| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Originally Posted by Ike
according to genetic scholars, being classified as 100% "European" means, your ancestors where more than 2100 years in Europe.
what is Europe...today's boundaries ...to the Urals or
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.
Do they say that all the ancestors had to be European with no exceptions?
If you go back 2000 years potentially you could have few thousands of grandparents. What if one or two were from Asia or Africa? I wonder if there even is one European who didn't have ancestors from outside of Europe in last 2000 years.
Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.
Only Paternal and only one.
so this ONE ( as an example) could be in Europe 3000 years ago and then went to asia and will still be classified 100% European
There is a such thing as being European genetically. In globe13 the only group to originate in Europe is called North Euro and is very popular throughout Europe. Europeans are overall in skin, hair, and eye color are much paler than other Caucasins. I am not saying that palness originated in Europe (origin of Euro palness). The Soumi its debatable but I think their ancestors arrived in Scandinavia 9,000-11,000ybp there is a reason why they look no different from French or Germans or whoever its because their related how ever many 1,000's of years ago. You can uselly look at someone and tell if their European or not a reason why their called white people. From what I learned in Geography class Europe was created with borders at the Urals because of physical and cultural differences with people east of the Urals. Europe is apart of the same landmass as Asia there is not some huge line of fire in between the two. Just I don't understand why even though Anatolia is right next to Greece people in Greece group with everyone else in Europe why do the borders almost match up perfectly. I know Greeks have a much higher rate of mid eastern ancestry than other Europeans but I think that came in Greco Roman age. Basically what happened was Greece was settled by Europeans and later inter married with near easterns I think mainly with spread of farming, contact inbetween Neloithic-bronze agem and then Greco Roman age.
How interesting...perhaps you could provide us with their names and where they teach...Oxford? Harvard? Stanford? And a citation for the publications where they have made such statements?
I see from a subsequent post that you think "Europeanness" is defined by someone's ydna. Where exactly does that leave women? Her father's?
Strange even for men that it's not autosomes at least. So, Chadic speaking people from West Africa who carry an R1b clade (V88) are Europeans? Oh, I forgot...there's that 2,100 year line. Once you cross it you're safe. So, an E-M81 man in France whose first y line ancestor to set foot in France was a Roman soldier in 200 B.C. is European, but another E-M81 man whose first y line ancestor to see foot in France arrived in 721 A.D.isn't European?
You might want to read what actual genetic scholars propose for the genesis of Europeans.
See: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09...tions-and.html
It begins with a nice easy graphic.
Actually, the northern European component of which you are so fond, actually contains quite a bit of Asian ancestry. You might also be interested in : http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06...-northern.html
Or,you might find this informative: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...erence-of.html
Graphics are good here too.
That mongliod admixture in north Euro only counts for Finland and other Uralic speakers. I get sick of it when they generalize north Europe because technically southern Germans count as north European even though they are as far north as Serbians who they count as south Europeans.
I referred to my individual AuDna tests , not the gedmatch, dodecad, eurogenes, etc etc as I care little for these as some sites "manipulate" data to get a test result that suits them.
I asked Doug, for my Paternal line and that's what he stated , I then asked for Maternal as I completed the FMS test after his test and he stated it did not alter anything
- since I am designated 100% European by yourself and I am from the T haplogroup does this 100% mean that for the entirety of the span of 2000 or 2500 years you cover, that my ancestors where in Europe at that time.?
Hard to say ... it's only one ancestor 2100 years ago that had to be T ... so he could be anywhere in Europe, noy necessarily in.
BTW, since the test with you I have had a FMS done via FtDna and also send my results to Genbank and they noted I am no longer a H2 person and will be given a brand new H subclade. Does this have any impact on the previous test you did.?
NO
Doug
So , I specifically asked for T,
EDIT: If these admixture tests from different sources are correct then they should all relatively match each other, but they do not , so clearly a case of what site you want to believe.
Last edited by Sile; 29-09-13 at 07:38.
Oh, now I get it. Only 2% (YDNA) of your all DNA is 100% European. Don't' you think you should be more clear in your statements to avoid misunderstandings?
I'm sorry, you've referred to your individual AuDNA and you didn't care to mention it?!
Again, be more transparent in your posts. we have no idea what is your creation and what Doug actually said in this post. Keep in mind that we are not in your head and can't see clearly what you're thinking at the moment, without clear explanation.
fix this server then, I can change whats written, I cannot add text between previously written script, I cannot edit, I get logged out in the middle of writing ( i have to try to save, then I cannot re-enter), i cannot save ( it just sits there for hours) and many ore issues
Lets see, I have only 1 shot....
.I am saying , the meaning of being European is based on one's personnel test with testers like Doug and and not based on admixture tests from gedmatch or similar
explain, whats 2%
I think I know what you are referring to.
lets clarify...
if an englishman went to america with the mayflower and his ancestors began in europe 2100 or more years ago, then he is 100% European...the thing about, what about being american is only for native american ( red-indians/eskimos) . I know many american people want to have some association with american and seem to seek historical intermixing with the natives. But this does not apply for BCA testing ( Doug).
If you want this "american" then stick to Gedmatch admixture tests, which change every 6 months because of new members.
for a 100% european , BCA will say someting like
51% tuscan and 49% french
37% spanish and 63% hungarian
etc
there will never be anything outside of a European nation mantioned
I'm not sure that Southern Europeans have ever been pale-white, it wouldn't make sense geographically, even considering all the climate changes.
Europe probably has always had different skin tones from pale-white to light-brown, so who knows how far back E-v13 goes in Europe.
Color is also deceptive, for example a pale-white englishman is 2-ce closer genetically to an olive-skin italian than to a pale-white russian.
Or, a pale-white englishman is roughly 98-times closer genetically to an olive-skin italian than to a pale-white chinese.
There is sheep, there is black sheep, and there is goats..
as a whole Galicia shows 22% according to the Maciamo' s compilation - maybe there is a peak in a smaller region of Galicia?
but it is important to separate different clades of Y-E1b1 - I ssupose the northwest african clade is the dominant one in Galicia as in other regions of iberia: north african neolithic or before??? in Italy, the E-M81 is light but seemingly heavier in North cnetral Italy than in South Italy - in Auvergne, according to what I red, a lot of Y-E1b1 would be of this M81 clade: not too recent I think -
I don't that there is a peak since there have been several studies on Galicia and all got similar results for E1b1b. Besides most of the Galician population is concentrated along the coast.
Check this selection of my best forum topics
My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.
As far as I'm concerned, it is a very good map.
It is in your riddle:
Another clue was this:
2% (YDNA)
LoL, this looks like a flea market bargaining. We should probably make a pool: how much of something makes you something?
a) only Y-DNA
b) only Y-DNA plus more than 50 % autosomal
c) both Y-DNA and mDNA plus more than 50 % autosomal
d) at least 90 % autosomal, disregarding Y and mt
e) etc...
p.s. If, like in this case, we're wondering who/what is European, we would first have to define what makes a DNA segment (mt, Y or AS) European.
Clearly, you didn't actually read the papers; if you had, you would realize that they are not just talking about Finland and other Uralic speaking peoples. They are, in fact, talking about all Europeans, although the percentages are much higher in northern Europeans.
There is a vast difference between having an academic interest in population genetics and the peopling of Europe, or even an interest in the genetic formation of one's own country or one's own dna, and trying to use uniparental dna and autosomal dna to make sense of it all, on the one hand, and focusing on the location where certain mutations occurred or coalesced because one is trying to ensure that a certain uniparental marker is or is not "African" which, it seems to me, is a substratum to many discussions like this on "anthrofora", on the other hand.
My objection is to the latter.
I also fail to understand why a uniparental marker which accounts for perhaps 2% of one's dna should form the basis for one's "pride" or lack of it in the accomplishments of ancient civilizations. (Not to mention that I am far more focused on my own accomplishments.) There are, without a doubt, ancestors in my family tree who bore many different uniparental markers. I really don't have any emotional attachment to my own particular mt dna or my father's y dna marker. But, to each their own.
(I have no idea as to your own motivations, or lack of them of course. I am speaking in generalities.)
It seems you're alluding on those 'racial supremacy' people, but that is not the case. I just want to get facts straight.
Everyone has it's own cultural legacy. The pride is his, but there is also a responsibility and obligation towards it.
p.s. And claim not what is not yours, or thou shall drink vinegar for all eternity.
Some authors have tried to use this Y-DNA marker for supposedly measuring North African influence in Europe during historical times (the Islamic incursions into Europe during the Middle Ages), but as you can see from the distribution in Spain, France and Italy, it does not corroborate this at all. It actually suggests the opposite: it has little to do with any of these historical events. If it was due to Islamic incursions it should be highest in Andalucia, Extremadura, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, etc. Yet it is lower in all these places that endured the longest Islamic presence and higher in more northern places that hardly had any.
There are basically 2 ways
1- to find an individual on where his/her line first commenced and (BCA test)
2- where one's admixture changes every 6 months based on new members joining. (Gedmatch type of tests)
There are also the "weird" system of getting/using only 5 testers for data for each ethnicity ( dodecad) and using these mimimum testers to claim most European results instead of continuing to gain more testers.
or
The PF ( Ftdna) system where they have a "centre of gravity" system where one is pinpointed to a map of Europe based on ethnic areas...example... for me ....62% Tuscan and 38% Occadian/french....so lets move 38% of the mileage distance from Tuscany towards Britain and mark it...that's the pinpointing.
or
The 23andme system of going back only 500 years
Sile, are all these "ways" you describe ways to show or prove someone is European? I know something of your ancestry. Of course you're European...why would you doubt it? I really don't understand. I can trace most of my ancestors back to the middle of the 16th century, and some even further back...all Italian. I have no doubt that the the vast majority were in Italy for a thousand years, at least, before that. My ancestors tilled this land, built its great architectural wonders, engaged in its commerce, participated in and benefited from the Renaissance, which, in my opinion, defined what it means to be a member of western civilization. I'm Italian, and European. What else could I be?
EVERYONE in Europe has ancestors who arrived from somewhere else. EVERYONE. It just depends when they got here. I'm personally not interested in drawing a line in time and saying everyone whose ancestors got here before X date is European, and everyone who arrived later, is not.
For those who are, I would just say that generally human variation is clinal. You can't contain it within political boundaries, or even within geographical boundaries. As the whole series of articles by the Reich group at Harvard shows, the "European" populations were formed by an admixture of a North Eurasian group, with similarities to the ancestors of the Amerindians, and a west Eurasian group probably radiating out of the greater Near East somewhere, some of whom arrived in the Mesolithic, for example, some from the Neolithic, perhaps some from the Bronze Age. All Europeans show admixture from those two groups, albeit in different proportions, and forming some general clines within Europe. That's the way it is. It's not as neat for Europeans as it is for the Han, who form a more distinct pole, or the Yoruba, on the other hand, who form another pole.
As for the "ways" you listed, they are, of course, all flawed.
To base one's identity on one y line in your ancestry, which represents only 2% of your genes, seems rather silly to me, I must say. Just as an example, I carry mt dna U2e. The latest research I've seen said U2 arose in the Middle East after the Out of Africa migration. Much of it went to India, but some headed into Europe. The U2 at Kostenki is tens of thousands of years old. It has been found from Andronovo and other steppe cultures all the way to Basque country, and everywhere in between. So, which do I pick? Am I, for example, supposed to feel like a steppe dwelling pastoralist? I assure you that I don't.
The other option is autosomally testing for "admixture", at least admixture on the level where it can be done or accessed through such things as the Dodecad calculators. You seem to have some issues with it, but I think it's a much better option than chasing after one "Y" line to see when your particular mutation hit the shores of Europe.
I, like you, am no fan of the FTDNA analysis. I'm likewise not a fan of Dr. Mcdonald's program. He created both programs, you know, and although he has changed his own algorithm a bit, it is still the same general method.
Of the other calculators available, I personally have the most faith in those done by Dienekes, for the simple reason that the populations, except for his own "Dodecad" members, are all publicly available, and he published his methodology, so anyone can duplicate his analysis on their own, and ensure that it is honestly done, given of course that they have the computer skills that are necessary. (BTW, there are far more than 5 participants in most of those studies; there are many samples available for Tuscans for example. The proof that you don't need all that many samples to get pretty accurate results can be seen from the results for Ashkenazim, for example. You can compare the results based on the Behar samples, and the Dodecad volunteers, and the results are almost identical. Or, take me, for example, my ancestry comes almost entirely from the corridor which runs from Parma to La Spezia. My dodecad results are without exception almost exactly midway between the scores for Bergamo and Toscana. )
That's not to say that I think these tools can't be improved. That's precisely why new populations keep getting added; it's to make them more accurate. Also, this analysis only goes back so far, not as far as the admixture event(s) proposed by the Reich group for example. The clusters are also somewhat ambiguous, and change from run to run because they are experiments done to try to figure out the peopling of West Eurasia. They weren't done for the "consumers".
As for 23andme, I don't actually think it only goes back 500 years. I think that statement was put out there mainly to cover themselves because at this point it can't be proved exactly how far back it does reach, but that's a different discussion, and this is already way too long. :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote