Back from vacation, came back smarter than before. Smart how you phrased your question. " White" and "euros". Vacation did you some good. Obviously they are not close to whites but closer to Africans/black because of latitude and skin phenotype. Geographically they are closer to Africans than Euros.
As far as genetics it depends on what genetic profile you are comparing. Eg Indians are primarily in the mtDNA M macro group. Africans (North East and some SAA) and Europeans are primarily in the macro group N. so it depends what profile you are comparing. Because some Black Asians are more distant from Africans than Europeans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253–264. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200949
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Are they black ? Yes.
Back from vacation, came back smarter than before. Smart how you phrased your question. " White" and "euros". Vacation did you some good. Obviously they are not close to whites but closer to Africans/black because of latitude and skin phenotype. Geographically they are closer to Africans than Euros.
I specifically asked you if they were genetically closer to white Euroepans than to Africans I already put as a given in the question "black skinned" So you said the pharsing of the question was smart yet you ignored the phrasing of the question
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
As far as genetics it depends on what genetic profile you are comparing. Eg Indians are primarily in the mtDNA M macro group. Africans (North East and some SAA) and Europeans are primarily in the macro group N. so it depends what profile you are comparing. Because some Black Asians are more distant from Africans than Europeans.
Again you ignore the question. At the end of this reply you say "some Black Asians" I didn't ask about "some Black Asians" I asked about Indians Are the Indians closer genetically to white Europeans than they are to Africans? Dealing with both maternal and paternal DNA, the frequencies therof
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tibeto-Burman populations of India provide an insight into the peopling of India and aid in understanding their genetic relationship with populations of East, South and Southeast Asia. The study investigates the genetic status of one such Tibeto-Burman group, Adi of Arunachal Pradesh based on 15 autosomal microsatellite markers. Further the study examines, based on 9 common microsatellite loci, the genetic relationship of Adi with 16 other Tibeto-Burman speakers of India and 28 neighboring populations of East and Southeast Asia. Overall, the results support the recent formation of the Adi sub-tribes from a putative ancestral group and reveal that geographic contiguity is a major influencing factor of the genetic affinity among the Tibeto-Burman populations of India.
--S. Krithika, Suvendu Maji, T. S. Vasulu* A Microsatellite Guided Insight into the Genetic Status of Adi, an Isolated Hunting-Gathering Tribe of Northeast India
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
The driving force behind the transition from a foraging to a farming lifestyle in prehistoric Europe (Neolithization) has been debated for more than a century 1, 2 and 3. Of particular interest is whether population replacement or cultural exchange was responsible 3, 4 and 5. Scandinavia holds a unique place in this debate, for it maintained one of the last major hunter-gatherer complexes in Neolithic Europe, the Pitted Ware culture [6]. Intriguingly, these late hunter-gatherers existed in parallel to early farmers for more than a millennium before they vanished some 4,000 years ago 7 and 8. The prolonged coexistence of the two cultures in Scandinavia has been cited as an argument against population replacement between the Mesolithic and the present 7 and 8. Through analysis of DNA extracted from ancient Scandinavian human remains, we show that people of the Pitted Ware culture were not the direct ancestors of modern Scandinavians (including the Saami people of northern Scandinavia) but are more closely related to contemporary populations of the eastern Baltic region. Our findings support hypotheses arising from archaeological analyses that propose a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population replacement in Scandinavia [7]. Furthermore, our data are consistent with the view that the eastern Baltic represents a genetic refugia for some of the European hunter-gatherer populations.
Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians
posted
^^^^ you are now putting up a lot of charts not dealing directly with the question This is a comparison of white Europeans and Africans Which population is genetically closer to Indians
As usual you post a lot of charts without stating what they are supposed to proving
You posted this >
Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians
^^^ what are you just waiting for an opportunity to post this randomly in a thread?
I have posted a gentioc distance chart, please deal with the topic not go off on a million unfocused tangents
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
"a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population replacement in Scandinavia".
quote:DNA study shows Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago
BERLIN – Europeans appear to be more closely related than previously thought.
Scientists who compared DNA samples from people in different parts of the continent found that most had common ancestors living just 1,000 years ago.
The results confirm decade-old mathematical models, but will nevertheless come as a surprise to Europeans accustomed to thinking of ancient nations composed of distinct ethnic groups like "Germans," ''Irish" or "Serbs."
"What's remarkable about this is how closely everyone is related to each other," said Graham Coop of the University of California, Davis, who co-wrote the study published Tuesday in the journal PLoS Biology.
Coop and his fellow author Peter Ralph of the University of Southern California used a database containing more than 2,250 genetic samples to look for shared DNA segments that would point to distant shared relatives.
