K12 Autosomal map : African admixture (from Dodecad)

Knovas said:
Actually, only Canarians can show 20% of African admixture. Impossible to find something like this between mainland Iberians. The most "similar" thing taking such levels of admixture as reference, are the Gipsies. And of course, they are usually separated inmediatly from the native samples (not only in Spain, everywhere in Europe).

Genetic traits found in Africa? wich part of Africa?...ejem.

It's generally recognized that Canary Island natives are very much different than mainland Iberians. The Canaries have a history that is far different than the rest of Spanish territory and are usually treated separately in genetic research.

BTW, the Wikipedia site on Spanish people has many inaccuracies and embarrassing exaggerations. The section is apparently run by several LatAms and afrocentrists. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
 
Knovas said:
any of the maindland Spaniards tested is near of this (all score more than 80%). I think you are the one who should come down to earth...
Click to expand...

Have you run Spaniards against typically North Eurpeans yet? Let me know when you do.

Knovas said:
PD1: Now is when you go and say I'm lying, and the sample is from Spain, not Canarian LOL.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are lying, to lie you would have to know what you are talking about. You appear to lack basic statistical knowledge. As more runs are made comparing different population groups prepare yourself for more confusion, you don't appear to understand how admixtures are formed, what is used to form them, and what parameters effect the results.

Knovas said:
PD2: Check the North African, Mozabite, Moroccan etc. averages. And Check the component distances. They are of course mainly Caucasoid, nothing to do with Negroids (phenotypically and genetically speaking) and they simply don't cluster with them for obvious reasons (Neo and Paleo African are very far from a Northwest African component). Now, call me racist if you want to complete the series XD
Click to expand...

Component distances from what constituent components exactly? You don't know and you claim to understand the results. Have you miraculously added a phenotype analysis to the Dodecad admixture series or are you just trying to force your point into a hole.
 
Dorianfinder said:
73.08% seems more reasonable for a Spanish sample. I appreciate you coming down to earth and seeing things from a more realistic perspective, good job. The 90+ percent that floats around is not accurate.

No sample from the Canary Isles has undergone testing for the specific A30-B18 haplotype as far as I know. I doubt if this haplotype has been included in Dodecad or any other admixture analysis.

The better defined admixture results become the more likely these percentage will drop rather than rise. The Spanish Gypsies should not have much more if any additional African admixture compared to an average Spaniard. What do you base this on except off-course likely preconceptions and prejudice.



Is a glass half empty or half full? I am not concerned where Caucasoid traits or African traits can be found in Africans, it concerns me that some people insist on believing that gene-flow was a purely one-sided affair, as if there had been a membrane allowing European genes out but no African genes in. Caucasoid is a stretch though, you have to admit that saying Northwest Africans are mainly Caucasoid is like saying Iberians are mainly African. Both statements are based on rhetoric.

ps. Africans do not all look typically Bantu. This is based on Walt Disney's stereotypical depiction of a native with a bone through his nose, not based on reality.
Click to expand...

73%?

Another poster has already made it abundantly clear that Canarian samples are viewed as separate from mainland Iberia, for obvious reasons.

The mainland autosomal average for Spain going by Dodecad, Eurogenes, McDonald, etc. is slightly over 90% Euro and Portugal 86%. It's impossible, given Iberia's geographical location, history and low Near Eastern influences that, any genetically indigenous Iberian would score in the 70s. If you disagree take it up with the researchers.
 
Burgundis said:
73%?

Another poster has already made it abundantly clear that Canarian samples are viewed as separate from mainland Iberia, for obvious reasons.

The mainland autosomal average for Spain going by Dodecad, Eurogenes, McDonald, etc. is slightly over 90% Euro and Portugal 86%. It's impossible, given Iberia's geographical location, history and low Near Eastern influences that, any genetically indigenous Iberian would score in the 70s. If you disagree take it up with the researchers.
Click to expand...

