. When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy. In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile. By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.

  2. #202
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data.
    Now you are just plagiarizing the opinions of an anonymous blogger.

    The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...s-messy-paper/)
    That's hardly a "debunking" of anything, more like an anonymous blogger expressing his opinions about supposedly obsolete nomenclature used in the paper. Plus he does not even say anything about the part being talked about here: the sub-Saharan African input in Italy according to their autosomal results.

    This thread has gotten ridiculous.
    That happened the very second that you irrupted into it with your personal issues regarding "black" influence in Europe, specially in Italy. You have done this in several other threads, and your choice of words (like "spoiled") very clearly show why you desperately want any other Europeans to have higher levels of it than Italians. To you having anything to do with sub-Saharan Africa is a "blemish".

    Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one.
    That's funny, because it was you who brought up the authors of that study, an earlier version of the study which they did not publish in favor of a more complete version of it which they did publish. You should have been more careful and examined their results before bringing it up in your attempts to "slander" (because it is obvious that to you sub-Saharan influence is an "insult") Spaniards and Portuguese, because it backfired on you.

    And Dienekes is just a blogger, an aficionado of genetics, he is no position to "debunk" a genetic study that other geneticists have not "debunked" or at least criticized. He can give his opinions about it, but that's it.

    When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy.

    Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior.

    In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile.

    The difference is that those earlier studies you are referring to are about haplogroups, a subject open to interpration. The ones that you desperately want to question or eliminate altogether are autosomal studies, which are considered more thorough than haplogroups. "Let that sink in for a while".

    By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.
    Apparently you did not bother to read the quote, as it very clearly is referring to sub-Saharan African gene flow in Northern Europeans and European Mediterraneans.

  3. #203
    Banned Achievements:
    100 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    07-08-12
    Posts
    66


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior.
    Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.

    Nothing backfired on me. I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients. I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies.

    I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I? Read next time before talking.

    You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically.

    Also, from an earlier post:

    "Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (note, the Grain I mentioned earlier) [3].

    1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

    2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". European Journal of Immunogenetics 29 (3): 205–11.

    3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, et al. (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49.


    Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."

  4. #204
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.
    It doesn't help yours the fact that so many people simply say "Italians" and do not single out your much dreaded Sicilians, who are just Italians like all others, despite your absurd claims of them being so different. That pretty much shows the "testament" to yours.

    Nothing backfired on me.
    Sure it did, since even one of the very authors' study you were trying to use in your ridiculous quest actually shows quite different results than you were gloating about.


    I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients.
    I'm sure that you are aware of Near Eastern and African slavery and immigration to Rome. As someone else informed you on another thread, Roman Italy was the "United States" of the day, attracting population movements from all over the then known world. It affected Italy the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there, as seen in these latest autosomal results.

    I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies.
    The one obviously trying to insult is you, plainly seen in your behavior in this and other threads. I am merely putting an obvious t-r-o-l-l in his place and giving him a nice taste of his own medicine.

    You are obviously of Italian descent and it seems to bother you a lot that sub-Saharan African influence in Europe could be highest in Italy. You never know, somewhere in your maternal or paternal line could be one of those "Negroes" you dread so much, since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in autosomal studies.

    I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I?
    Sure you did, you did not quote the passage but copied & pasted it into the body of your post as if it was your own.

    Read next time before talking.
    Follow your own "advice".

    You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically.
    You haven't won anything at all, but in fact actually managed to shoot yourself in the foot by bringing up Moorjani et al. Nobody has refuted any of the autosomal studies in question. Keep trying.


    Also, from an earlier post:

    "Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (note, the Grain I mentioned earlier) [3].

    1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

    2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". European Journal of Immunogenetics 29 (3): 205–11.

    3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, et al. (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49.


    Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."
     
    Now your desperation is even more blatant, trying to bring up even more obsolete stuff like HLA genes. You might as well try to bring back Arnaiz-Villena and his claims about the alleged sub-Saharan kinship of Greeks based on the same obsolete nonsense. Even comparing haplogroups with autosomal research is a bit silly, let alone HLA genes.

