Haplogroup J2, Romans, Christianity and Viticulture, OFF TOPIC

The elites were mostly Arab.

That study made some absurd assumptions with haplogroups that predate even the existence of Islam itself by thousands of years, plus they apparently did not realize (or if they did they tried to ignore it or "explain it" away so they could continue with the agenda) the contradiction that their own data shows more of those haplogroups in NW Spain, where there hardly was much of any "Moorish occupation" to speak of, than in the south, where Islam lasted the longest.

And there is no "22% of L mtDNA in Spain". You should start worrying about the 9.2% autosomal sub-Saharan African in Italy instead:


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050794

which elites where Arab, have you a link?

What does religion have to do with Genetics, ?...........i find this absurd. So a special alleles was formed when either jewish, christian, islam, hindu or other religions was created? Please do not bring this stupidity up again...........................who cares about islam for Spain?
So the paper was correct, it stated that Sicily was very similar to Spain , but the peninsula of Italy was relative minor at 1%. The query is here is that the heel of Italy has the most % apart from Sicily. I can only see it from a later ottoman incursion in the 15th century.

the 2010 paper , american journal stated.
MtDNA Haplogroup L lineages are relatively infrequent (1% or less) throughout Europe with the exception of Iberia where frequencies as high as 22%[39] have been reported and some regions of Italy where frequencies between 2 and 3% have been found.

In Iberia the mean frequency of Haplogroup L lineages reaches 3.83% and the frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.90%) and without parallel in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, in western Iberia, increasing frequencies are observed for Galicia (3.26%) and northern Portugal (3.21%), through the center (5.02%) and to the south of Portugal (11.38%).[40] Significant frequencies were also found in the Autonomous regions of Portugal, with L haplogroups constituting about 13% of the lineages in Madeira, significantly more than in the Azores.[41] In the Spanish archipelago of Canary Islands, frequencies have been reported at 6.6%.[41]



 
PD: Nobody, your last post it is not true at all, or at least the conclusions stated in the paper. What North Africans share the most with Iberias is their Sardinian-like ancestry, labeled as Mediterranean in Dodecad experiments. So the gene flow occured mostly the other way around, I don't see the point in denying such thing when North Africans are, obviously, overwhelmingly West Eurasian regarding genetics. So that's the answer to the IBD sharing issue, I think there's no doubt about it.

Whats not true?
Its a direct quote from the study p.5/6

Botigue 2013 - p.5/6
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

Thats obviously one of their results concerning admixture analysis and IBD sharing;
Its from June 2013 - so obviously a very new insight;
 
Whats not true?
Its a direct quote from the study p.5/6

Botigue 2013 - p.5/6
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

Thats obviously one of their results concerning admixture analysis and IBD sharing;
Its from June 2013 - so obviously a very new insight;
I told you what is not true: the significant gene flow did not come from Africa to Europe. Major components speak for itself in that regard, but if you don't want to understand and prefer to focus on absurd conclusions whatever the study is...it's up to you.

I think there's nothing to add to my explanation. The IBD sharing issue was solved long ago, and I certainly did not expect still some people get involved in pitiful works like the one above. It's like going back 10 years ago, things like this don't cease to amaze me.
 
Actually when dealing with components such as Northwest African or East African, which are not purely African at all, the results should be taken with a lot of caution. For instance, an individual showing less than 1% East African it is unlikely to have any Sub-Saharan ancestry, since the West Eurasian shift can easily produce the aforementioned result. Even 0.5% Sub-Saharan is ridiculously low to be taken seriously (as fact). I know to some extent all Europeans carry some sort of admixture, so keep in mind I refer to something significant, relevant and easy to quantify, which I don't see it is the case in both Italy and Spain (note the one who's posting does not consider himself Spanish).

Checking idividual Globe13 results, all Europeans have 0.3%, 0.8% (and so on) of something. Time to wonder why.

Being that said, it seems to me some individuals keep going on trying to give more relevance always to the same exact things. And that's not only biased, but also incredibly boring.

PD: Nobody, your last post it is not true at all, or at least the conclusions stated in the paper. What North Africans share the most with Iberias is their Sardinian-like ancestry, labeled as Mediterranean in Dodecad experiments. So the gene flow occured mostly the other way around, I don't see the point in denying such thing when North Africans are, obviously, overwhelmingly West Eurasian regarding genetics. So that's the answer to the IBD sharing issue, I think there's no doubt about it.

On Sub-saharan......this is correct. Even though the Portuguese "owned" the western and south-east African areas and bought many many slaves to Lisbon for selling purposes. The "berber" E1b1b1 marker must have been in iberia, southern france and Italy way before the iron-age as the many in swiss and tyrol areas are noted as very very old branches of it. IMO it was one of the original markers in Iberia from the bronze-age.
 
Botigue et al 2013 -
North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE(Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian, Berbers and South Moroccans.
This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.


So the map [post # 61] and the IBD sharing results from p.8/p.9 are not as insignificant as you claim them to be;
And with Portugal and Spain having the highest IBD sharing with Africa - clearly reveals the gene flow;

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8/p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

That argument by itself does not guarantee anything, and they even start that line by first clarifying that "While inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality". Plus the "example" they used for that argument is based on Canarians:

http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle...0367FEDDFA24193EFFC2EAAF81FF1.tdx2?sequence=5

"For example, the Canary Islanders share more IBD segments with the Tunisians and Western Saharans (Figure 5), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry in contrast to populations like North Moroccans or Algerians who have greater estimated European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around."

Canarians are well known to be of prehistoric North African ("Guanche") origin.

Plus their own "calculations" and methods show this as the result of something that can be from relatively recent times, as recent as only 240-300 years to 6 or 7 generations (about 140 years) ago:



"Focusing on the North African component at k=6, we found that a migration event from North Africa to Europe would have occurred at least 8-10 generations ago (approximately 240-300ya) in Spain, and at least 6-7 generations ago in France and Italy (Figure 2)."

Which once again shows that this is hardly conclusive stuff. Gene flow could have gone in any direction and at almost any time starting as relatively recently as only 140 to 300 years ago. In fact, such recent estimates could easily suggest a Europe-to-Africa influence (from European colonialism/imperialism in the area during such times.)

Those 52 AIMs (Brisighelli et al 2013) also revealed that North Spain and Portugal are 7.7% sub-saharan admixture;

It's 7.1%, and including Northwest Spanish samples only, not all the north, plus Portuguese samples, and it was still found higher among Italians.
 

This thread has been viewed 24139 times.

Back
Top