No academic studies have been done on these admixture analyzes to date as they are based on unproven correlations between autosomal markers and bio-geographical ancestry. No academic institution would risk being ridiculed in such a manner.

The only links between Iberia and Africa documented in peer-reviewed academic studies are based on specific medically researched haplotypes found in autosomal dna. They say you are wrong.
 
Man, Dodecad uses the same patter for all people, and Eurogenes is running intra-European analysis, so it's the same pattern for Southern Euros and Norethern Euros. Go en check the blog, for the moment near eastern clusters were not usually included, but in the next one you'll see how the thing works (the same as Dodecad). You are the only one who doesn't know what is saying XD

The Canarian sample si different because they have Berber admixture from the Canary Islands, so stop twisting things because you have no reason here. Doug McDonald (University Professor), knows perfectly the difference between a Canarian man and a Spanish one. Nothing to argue here, it's a lost battle.

Of course I understand the results, it must consider the distances from a single cluster to the 11 restant, and repeting the same pattern exaclty 12 times in this case. There's a table I posted everyone with little knowledge on Maths can understand. The fact you want to ignore the numbers is very significant.

I don't force anything, you are the only one who pretends to show things in a more difficult way than they really are. More or less showing you are the only person able to understand distances and results, when the table is posted by Dienekes' to make it easy for ALL people (no sense to post something people can't understand). So let me laugh with a childish argument like this XD
 
Knovas said:
the table is posted by Dienekes' to make it easy for ALL people
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between a differential and an absolute value? Obviously not.

These are estimates not absolute values, and what's more is they are estimates to a mean which is even more precarious. This is not what you believe it to be. It's an average estimate of a predicted ideal based on real samples that have been hand-picked. You need to do a double-blind control to get unbiased data. There is a thing called unintentional sample bias, these admixtures are fraught with it.
 
The table shows who is closer and far, it's that simple to understand. For more you post and try to hide reality going through other ways, it doesn't change anything.

Have a nice day.

PD: All is based in academical studies, I showed you a representative person from an academical insititution based exactly on the same things. So pretending to be "academic", you are the only one who deviates from the way in a very silly manner. Keep trying.
 
Knovas said:
it doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

If you change the ancestral markers or add new ones, alter their relative percentages within a specific admixture category, or alter your selection criteria; expect very different results. The sad thing is you believe these admixtures to be 'pure' science and that is simply not the case. Statistics will never be able to substitute good data and good data is hard to come by.

In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.
 
Yes man, I see you are specially concerned to keep the reason, so don't worry, I give you the reason even when it's clear you are the only one against academical studies (not me), wich are not perfect, but enough accurate to get a realistic idea. All people is under the same conditions, just think about it.
You beat me, hope you are happy now with your truth :D

In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.

If you really think an stupidity like this, you have a very serious problem. It's very easy to catch fraudsters, anyways, I'll take this amusingly XD
 
Dorianfinder said:
No academic studies have been done on these admixture analyzes to date as they are based on unproven correlations between autosomal markers and bio-geographical ancestry. No academic institution would risk being ridiculed in such a manner.

The only links between Iberia and Africa documented in peer-reviewed academic studies are based on specific medically researched haplotypes found in autosomal dna. They say you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Think whatever you like.
 
Dorianfinder said:
If you change the ancestral markers or add new ones, alter their relative percentages within a specific admixture category, or alter your selection criteria; expect very different results. The sad thing is you believe these admixtures to be 'pure' science and that is simply not the case. Statistics will never be able to substitute good data and good data is hard to come by.

In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.
Click to expand...

Your last statement is strange. Recruitment? LOL. What's next, a great Spanish and Portuguese conspiracy theory aimed at altering Iberian genetics? The autosomal facts are quite clear on a number of levels. But, feel free to doubt all you want.

BTW, what is so troubling about Iberians being predominately Western Euro? Quite odd.
 
Burgundis said:
Your last statement is strange. Recruitment? LOL. What's next, a great Spanish and Portuguese conspiracy theory aimed at altering Iberian genetics? The autosomal facts are quite clear on a number of levels. But, feel free to doubt all you want.

BTW, what is so troubling about Iberians being predominately Western Euro? Quite odd.
Click to expand...
Really funny XD

A new Eurogenes spreadsheet is coming soon. Very interesting in relation with this, no doubt about it ;)
 
Dorianfinder said:
In actual fact I suppose that you and others like yourself go around recruiting more 'pure' Iberian individuals with German and British ancestry to do autosomal admixture analyzes, this is silly as you will never know the truth as long as you continue to influence the scientific process.
Click to expand...
German and British ancestry ? :laughing: Why need to do that when Iberia has purer peoples like Basques and Catalans :laughing: By the way the Behar sample was recruited by a scientific team, haha, and what a casuality, the dodecad spanish sample looks extremely similar, and clusters with it.
Funny guy :grin:
 
Actually, the lower European percent between the Dodecad Spanish, is DOD419 from Granada, the place with more significant muslim occupation, and probably the only region with substantial recent Moorish influence due to historical reasons. However, it still has 82.3% total European, and only 5.4% is African admixture. Galicians who were never conquered show more African admixture than this one, so it's quite curious.
 
Knovas said:
Actually, the lower European percent between the Dodecad Spanish, is DOD419 from Granada, the place with more significant muslim occupation, and probably the only region with substantial recent Moorish influence due to historical reasons. However, it still has 82.3% total European, and only 5.4% is African admixture. Galicians who were never conquered show more African admixture than this one, so it's quite curious.
Click to expand...
Andalusia is a curious case, it has shown as low as 1.6% of north-african E-M81, less than Galicia and parts of France. Well now going back to the topic, I would like to say that mixing sub-saharan with Berber would be like mixing West-Asian with East-Asian. Completely different things from an anthropological point of view.
 
i think this maps reflects more prehistoric migrations, than a recent arab occupation (north african in sicily and moors in spain).. this is proven also by the fact that Sardinia has this influence too, and in sardina islam never arrived.

Certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.

Chartaginians, can be seen as candidates for this genes maybe, because they founded some colonies also in southern sardinia
 
althought rethinking of this... i don't know about chartagineans, this genes peak in Morocco, and Chartagine was a bit more in the east

Crossing Iberia from Morocco is easy, also Sicily and Sardinia are quite near to Tunisia
 
julia90 said:
i think this maps reflects more prehistoric migrations, than a recent arab occupation (north african in sicily and moors in spain).. this is proven also by the fact that Sardinia has this influence too, and in sardina islam never arrived.

Certanly the islamic empire might have played a role in strenghthen this genes in Sicily and Iberia.

Chartaginians, can be seen as candidates for this genes maybe, because they founded some colonies also in southern sardinia
Click to expand...

Julia, you are embarrassingly obvious in your agenda. The autosomal DNA scores from the McDonald project at U. Illinois, the Baher efforts, Eurogenes, Dodecad etc. are most clear and consistent. The map is supposed to reflect Dodecad research and the examination of alleles from entire genomes. Easy enough to understand, yes? If you have issues with the results and updates feel free to contact the researchers. Good luck.

You remind me of the character at DNA-Forums who was posting all kinds of inaccurate information on a number of ethnic groups, until a member who was a tenured genetics professor at Johns Hopkins called him / her out. The person was basically humiliated off the thread. Have a great life, Julia.
 
julia90 said:
althought rethinking of this... i don't know about chartagineans, this genes peak in Morocco, and Chartagine was a bit more in the east

Crossing Iberia from Morocco is easy, also Sicily and Sardinia are quite near to Tunisia
Click to expand...

Have you read the recent research that clearly shows that North African gene flow was significantly hampered by the strong and unpredictable currents in the Straights of Gibraltar? Perhaps one of the Spaniards can give you some guidance on that.

Think carefully before you write. As I said before, your agenda is embarrassingly obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top