  5. #205
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    I can see how this bit of information has made you touchy. If Negro slaves were such a common occurrence in Rome, why aren't most Italians today Negroid?
    Your "bit of information" is obsolete stuff that no population geneticists of today uses, just like sickle cell anemia and the like things. Would you like me to start pulling all those old papers/articles on sickle cell anemia and how they keep mentioning it as being endemic among Italians, and use it as "proof" that they are the most African-influenced people in Europe alongside the Greeks and Portuguese, like countless Neo-Nazis, Nordicists and Afrocentrists have been trying to do for a long time? But that's hardly necessary in the light of more recent autosomal studies. Now they have much more modern "ammo" against their Italian targets.

    You're just angry that Spaniards are always referred to as the Moors that they are. Surley you haven't forgotten Al-Andalus, which was the Arab dynasty that ruined Spain and pillaged all of their women, one of which could have been your grandmother.
    Methinks that you are just angry that Italians have always been referred to as the most non-European influenced people in Europe that they are. Surely you DON'T want to start pulling quotations from historians specializing in the history of both Spain and Italy and comparing what they say about each country's contact with non-Europeans during the Middle Ages and the Roman period, respectively, do you? I assure you that you will lose... again. Even many of the emperors of Rome (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, Aemilianus, Philip the Arab, etc.) were Moors, Syrians and Libyans integrated into Roman society, any of which could have been your grandmother/grandfather.

    Hint: the so-called "Moorish invasion" of the Middle Ages was only a military/religious affair, it did not bring huge numbers of foreigners into Spain. Most historians on the subject will inform you of that. What happened in Italy during Roman times, on the other hand, was a real large migration of people (both slaves and free citizens.) Most historians on the subject will inform you of that.

  6. #206
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    So what? The only thing Italians have going against them is the Jewish/Arabic claim.
    I wonder if you realize how much you contradict yourself when you try to use "Moors" against Iberians? You must for some bizarre reason think that the "Moors" in Medieval Iberia were somehow "different" from the ones in Roman Italy. The only "different" thing about them was that the ones in the Middle Ages were Muslims, while the ones in Roman times were pagans and early Christians. That's about it. A difference of religions.

    I've never seen anybody say "Geez, that Italian sure looks 9.2% black" in my entire life. That's hardly as bad as the 20%+ L mtDNA haplogroups found in parts of Southwestern Europe which are from Niggers. Autosomal studies (Ancestral Informal Markers, not haplogroups), say the same thing.
    Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.

    Yes, all of whom are Caucasoid. Not Negroid like the Sub-Saharans who were involved in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
    The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well.

    You do know that N.African's aren't Black right? Only until recently have they had contact with Saharan populations, and even that's towards the SOUTH of North Africa. Severus was a Caucasoid from Mediterranean N.Africa, Caracalla was of mixed Punic-Roman and Syrian descent (again, all Caucasoid groups), Macrinus was born right on the Coast of N.Africa. He could've been Greek/Ancient Egyptian/Phonecian, etc. Aemilianus was a Berber (white North African). Phillip the Arab was Syrian. Syrians aren't Negroes. NONE of these groups are Negroid like you claim.

    I never claimed they were Negroid, but it is you who paradoxically seems to want to use them as such when it comes to Medieval Spain and Portugal, but not Roman Italy!

    Let's focus on the Umayyad conquest of Hispania shall we? A few rulers of Spain during the Moorish conquest were; Tariq ibn Ziyad, Abd-ar-Rahman III, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi (7th Emir of Cordoba), and the list goes on. You're a ******* idiot if you think Spaniards are "less polluted" than Italians because they're not. Let's not forget that the Conquest's stronghold was in Spain. Where it had the most affect. Not all slave owners in Rome bread with their slaves.
    Once again, the idiot is you if you think that a military intervention involving only a few thousand foreign people in a geographic area already inhabited by several million people is equivalent to an actual migration of larger numbers of people. On top of that, in medieval Iberia there was a history of reconquest and expulsion of people from different religions other than that of the Christian conquerors. In Roman Italy no such thing happened since the "invasion" there was of a more peaceful kind, not in the form of a military/religious conflict. In other words, the foreign population of Roman Italy was never expelled. There never was any reason to. The Romans did not see these foreigners as a military/religious threat. In fact, as mentioned, they even allowed them to become emperors! So using your very own kind of "arguments", guess who must be the more "polluted"?

    Once again, it's the Portuguese and Spaniards who own this claim. Look up "are spanish people...", in the Google search engine. You will get JUST as many if not more results linking them to Negroes, Moors, Arabs, etc as Italians do. And a favorite of mine, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade! As a matter of fact, whole towns in Iberia were composed of Negroids. WHOLE TOWNS. This is why the 20% L sequences exist in the first place. So don't give me shit about Italians inter-mingling with slaves when there was nowhere near as much of that going on as there were in some parts of Southwestern Europe. So it's likely that you have a nigger somewhere in there on your maternal line at-least.
    Once again, look at all the results for Italians, as many if not more. But there is a difference between that (popular ideas, claims and so forth) and what the latest results of autosomal studies say. You already saw it. You did not like it. Lesson: don't try to t-r-o-l-l other people because it can come back at you, more easily than you thought it would.

    PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.

  7. #207
    Banned Achievements:
    100 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    07-08-12
    Posts
    66


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa....28.3E_1.25.29

    The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]

    Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?

  8. #208
    Banned Achievements:
    100 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    07-08-12
    Posts
    66


    Country: Canada



    Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.
    And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.

    The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well.
    I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?

  9. #209
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa

    sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.

    I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.

    If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong
    Father's Mtdna H95a1
    Grandfather Mtdna T2b24
    Great Grandfather Mtdna T1a1e
    GMother paternal side YDna R1b-S8172
    Mother's YDna R1a-Z282

  10. #210
    Banned Achievements:
    100 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    07-08-12
    Posts
    66


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa

    sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.

    I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.

    If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong
    I'm not afraid. I know that there will probably be some high West/Southwest Asian component on my test. I know right now that I have origins in the Middle East. This doesn't bother me. There's probably even some N.African in there. Hell, I probably even have a few Jewish ancestors in there somewhere. That being said, I highly doubt though that there is little, if any sub-Saharan African component.

    I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

    I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.

  11. #211
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.
    Now apply that to the Spanish and Portuguese you so desperately want to throw that nonsense to and you'll realize how silly you have been all this time.

    I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?
    Few? There were even "black" societies in Britain made up of ex-slaves. The levels of black servants/slaves there were comparable to the ones imported to Spain or France. Still, they did not even make up 2-3% of the population. So in an ironic sense, yes, there were relatively few slaves in all these countries, which again shows that you have no point.

  12. #212
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
    The "idiot" here being the geneticists (many of them Italians themselves!) who have concluded that from sampling Italians and whom you desperately want to overlook or ignore just to concentrate on the studies that seem to say things you want to hear. How convenient, isn't it?

    I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.
    Apparently you have a knack for not noticing things that people keep reminding you of: haplogroups are open to interpretation (not all L sequences are considered "sub-Saharan" or having to do with "black" Africans) and they are also a small part of your DNA. Autosomal analysis is more thorough, and you already know what it says about the subject.

  13. #213
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by wormhole View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa....28.3E_1.25.29

    The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]

    Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?
    The autosomal one that you dread so much is still more recent (published December 2012), and you already know what it says. Italians came up with higher sub-Saharan than everyone else in Europe, including the Portugese, which, by the way, seem to have made up most of their non-Italian European Mediterranean samples. See figure 2 of the said study; the only Mediterranean areas besides Italy being sampled for the study were Portugal and Northwest Spain. So the study should probably more likely have said "the amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in Portugal (7.1%)."

  14. #214
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    The great majority of Haplogroup studies (they have practically no significance with respect to full heritage) that Wormhole is quoting are outdated and some are very deficient, methodologically. Case in point, the Alcacer do Sal "research"; treated as "laughable" now-a-days by serious researchers. The latest K-12 autosomal Eurogenes study (Eurogenes site) shows Portugal with ~ 1% Sub-Saharan DNA, nearly all of it very old. Spain records even less. Hmmm ... wonder what the SSA percentages are for places like Liverpool and Bristol, possibly the biggest black slave ports in the Atlantic Slave Trade?

  15. #215
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    Funny how obviously racially insecure, social anxiety driven characters keep showing up here.

  16. #216
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Knovas's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-05-11
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,444
    Points
    9,065
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,065, Level: 28
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 285
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1b1a

    Ethnic group
    Catalan
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Exaggerating all the time is what the guy did, the hate is obvious.

    When we're dealing with "Middle Eastern", "North African" or even "West Asian" components, it's easy to notice when checking the Fst distances that they're closer to African (aka Sub-Saharan) than the Mediterranean or North European components do for instance. So telling there's no Sub-Saharan in a population just because there's no result labeled "Sub-Saharan", is inaccurate and completely false. The components aren't pure and one should care to revise where they fall along the cline (the African/West-East Eurasian triangle). Oh, and results showing less than 1% in one cluster, are considered noise (admixture is good, but has its limitations). Iberians rarely have more than this, let alone the Catalans whose African ancestry is absolutely insignificant, and I know it by first hand experience.

    Time to stop misinterpreting the components and this kind of tests for strange purposes (intentionally, of course). Note that the clusters come without names, and the researcher simply choses. But the Fst distances tell the whole story or, at least, it's the best aproximation.

    By the way, the Eurogenes Project uses the Yoruba samples as the Sub-Saharan reference, which IMO increases the percents (they have some Eurasian compared to other groups). Actually, it is better to use San and Pygmies to get a better perspective, and one realises that there's really no significant Sub-Saharan element in Europe, although not absent for the reasons I already stated (but difficult to quantify).

  17. #217
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,331
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    wormhole is banned forever for racism.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  18. #218
    Baron Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassOverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    367
    Points
    11,693
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,693, Level: 32
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 257
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    He sounded unstable. Someone who is that hung up on racial identity probably shouldn't take an autosomal test.

  19. #219
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicwarrior View Post
    He sounded unstable. Someone who is that hung up on racial identity probably shouldn't take an autosomal test.
    Unstable and terribly misinformed...

  20. #220
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Wilhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-09
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,661
    Points
    15,281
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,281, Level: 37
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 369
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-S26
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1

    Ethnic group
    Celtiberians
    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
    The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

    http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html

    Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...

  21. #221
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Cambrius (The Red)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    27-06-09
    Posts
    2,640
    Points
    12,808
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,808, Level: 34
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 542
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b (RL-21*)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3

    Ethnic group
    Gallaecian Celtic
    Country: USA - Ohio



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
    The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

    http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html

    Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...
    Just another malicious hater... sociopath.

  22. #222
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,119
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
    The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

    http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html

    Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...
    oh well, Spain miss out on L ...too bad
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  23. #223
    Baron Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassOverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    367
    Points
    11,693
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,693, Level: 32
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 257
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.

    Reply

    Ha, I thought the same thing!

  24. #224
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
    1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
    which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

    2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
    in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study.

    Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
    "Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."

    Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
    And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
    w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

    And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
    But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
    Spain: Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns
    as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
    Portugal: 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns "highest ever reported in Europe"
    w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604
    South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

    So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something.
    Good study.

  25. #225
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
    1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
    which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

    2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
    in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study.

    Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
    "Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."

    Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
    And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
    w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

    And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
    But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
    Spain: Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns
    as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
    Portugal: 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns "highest ever reported in Europe"
    w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604
    South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

    So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something.
    Good study.
    It doesn't matter how hard you try to "spin" things and deviate to older Y-Chromosome and mtDNA studies (and you conveniently leave out some that do not go along with your agenda, like Plaza et al. 2003: 8.1% sub-Saharan lineages in southern Italy), the fact is that the results of this study using autosomes concluded this (clearly identified as "Sub-Saharan African", not North African or from anywhere else):

    "This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%)."

    And where does it say in Figure 2 that "NW Spain (ie. Galicia, the great celtic region) is 7.1%" instead of this percentage being based on the two non-Italian Mediterranean samples they used (Portugal + only NW Spain)? Unless you have proof that a single region of Spain provided more samples than the whole nation of Portugal for an estimate that was intended to represent the entire non-Italian Mediterranean side of Europe in the study (quite unfairly, I may add, since Portugal is well-known to have more sub-Saharan influence than Spain and the rest of Mediterranean Europe, except Italy, according to the autosomal results of this study), don't jump to conclusions.

    Also, the study does not even mention Moorjani et al 2011, so it seems that you are just assuming they used exactly the same methods the other authors employed for their estimates. The fact that you don't really know this is strongly suggested by your very own complaint that in this study "there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated."

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 25-12-19, 00:37
  2. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 23-07-18, 00:08
  3. Replies: 187
    Last Post: 09-07-16, 00:31
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-09-13, 19:31
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 20-08-13, 21:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •