Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 18 Aug 2005 18:13 Post subject:
Thanks for the info and sources on Y-chromosomes.
Quote:
Hell, if you go back far enough, everyone (including 100% of Brits) has African or Asian ancestry.
Yes, and this would sort of make all this talk of sub-Saharan African admixture a moot point! Still, I find the whole subject very interesting.
Incidentally, what do you think our ancestors in Africa, before 60kya, i.e., before the diaspora, looked like? I wonder if they resembled the Khoisan?
I read recently (I believe it was something you posted) that the extremely dark coloration of the Bantu-speaking peoples and the extremely light coloration of Nordics are all recent adaptations.
Would you say circum-Mediterranean people are really an intermediate people between sub-Saharans and Nordics, genetically and evolutionarily?
Incidentally, I saw the pics you posted of the granddaughter of a Khoisan woman. The girl looked Nordic! I guess traits Americans consider important in determing race really disappear quite quickly, and that (combined with the one-drop rule) is why we have phenotypically white, but socially black, people here in America.
I wonder, does the one-drop rule exist in Canada? Did it ever?
Quote:
You had a million ancestors in 1500 but you have only one person's worth of DNA.
That boggles the mind...but I know it's true!
Quote:
So 999,999 millionths of your ancestral DNA was discarded long before you were a gleam in your father's eye. Only one/one-millionth of your ancestral DNA was passed down to you. Anyone can measure your admixture. No one can measure the other 999,999 millionths of your ancestry.
Does this mean that our ancestors whose genetic material was discarded really contributed absolutely nothing to us, despite the fact that their presence was necessary for our existence?
What do you think our ancestors in Africa, before 60kya, i.e., before the diaspora, looked like? I wonder if they resembled the Khoisan?
Barbara asked me that when she interviewed me for MulattoNationTimes. Lacking pictures, it is just a guess. Still, I would go with a look halfway between Ethiopian and Khoisan: light beige skin tone, slightly prognathous, slightly steatopygous, narrow nose, and soft curls (rather than kinky) hair.
William wrote:
Would you say circum-Mediterranean people are really an intermediate people between sub-Saharans and Nordics, genetically and evolutionarily?
Yes, on two counts. First, they may have a lot of the paleolithic in them (from the time before both of the skin-tone adaptations). The Basques, for instance, are pure paleolithic. So Mediterranean folks may more closely resemble the distant past than either Nordics or Bantus do. Second, the Mediterranean has been a genetic mixing bowl for thousands of years, so its people have probably received inflow from both Nordics and Bantus.
William wrote:
I guess traits Americans consider important in determing race really disappear quite quickly, and that (combined with the one-drop rule) is why we have phenotypically white, but socially black, people here in America.
Absolutely! That the so-called “Negroid” phenotype utterly vanishes in two or three generations of out-marriage is incredibly hard to teach, especially to humanities academics who deliberately turn their backs on the evidence of their own eyes.
That reminds me. Mary Lee and I had a funny experience last weekend at the Gaylord Palms Hotel in Orlando, where we were performing. We noticed in the audience two very pretty young women in their early 20s. Their features were so similar that it was obvious that they were sisters, probably twins. But one had pink skin and blonde hair with a gentle wave and the other was the color of milk chocolate, with tightly curled black hair. After our set, we made some excuse to talk to them. Although they were from New Jersey, their parents had originally come from Bayamón, Puerto Rico. As soon as I switched to Spanish, they began to tell us a bunch of hilarious childhood stories about Americans who refused to believe that they were sisters.
William wrote:
Does [the fact that only one/one-millionth of your ancestral DNA was passed down to you] mean that our ancestors whose genetic material was discarded really contributed absolutely nothing to us, despite the fact that their presence was necessary for our existence?
That sounds like one of those philosophy questions, like the tree falling in the forest. We are cultural creatures, after all. Who we are is what we know, not what our genes are.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 18 Aug 2005 19:41 Post subject: Hmmm...
Quote:
But one had pink skin and blonde hair with a gentle wave and the other was the color of milk chocolate, with tightly curled black hair.
If you had seen the lighter one alone, might you have supposed her to be a European-American? In other words, were her other features European, e.g., slender nose, thin lips, etc.? Did the darker one look like some African Americans? Interesting...
Another mtDNA question: What is the difference between using RFLP's and HVR's when evaluating a mtDNA lineage? Some studies use one, others use the other. It seems like both can yield results.
Posted: Thu 18 Aug 2005 23:05 Post subject: Re: Hmmm...
William wrote:
If you had seen the lighter one alone, might you have supposed her to be a European-American? In other words, were her other features European, e.g., slender nose, thin lips, etc.? Did the darker one look like some African Americans?
Both girls had completely European features. In fact, what first caught my eye was the dark one, whose features were as European-looking as Halle Berry’s but with darker skin and curlier hair.
William wrote:
What is the difference between using RFLP's and HVR's when evaluating a mtDNA lineage?
Apples and oranges. First HVR. The mtDNA is not a long strand with loose ends, like nuclear DNA. Instead, its double helix wraps around to form a circular hoop comprising 16,569 nucleotides. (Since it has no ends to unravel, it cannot age and is thus immortal.) Most of the mtDNA hoop is functional. Any random mutation is likely to be lethal to the organism, so the mutation cannot propagate, and so the mtDNA hoop has remained unchanged for millions of years. But there are two regions in the circular hoop that are not used for anything. So random mutations there are passed on and propagate. These two highly variable regions are called (with singular lack of imagination ) “Highly Variable Region One” (HVR-1) and “Highly Variable Region Two” (HVR-2). They are favorite places to seek polymorphisms (differences between individuals). In short, HVR-1 and HVR-2 are locations in the circular hoop of mtDNA that are of no interest to medical folks, but are of interest to molecular anthropologists and historians.
Depending on how you look at it, RFLP (pronounced “rif-lip”) is either a type of polymorphism or a technique for detecting polymorphisms. It is short for “restriction fragment length polymorphism.” It applies to any DNA, whether nuclear or mitochondrial. What happens is this. You buy an enzyme that cuts out the particular section of the DNA strand that lies between two specified known landmarks. Do this and you may find that the section you cut out turns out to be longer or shorter than the “standard” section. (You can tell because, when you put the two samples next to each other on a sheet of gel and apply a DC voltage, the short one will migrate faster down the gel.) If your sample is longer than the “standard” section, it means that there are a few extra nucleotides in there somewhere. This is called an “insertion polymorphism.” If it is shorter, then there must be a few nucleotides missing (a “deletion polymorphism”). Insertion-deletion polymorphisms (“indels” for short) are relatively easy to spot, so the RFLP technique is popular. Of course, you could simply sequence the section of DNA, nucleotide by nucleotide, to see exactly what is in there, but until recently, this was very expensive. In any event, you can look for RFLPs in the mtDNA HVR-1 or HVR-2 or anywhere in the nuclear DNA.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 19 Aug 2005 02:44 Post subject: cultural load
Hi Frank,
Very interesting paper, indeed.
However, instead of stopping my curiousity it has increased it even more.
Well, as we know the thesis that the Bering crossing was done either by foot, or by coastal boats navigation, are the most accepted theories right now about the origin of the first Americans. The genetic relation between Mongolians and Amerindians confirm this thesis. Then a big question is born: What was the cultural load the ancient migrants carried?
Does anyone has found any clue to the culture that carried at those times the first Americans?
I know that unlike advanced civilizations (Inca, Aztecs, etc) the simplest cultures of the Americas share certain cultural patterns that are distinctive: belief in the Mother Land, Streess in the four directions of the compass, the use of "Greek patterns", etc. Are there any clue about what the original "Mongolian" culture carried accross the Bering strait? Perhaps drums? certain believes? certainly fire and stone making techniques, what else?
Perhaps the question is way beyond current knowledge, however I think is interesting.
Posted: Fri 19 Aug 2005 02:51 Post subject: Re: cultural load
oevega wrote:
What was the cultural load the ancient migrants carried?
Does anyone has found any clue to the culture that carried at those times the first Americans? I know that unlike advanced civilizations (Inca, Aztecs, etc) the simplest cultures of the Americas share certain cultural patterns that are distinctive: belief in the Mother Land, Streess in the four directions of the compass, the use of "Greek patterns", etc. Are there any clue about what the original "Mongolian" culture carried accross the Bering strait? Perhaps drums? certain believes? certainly fire and stone making techniques, what else? Perhaps the question is way beyond current knowledge...
Wow. It is certainly way beyond my knowledge. I hereby defer to anyone else who wants to tackle this.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 22 Aug 2005 15:21 Post subject: Okay...
Quote:
Insertion-deletion polymorphisms (“indels” for short) are relatively easy to spot, so the RFLP technique is popular. Of course, you could simply sequence the section of DNA, nucleotide by nucleotide, to see exactly what is in there, but until recently, this was very expensive. In any event, you can look for RFLPs in the mtDNA HVR-1 or HVR-2 or anywhere in the nuclear DNA.
So, if you sequence the HVR directly or if you apply a restriction enzyme, the results should be the same; i.e., if one yields one result, e.g., the presence of a certain haplogroup, the other should yield the same, right?
Incidentally, is HVS the same as HVR? I've seen HVS in some documents on Italian mtDNA. If so, would the "S" mean "section?"
Different question: Do we know exactly where in Africa and when Fy(a-b-), or Duffy null, originated? Was it among West Africans?
Another question:
The study linked below says the following:
Quote:
The following admixture estimates were obtained: Amerindian, 0.29 +/- 0.04; Spaniard, 0.68 +/- 0.05; and African, 0.03 +/- 0.02. The interpretation of these results with respect to Amerindian and Spanish ancestry is straightforward. African ancestry is strongly supported by the presence of a marker of African descent, Fy, despite the fact that the standard error of the estimate is as large as the estimated admixture proportion.
Are they saying that, despite that the standard of error is a large as the estimated African admixture, African admixture is still proven to exist simply by the presence of Fy (I'm assuming this is Duffy)?
Lastly: I recall a debate on a message board regarding studies study on British, I think. I don't have links to the studies, and don't recall every detail 100%. But I definitely recall this: One study (which I'll call "A") stated that L haplogroups were found in the mtDNA by using restriction enzymes. A later study (which I'll call "B") which employed mtDNA sequencing, said something like, "The earlier study found the presence of African haplogroups using restriction enzymes. However, at the mtDNA sequencing level, no African influence is detected." Study "A" tested, I think, 100 people from diverse parts of Britain. Study "B" only tested 50 people from one British town. Yet white nationalists on the message board swore that study "B" refutes study "A"; I see no refutation at all. Different studies with different samples will yield different results. If "A" definitely detected sub-Saharan haplogroups in their wider and larger sample using restriction enzymes, this cannot be refuted by "B", which employed mtDNA sequencing in their smaller and very narrow (one village) sample and (unsurprisingly) happened not to find African haplogroups. I strongly feel any claim that "B" refutes "A" is absurd, and am certain that authors of study "B" never claimed this...and I stated this on the message board, only to be reprimanded by the WN idiots. Was I correct?
Posted: Mon 22 Aug 2005 17:37 Post subject: Re: Okay...
William wrote:
So, if you sequence the HVR directly or if you apply a restriction enzyme, the results should be the same; i.e., if one yields one result, e.g., the presence of a certain haplogroup, the other should yield the same, right?
Yes, at least for indels. Other polymorphisms, such as SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) and frame-shifts would be invisible to an RFLP test that bracketed the polymorphism.
William wrote:
Incidentally, is HVS the same as HVR? I've seen HVS in some documents on Italian mtDNA. If so, would the "S" mean "section?"
I do not know for certain. "HVS" does not ring a bell, off hand (other than as an abbreviation for herpesvirus saimiri, which has nothing to do with this context). But if I saw a reference to HVS-1 or HVS-2 in the context of mtDNA polymorphisms, I would assume, as you did, that it meant HVR-1 and HVR2.
William wrote:
Different question: Do we know exactly where in Africa and when Fy(a-b-), or Duffy null, originated? Was it among West Africans?
Not to my knowledge, but someone may have published on this. My knowledge of African prehistory is weak (my field is U.S. history). On the other hand, I seem to recall that the African Duffy allele confers some resistance to plasmodium falciparum malaria. If so, then I would expect it to post-date the agricultural revolution by some time. Malaria can only flourish among mammals that are (1) sedentary (live on one spot) and (2) live in large herds. Before villages, our species was neither of these. And, so it seems plausible that malaria first decimated the early Bantu-speaking peoples of West Africa (since they invented agriculture), and so selected for Duffy there. Of course, the allele spread throughout Africa as the Bantus expanded over the continent and drove out the African hunter-gatherers.
William wrote:
Are they saying that, despite that the standard of error is a large as the estimated African admixture, African admixture is still proven to exist simply by the presence of Fy (I'm assuming this is Duffy)?
Precisely. And, yes, FY is Duffy.
William wrote:
I see no refutation at all. Different studies with different samples will yield different results. If "A" definitely detected sub-Saharan haplogroups in their wider and larger sample using restriction enzymes, this cannot be refuted by "B", which employed mtDNA sequencing in their smaller and very narrow (one village) sample and (unsurprisingly) happened not to find African haplogroups. I strongly feel any claim that "B" refutes "A" is absurd, and am certain that authors of study "B" never claimed this...and I stated this on the message board, only to be reprimanded by the WN idiots. Was I correct?
Well, it is hard to say since I have read neither the studies nor the debate, but from what you said, I would definitely agree with you. The second study had a smaller sample and it was deliberately non-random.
Among laypeople, one of the most important and yet least grasped issues of molecular anthropology is the vital importance of sample size and randomness. I have read peer-reviewed published studies that reach conclusions about a measured 5% rate of something, where the confidence interval is +/- 15% (meaning that the actual rate is between 0 and 20 %). In my view, such conclusions are worthless.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 28 Oct 2005 02:32; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 22 Aug 2005 18:06 Post subject: Re:
Quote:
Well, it is hard to say since I have read neither the studies nor the debate, but from what you said, I would definitely agree with you. The second study had a smaller sample and it was deliberately non-random.
Yes, this is exactly how I feel.
But I also feel that no study can literally "refute" the results of another, so long as the methods used are valid. Samples will vary. Those with larger samples pulled from a random population will of course carry much more weight. If, hypothetically, study #1 samples 10 people from one town and finds 2 Negroid lineages, and study #2 samples 200 people from 20 towns and finds no Negroid lineages, study #2 carries more weight, because of its larger and wider sample; but I still don't see how study #2 invalidates the results of study #1. Study #1 still found Negroid lineages. What would you say?
--------
I've heard that there is a separate strain of sickle-cell that arose in the Indian subcontintent. Is this true, or is it a derivative of the African strain(s)? Am I correct in believing that the strain of sickle-cell found in southern Europeans is the sub-Saharan African one? Most of what I've read concerning this suggests the European one arose in Benin.
----------
What do you think of the following passage? I was unaware of downward revisions to the estimates of sub-Saharan admixture to the white American population. Is any of this correct, or does the 30% figure still stand?
Quote:
Black admixture
One researcher claimed that 30% of white Americans have on average about 2% Negroid ancestry, while the other 70% have no detectable trace of admixture (Mark Shriver in Sailer 2002). According to Shriver, for the US White population as a whole, the average sub-Saharan contribution is about .7%. UPDATE: Shriver now says "about 10 percent of [the European-American population] have some African ancestry" (Wade 2002) -- much lower than his previous claim of 30%. Incidentally, Shriver is now attributing his own African ancestry to "a Mexican grandmother", rather than to runaway slaves as he had implied in the Steve Sailer article.
[Important] UPDATE II: As more information has come out about DNAprint's "AncestryByDNA" test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning "admixture" in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003):
. . . African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods.
The sample included 628 European-American Y-chromosomes and mtDNA from 922 European-Americans, and the fact that there was no evidence for black admixture whatsoever is significant. The findings here also provide further indication that the ABD test is worthless for estimating "minor admixture".
[Important] UPDATE III: A DNAprint executive now claims "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry" (ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 28 2003). This represents a third downard revision of the proportion of white Americans claimed by DNAprint to have black ancestry. An amazing lack of consistency (30% -> 10% -> 5%) proves the pronouncements of DNAprint employees on the racial ancestry of Americans are unreliable. People who hereafter continue to cite such claims prove only their hostility towards Americans.
In the 1911 Britannica, I read the following in the Portugal article:
Quote:
After 1450 yet another ethnical element was introduced into the nation, through the importation of African slaves in vast numbers. Negroid types are common throughout central and southern Portugal.
Do you think that in 1911, "Negroid types" could still have been visible in Portugal? Furthermore, what exactly is meant by "Negroid types"? Does this mean outright black Africans, or mixed types? I find it hard to believe that African-appearing or mixed-appearing people were common in Portugal at the turn of the century. I suspect the writers were not basing their claims on actual eye-witness testimony.
Also, this:
Quote:
In appearance the Maltese are a handsome, well-formed race, about the middle height, and well set up; they have escaped the negroid contamination noticeable in Sicily, and their features are less dark than the southern Italians.
If, hypothetically, study #1 samples 10 people from one town and finds 2 Negroid lineages, and study #2 samples 200 people from 20 towns and finds no Negroid lineages, study #2 carries more weight, because of its larger and wider sample; but I still don't see how study #2 invalidates the results of study #1. Study #1 still found Negroid lineages. What would you say?
I would say it depends upon what you are sampling and what number you get. A ten-person sample is much too small to conclude anything reasonable. For example, if a ten-person sample gave 16% percent African admixture, the 95/100 confidence interval would be +/- 16%, meaning that it is 95 percent certain that the true value is between 0 and 32%. This is worthless. On the other hand, if a 100-person sample in village "A" yielded 10% admixture, then the 95/100 real value for village "A" would be between 6% and 14%. I would take this to the bank. If you then tested 200 people at random (including more villages, in addition to villlage "A," of course) and found 1% admixture, thus putting its 95/100 confidence interval well outside the range of first sample, I would say that you screwed up somewhere and should run the tests again. There is no way that you could have missed all the hits from village "A" (assuming that village "A" was included in the 200-person sample).
William wrote:
I've heard that there is a separate strain of sickle-cell that arose in the Indian subcontintent. Is this true, or is it a derivative of the African strain(s)?
You may be thinking of thalassemia, which also confers resistance to malaria in heterozygotes but causes hemoglobin malfunction in homozygotes. There are two kinds of thalassemia originating in different regions (India is one and I think that the Mediterranean may be the other) . Neither is directly related to sickle-cell trait. My son has Mediterranean ancestry (since most of my ancestors came from Spain), so he was likely to be heterozygotic for one of the thalassemias or sickle-cell or both. His wife's non-European ancestors are 50-50 from Africa and India (her folks are from Trinidad), so she was likely to be heterozygotic for the other thalassemia or sickle-cell or both. When she got pregnant with Miles, their doctors insisted on testing them for every possible combination of the above. As it turns out, she is heterozygotic for the India thalassemia, but our son has no malaria adaptations. So Miles was not at risk.
William wrote:
Am I correct in believing that the strain of sickle-cell found in southern Europeans is the sub-Saharan African one?
That is my understanding as well.
William wrote:
Most of what I've read concerning this suggests the European one arose in Benin.
Interesting. Where did you find this? I suspected that it would have originated near the place of origin of the Bantu-speaking farmers, and Benin is certainly right in there.
William wrote:
What do you think of the following passage? I was unaware of downward revisions to the estimates of sub-Saharan admixture to the white American population. Is any of this correct, or does the 30% figure still stand?
The statement gives only two sources: one is a non-peer-reviewed newpaper article, which I have not read. The other is an article by Manfred Kayser, which you can download from http://backintyme.com/admixture/kayser01.pdf. The Kayser article says nothing even resembling the statement. Kayser and his team were looking for regional variation among Whites, regional variation among Blacks, and regional variation among Hispanics. They were trying to answer the question, "Does forensics need several regional 'standard' DNA databases for comparisons, or is one national 'standard' DNA database okay?" With the exception of Whites in Texas and Louisiana, they found little regional variation. They concluded that regional databases are not necessary.
They estimated admixture only on pages 627 and 628. According to them, their method of estimating admixture gave a +/- 6% error. Hence, their estimate of Euro admixture in Blacks (which is much greater than 6%) corresponds roughly with others' findings. This is not surprising; there is a lot of European DNA in U.S. Blacks.
But their error span (6%) is much greater that the measured African admixture in U.S. Whites (0.7%). Hence, after excluding Whites from Texas and Louisiana because they do not fit the pattern, they quite properly say, "the African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods."
I do not understand how anyone can conclude that this refutes the known, replicated African admixture in U.S. Whites. If I use a yardstick with one-foot gradations, I can honestly say the size of insects "is below the limits of detection with these methods." Especially if I first exclude the two large insects.
I have no opinion on the so-called "downward revision" of how many White Americans have "detectable" African admixture. The number depends only on where you draw the line as to the limit of detectability. If you consider anything less than 5% as not worth counting, then you will get a smaller fraction of White Americans. If you are willing to accept 3% or 2% African admixture as valid, then you will see a much larger fraction. Different people use different cutoffs for different purposes.
The important number is the 0.7% African genetic admixture in White Americans overall; you can take it to the bank, at least until more studies emerge. For instance, Kevin Smith of U of Va (Wise) did an mtDNA study of over a hundred of the Cumberland Plateau folks who self-identify as Melungeons. He found that one in twenty have an "L" mtDNA haplotype. I suspect that Whites in Louisiana and east Texas also run around 5% (and that this is why Kayser et al. excluded them from their final tabulation).
William wrote:
Do you think that in 1911, "Negroid types" could still have been visible in Portugal? Furthermore, what exactly is meant by "Negroid types"?
Sorry. You are asking the wrong person. I have never figured out how Americans decide that someone “looks Black.” To me, Rosie Perez looks like she has more African in her than Mariah Carey does, but most Americans say that I must be blind. I would not dream of even trying to guess how Brits from 1911 decided this.
William wrote:
Could "Negroid contamination" really have been visible in Sicily in 1911? I wonder about all this.
Same answer. The use of the word “contamination” suggests that Sicily or Italy may have been enemies or opponent of Brit foreign policy at the time. I would check out the history books to see what was going on then.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 05 Dec 2005 22:12; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 22 Aug 2005 21:40 Post subject: Negroid Contamination
Hi,
Let's make this simple. Let's say curly people is Negroid and straigh hair people is pure "caucasian". Now you will find HALF EUROPE is negroid. Besides you will find that almost all the population of India is caucasian. Well, that's logical, aren't they the real ARYANS.
I really think Europe is a mixture of Neadenthal, Asian and Black as everywhere else. Nothing special with it.
But if there is something that irritates Europeans is to call them Neardenthalers.
I believe in make fun of people so they react. That way they will know how Chineses feel when they are called charlies, when Blacks are called negroids or Latinos are called mongrels.
Europeans are not a pure race. Actually is a mixture of dozens of different races, if we were to apply a biological standard. In the past, when Vikings attacked Europe, for instance, one perhaps could talk about a Nordic race. Those Ancient Nordic people were all alike. One could replace one with another and not one would notice it. A race is people that look very similar between themselves, like a dalmatian dog resembles another dalmatian dog.
Europe is not like that. If one takes an Andalucian and compares him with a Sweedish, one find out they quite different. How come they could belong to the same race?
Southern European are close to Arabs and Magreb peoples. Turks are close to Asians, Russians are between Nordic and Asian as well. And many Nordics look japanese. Even the Laps are quite different. Many Europeans look semites. There is not much "pure" Europeans in Europe at all.
Where an European stop to be one and starts to be an East Asian is a mystery or just a definition. The same applies to where an European becomes a Subharian African: In Germany, In Italy, In Morocco or In Ghana? Who knows?
It all depends of the "markers" one choses, I guess.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 16:43 Post subject: Re:
Quote:
William wrote:
If, hypothetically, study #1 samples 10 people from one town and finds 2 Negroid lineages, and study #2 samples 200 people from 20 towns and finds no Negroid lineages, study #2 carries more weight, because of its larger and wider sample; but I still don't see how study #2 invalidates the results of study #1. Study #1 still found Negroid lineages. What would you say?
I would say it depends upon what you are sampling and what number you get. A ten-person sample is much too small to conclude anything reasonable. For example, if a ten-person sample gave 16% percent African admixture, the 95/100 confidence interval would be +/- 16%, meaning that it is 95 percent certain that the true value is between 0 and 32%. This is worthless.
What I was originally trying to establish in my examle is that in hypothetical study #1, which sampled 10 people from one village and found 2 Negroid lineages, these are the results, and they are irrefutable. In other words, if you're not concerned with the quantification of the markers and the liklihood of the quantification being of some value, and are only concerned with the actual results themselves, then study #1, which definitely detected 2 Negroid lineages out of the 10 studied (in one village), cannot be refuted by study #2, which found none in 200 people studied in various villages. This was my point. Would you agree with this? That study #1 found Negroid lineages, in this case two of them (even if the sample size was far too small and narrow to be of value in quantification), is unshakable and can't be refuted by other studies. This is really what I was saying. In other words again, results are results.
Quote:
On the other hand, if a 100-person sample in village "A" yielded 10% admixture, then the 95/100 real value for village "A" would be between 6% and 14%. I would take this to the bank. If you then tested 200 people at random (including more villages, in addition to villlage "A," of course) and found 1% admixture, thus putting its 95/100 confidence interval well outside the range of first sample, I would say that you screwed up somewhere and should run the tests again. There is no way that you could have missed all the hits from village "A" (assuming that village "A" was included in the 200-person sample).
Yes, I see your point here. The second study, if done correctly, couldn't have missed the lineages found in the first study, provided the village "A" was sampled again. If it did, something is wrong.
Regarding the origin of the sickle trait in Europeans, here is a quote and its source:
Quote:
Hb S is common in some areas of the Mediterranean basin, including regions of Italy, Greece, Albania and Turkey (Boletini et al., 1994) (Schiliro et al., 1990). Haplotype analysis shows that the Hb S in these areas originated in Africa. The genes probably moved along ancient trading routes between wealthy kingdoms in western Africa and the trade centers in the Mediterranean basin.
The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, and South West Saudi Arabia, suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa. The Asian haplotype is rarely encountered outside its geographic origin because there have been few large population movements and Indian emigrants have been predominantly from non HbS containing populations. However, it is of interest that the Asian haplotype was first described among descendants of Indian indentured laborers in Jamaica.
. . .
Beta globin haplotypes [in homozygous sickle cell disease] are predominantly Benin in Jamaica, entirely Benin in Greece and almost entirely Asian in the other two groups [Eastern Saudi Arabia and Orissa State, India].
That whole article is interesting. I also have a little map which I saved to my temp file long ago that illustrates the origins and spread of the haplotypes, and clearly shows the Benin one to be the one that spread to southern Europe. I can't now recall where I got it from. Since I can't upload it here, I'll e-mail it to you.
I agree with you entirely regarding the so-called "downward revision" in admixture in Americans. Thanks for the Kayser clarification.
Quote:
Same answer. The use of the word “contamination” suggests that Sicily or Italy may have been enemies or opponent of Brit foreign policy at the time. I would check out the history books to see what was going on then.
You know, the same was suggested to me regarding Portugal. A Portuguese friend of mine, who is well-versed in Portuguese history, suggested that the constant mentioning of Negroid blood (which is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree) is due to Britain's wanting Portugal's colonies, and calling them Negroid-admixed mongrels was a 1911 way of insulting them. Makes sense.
Last edited by William on Fri 07 Apr 2006 19:21; edited 1 time in total
You know, the same was suggested to me regarding Portugal. A Portuguese friend of mine, who is well-versed in Portuguese history, suggested that the constant mentioning of Negroid blood (which is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree) is due to Britain's wanting Portugal's colonies, and calling them Negroid-admixed mongrels was a 1911 way of insulting them. Makes sense.
I think part of that is used to explain Portugal's decline as a maritime and politcal power from its early days in the 15th Century. There's a white supremacist site that has an essay titled "The Black Man's Gift to Portrugal". The objective of the article is to "prove" that Portugal's decline as a nation can be directly linked to its importation of and mixing with large numbers of African blacks. The same has been suggested by some as an explanation for the decline of Arabian Islamic civilization as well.
I get the impression that people who think this way see a Lusophone and Arabian world where everyone looked like an Englishman before they started mixing with sub-Saharan Africans.
Today, Portuguese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada aren't as upwardly mobile as other European immigrant groups, and there's the belief-by some- that their lack of upward mobility compared to other European-Americans is due solely to the presence of large amounts of Negroid ancestry.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 18:09 Post subject:
Quote:
I think part of that is used to explain Portugal's decline as a maritime and politcal power from its early days in the 15th Century. There's a white supremacist site that has an essay titled "The Black Man's Gift to Portrugal". The objective of the article is to "prove" that Portugal's decline as a nation can be directly linked to its importation of and mixing with large numbers of African blacks. The same has been suggested by some as an explanation for the decline of Arabian Islamic civilization as well.
Yes, I have seen that ridiculous site. The figure of 10% is grossly exaggerated, first off. I've read that during the course of slavery in Portugal, 35,000 Black Africans resided there, with some being absorbed. The population at the time was roughly 1.5 to 2 million. Hardly 10 percent. Another hilarious thing in that site is that it suggests the mixture was between African males and Portuguese women, when the DNA tests prove just the opposite! There are almost no sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes in Portugal. The sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages run at around 7%...still far too little to have affected them racially.
I've been all through Portugal, and I know many Portuguese-Americans, and they are all Mediterranean white in appearance. Even Carleton Coon, the racist anthropologist who wrote his work in 1939, stated, "The absorption of Negroes by the Portuguese has had no appreciable effect on the racial position of the nation. Portugal remains, as it has been since the days of the Muge shell-fish eaters, classical Mediterranean territory."
Quote:
I get the impression that people who think this way see a Lusophone and Arabian world where everyone looked like an Englishman before they started mixing with sub-Saharan Africans.
Yes, I think many believe this. These are the ones who associate "white" with a northern European phenotype. I think to most rational people, "white" includes all Europeans, some Arabs and North Africans, and some western Asians.
Quote:
Today, Portuguese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada aren't as upwardly mobile as other European immigrant groups, and there's the belief-by some- that their lack of upward mobility compared to other European-Americans is due solely to the presence of large amounts of Negroid ancestry.
I've heard the same with regard to Sicilians and Greeks. Someone once said, "Greeks have so much black blood that they are only good at owning restaurants." Of course, this whole ridiculous theory is based on racism. But the notion of large amounts of Negroid blood in the Portuguese can easily be refuted by simply going to Portugal and viewing the people. I defy anyone to come back from there and say they saw partly Negroid-looking natives (not including recent immigrants, of course). This to me seems so stupid. My Portuguese friend was utterly amazed when I mentioned this silliness to him. He admitted to Portugal's slave-trading past, and added that there were some blacks present in Portugal, with of course some absorption having taken place, but stated how obvious it is that it certainly wasn't anywhere near large enough to change the ethnography of the country. The absorption of blacks was not unique to Portugal. France, Holland, Britain, Spain, Italy (including Sicily), Greece (in ancient times), Germany, etc. all have had black presences that were absorbed to some degree, and this is supported by DNA tests.
Regarding Portuguese not being upwardly mobile...that can be argued. In my state (New Jersey), there is a large Portuguese community that does very well. In downtown Newark, in the Ironbound, there are a great many successful Portuguese-owned businesses. I've heard this is also the case in coastal New England. I think the problem is that most people don't know any Portuguese personally, so they make assumptions based on silly things they read.
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 18:45 Post subject: Question for Frank on cDe blood marker
I like the how the ownership of restaurants is used as proof that Greeks are less intelligent than other whites because of supposedly inferior Negro blood. But ownership of restaurants by Asians is proof of how business savvy and intelligent Asians are compared to whites.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 19:05 Post subject: Re: Question for Frank on cDe blood marker
G-Man wrote:
I like the how the ownership of restaurants is used as proof that Greeks are less intelligent than other whites because of supposedly inferior Negro blood. But ownership of restaurants by Asians is proof of how business savvy and intelligent Asians are compared to whites.
Hi:
Crazy Gringos; poor White-Men
Greeks are the founders of the Western Civilization. The same one some white-men are so proud about.
I think is fair to recognize Ancient Greeks called the White-Men the Barbarians. I believe Greeks knew the personality of the White Man.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 19:17 Post subject: Sr. Vega...
What do you know of the blacks who once existed in Argentina? I've heard that they comprised 10% of the population or something like that in 1830 and then disappeared when the country was swamped by European immigrants. The theory is that they were absorbed. I wonder if there are any genetic tests regarding this. Also, did this occur in Chile as well?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