While the number of common genetic ancestors is greater the closer people are to each other, even individuals living 2,000 miles (3,220 kilometers) apart had identical sections of DNA that can be traced back roughly to the Middle Ages.
The findings indicate that there was a steady flow of genetic material between countries as far apart as Turkey and Britain, or Poland and Portugal, even after the great population movements of the first millennium A.D. such as the Saxon and Viking invasions of Britain, and the westward drive of the Huns and Slavic peoples.
The study did find subtle regional variations. For reasons still unclear, Italians and Spaniards appear to be less closely related than most Europeans to people elsewhere on the continent.
"The analysis is pretty convincing. It comes partly from the enormous number of ancestors each one of us have," said Mark A. Jobling, a professor of genetics at the University of Leicester, England, who wasn't involved in the study.
Since the number of ancestors each person has roughly doubles with each generation, "we don't have to go too far back to find someone who features in all of our family trees," he said.
Jobling cited a scientific paper published in 2004 that went so far as to predict that every person on the planet shares ancestors who lived just 4,000 years ago.
Experts say the study's findings need to be compared with what we know about population movements in Europe and elsewhere from other fields, including archeology and linguistics.
"Although, as the authors note, the approach is inherently 'noisy' (i.e. error-prone), it still does give results for European populations that are in reasonable agreement with historical expectations," said Mark Stoneking, a professor evolutionary anthropology at the University of Leipzig, Germany, who also wasn't involved in the study. "It would be interesting to see this applied in situations where we don't have such good historical information."
Coop and Ralph said the findings might change the way Europeans think about their neighbors on a continent that has had its fair share of struggle and strife.
"The basic idea that we're all related much more recently than one might think has been around for a while, but it is not widely appreciated, and still quite surprising to many people, even scientists working in population genetics, including ourselves," they said in an email to The Associated Press. "The fact that we share all our ancestors from a time period where we recognize various ethnic identities also points at how we are like a family — we have our differences, but are all closely related."
Just don't expect news of closer family ties to prompt a surge of brotherly love in Europe or elsewhere.
"There have been many studies that we've been involved in showing that groups which are fighting each other furiously all the time are actually extremely closely genetically related. But that's never had any impact on whether they continue to fight each other," Jobling said.
"So for example Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Middle East are extremely similar genetically, but to tell them they are genetic close relatives isn't going to change their ways."
posted
Ardo can you delete this off topic stuff? TP is on another spam fest He has the inability to stay on topic
Look at the above. It's about the interrelatedness of Europeans
No that is not the topic
it is simply diversion and wasting bandwidth
And he doesn't even comprehend the off topic article he posted He said "Perhaps you can't comprihend? Comprende? Europe has different popululations."
Yet the article is making the opposite point, the relatedness and commonality between European populations
So the result of this is is a person who spams but doesn't know they are spamming Legit scientific articles are spam when they are off topic, they simply destroy the thread
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You received a answer. You're obviously not content with the outcome.
Europe has different populations, and population replacement.
"a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population replacement in Scandinavia"
Asking what you've aksed requires more than just a simplistic approach.
In order to answer it critically, you need to look at the fundamentals, which you happen to call spam. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] You do know that EEF and are Neolithic Africans migrating to Europe?
Europeans are a sub-set of Africans.
Also confirmed by Pickrell. See the RED lines from SSA to Near East and Europe. This is the 2nd migratory event ie Neolithic.
Hit me up if you have any more questions.
So your point is that white Europeans are more related genetically to Africans then they are to Indians?
That's a yes or no
I'm not interetsed in more excursions and tangets
I cant get an intelligent counter argument to the topic on this site only diversionary tactics
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are not getting it. Eyeballing has flaws. Some brotha call the Negritos and Dravidian, blacks or even Negros, but genetically they are very distant. Nature, the environment determines what a people look like. Indigenous people within the forest tropical belt globally all look black and "Negroid" but they are NOT related. The can't be related and they are not.
Thus Indians are not related to Europeans irregardless of eyeballing. You need to understand the chart you posted... In context.
What study is it from? follow my 4Ws, it looks like frequency. Which is meaningless.
The Eurocentric may think that the Europeans and Indians are Caucasoids and thus related. They are NOT.
As I said before the "Negros" is a "new" adaptation phenotype . I believe first AMH (in Africa) were more like Australians.
Definitely black "Negroid" but also having "caucasoid " features. All originated IN Africa.
I don't believe the 1st AMH looked like what Dr Winters keep posting.
This is not rocket science, and not about Dogma.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words the 1st AMH looked nothing like modern day SSA like what most brothas think. Were they black? Yes, they definitely were. They needed to be. But what is more fascinating is that whiteness originated within the same SSA region!! Isn't that a bitch?! Mekova, Rees etc et al.
All humans were black skinned, including Neanderthals , up to 5k ya! That is the amazing thing.
Got your answer now ?
Hit me up! I am working on some new papers to post on.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Estimates of Continental Ancestry Vary Widely among Individuals with the Same mtDNA Haplogroup Leslie S. Emery,1,4 Kevin M.
The association between a geographical region and an mtDNA haplogroup(s) has provided the basis for using mtDNA haplogroups to infer an individual’s place of origin and genetic ancestry. Although it is well known that ancestry inferences using mtDNA haplogroups and those using genome-wide markers are FREQUENTLY DISCREPANT, little empirical information exists on the magnitude and scope of such discrepancies between multiple mtDNA haplogroups and worldwide populations. We compared genetic-ancestry inferences made by mtDNA-haplogroup membership to those made by autosomal SNPs in ~940 samples of the Human Genome Diversity Panel and recently admixed populations from the 1000 Genomes Project. Continental-ancestry proportions often varied widely among individuals SHARING THE SAME mtDNA haplogroup. For only half of mtDNA haplogroups did the highest average continental-ancestry proportion match the highest continental-ancestry proportion of a majority of individuals with that haplogroup. Prediction of an individual’s mtDNA haplogroup from his or her continental-ancestry proportions was often incorrect. Collectively, these results indicate that for most individuals in the worldwide populations sampled, mtDNA-haplogroup membership provides limited information about either continental ancestry or continental region of origin. (xxyman comment- you people need to under haplogroups and ancestry makers COMPLEMENT each other. )
Retinking Jewish ancestry - Tafonelli
Abstract - Several authors have proposed haplotype motifs based on site variants at the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) and the non- recombining portion oftheYchromosome(NRY) to trace the genealogies of Jewish people.
For this purpose we compared haplotype composition inindividuals of self-reported Jewish ancestry with theres to European, African or Middle Eastern samples,to test for non-random association of ethno-geographic groups and haplotypes.
.Accordingly, our results stress the LIMITATIONS of using the above haplotype motifs as reliable Jewish ancestry predictors and show its inadequacy for forensic or genealogical purposes.
An Aboriginal Australian Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia - Morten Rasmussen1,2 .
Abstract We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%. We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Are these people closer to Africans than Europeans or Asians
or these?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are not getting it. Eyeballing has flaws. Some brotha call the Negritos and Dravidian, blacks or even Negros, but genetically they are very distant. Nature, the environment determines what a people look like. Indigenous people within the forest tropical belt globally all look black and "Negroid" but they are NOT related. The can't be related and they are not.
So here you answered your own eyeballing and support my point, that despite skin color if we look at genetic distance Europeans and Indians are relatively close. In other words you tried to get me to eyeball and I didn't so you pretended I did. Which was completeley ridiculous because in the very first post I posted a genetic distance chart
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
Priya Moorjani et al.
Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
Who - who wrote it When- when paper was written. Is it dated? Is there more updated information? Where - Did they sample the appropriate geographic population. What - premise
Carry on......
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an idea. Xyyman could these black skinned Indians be genetically closer to white Euros?
When questions like these materialize in your mind why don't you research and present your findings, analysis, critique, and conclusions instead of challenging somebody else to do the legwork for you first?
Don't get me wrong. Your questioning gives us directions for more research and muchly appreciated.
Oh, and don't get mad when your nemesis Ish Gebor bombards a thread with facts and data and related if tangent evidence.
Check his posts again, unbiasedly, and if you can't see how they are on topic I will show you how they enlighten me with background needed to answer the question in depth not simply yes or no.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ardo can you delete this off topic stuff? TP is on another spam fest He has the inability to stay on topic
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Are these people closer to Africans than Europeans or Asians
or these?
So now you disregard genetics when you feel like it and go to pictures?
stop it
Guess you couldn't debunk the images of these Asians. While these are probably the oldest Asian ethnic groups. Yet are supposedly recent immigrants into India?
Meaning your citation and opening post are obfuscating and in contracition to one another.
Ps, if you're going to study a "segment of people" first try to understand their background. Otherwise you'll be spamming stuff. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Again the topic is Indians and Europeans as shown on this chart not the isolated population of Oceanic Andaman Isanders
stop the evasive tactics if you can't deal with the original opening post don't try to change the topic
Review your genetic distance
The point here some dark skinned people are more related to given light skinned populations than they are to dark ones
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony is that Andaman and east-Indians how common factors, with the Andaman being the older Asian population. See your Oceanian AAC reference. Do tell, who emerged out of them?
And appeartly it's all a bit more compex, then that simplistic schedule. Since the east-Indian composition is a complex one.
Table 1 Relevant information for 31 populations from the Indian subcontinent
quote:Our results provide genomic evidence that (1) there is an underlying unity of female lineages in India, indicating that the initial number of female settlers may have been small; (2) the tribal and the caste populations are highly differentiated; (3) the Austro-Asiatic tribals are the earliest settlers in India, providing support to one anthropological hypothesis while refuting some others; (4) a major wave of humans entered India through the northeast; (5) the Tibeto-Burman tribals share considerable genetic commonalities with the Austro-Asiatic tribals, supporting the hypothesis that they may have shared a common habitat in southern China, but the two groups of tribals can be differentiated on the basis of Y-chromosomal haplotypes; (6) the Dravidian tribals were possibly widespread throughout India before the arrival of the Indo-European-speaking nomads, but retreated to southern India to avoid dominance; (7) formation of populations by fission that resulted in founder and drift effects have left their imprints on the genetic structures of contemporary populations; (8) the upper castes show closer genetic affinities with Central Asian populations, although those of southern India are more distant than those of northern India; (9) historical gene flow into India has contributed to a considerable obliteration of genetic histories of contemporary populations so that there is at present no clear congruence of genetic and geographical or sociocultural affinities.
--Analabha Basu1,4, Namita Mukherjee1,4, Sangita Roy2,4, Sanghamitra Sengupta1,4, Sanat Banerjee1, Madan Chakraborty1, Badal Dey1, Monami Roy1, Bidyut Roy1, Nitai P. Bhattacharyya3, Susanta Roychoudhury2, and Partha P. Majumder1,5
Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure
posted
This debate is going nowhere because people assume that the African/Negro/Black race is monolithic. This is far from true. At least four different Black races originated in Africa and expanded across the globe.
These populations in order were the: Australians, Khoisan, Pygmy, and modern Black Africans and Dravidians. Once you accept this reality you can understand how after great cataclysm the succeeding Black population would take control build new civilizations. This view is supported by archaeology, especially the recovery of skeletal remains. The last shift in dominant Black populations took place after Great Flood, which wipe out Pygmy civilizations around the world and left remnant pygmy populations on every continent. The modern expansion of the Black race had two waves 1) the Kushites and 2) the Moors.
These civilizations were easily destroyed because their major cities were located near the Sea or Rivers. Every 6000 years there are upheavals that lead to changes in the sea level which cause some place to rise above sea level, while other centers are submerged. Sadly we are due another tectonic upheaval soon.The major research centers around the world are near water, so much of this knowledge will be lost.
Again the topic is Indians and Europeans as shown on this chart not the isolated population of Oceanic Andaman Isanders
stop the evasive tactics if you can't deal with the original opening post don't try to change the topic
Review your genetic distance
The point here some dark skinned people are more related to given light skinned populations than they are to dark ones
With this post you've dealt a Knock-Out punch to both xyyman and troll. Then you can have a laugh looking at them desperately trying to find their way out of data and science.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
As a result the chart is going to show exactly what the researcher wanted it to show.Dr. Malhi et al,in a recent article discussed how researchers fail to publish information that disagrees with their research in the discovery of the M haplogroup in ancient America. See: http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Malhi_et_al_2007.pdf
Malhi et al,maintain that researchers continue to claim that their are only 4 foundational Native American haplogroups when they know others may exist. As a result, if a researchers claims Indians are closest to West Eurasians the research will "prove" it because you're only going to report results supporting your claim.
If you really want to see the relationship between two populations you have to compare the haplogroups yourself and support your findings with archaeogenetics evidence.
Again the topic is Indians and Europeans as shown on this chart not the isolated population of Oceanic Andaman Isanders
stop the evasive tactics if you can't deal with the original opening post don't try to change the topic
Review your genetic distance
The point here some dark skinned people are more related to given light skinned populations than they are to dark ones
With this post you've dealt a Knock-Out punch to both xyyman and troll. Then you can have a laugh looking at them desperately trying to find their way out of data and science.
The knockout punch is in the FACT that the Indian population is DIVERSE in ethnicity AND GENE POOL. This includes the Andeman for example. Something you can't deal with!
It proofs that the resolution posted by your dear lioness is off.
quote:The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253–264. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200949
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India
quote: Asian countries offer great opportunities to studysocio-cultural and genetic variability. Perhaps,nowhere in the world people in a small geographicarea are distributed as such a large number of ethnic, castes, religious and linguistic groups asin India and other South Asian countries. All thesegroups are not entirely independent; people belong concurrently to two or more of thesegroups. People of different groups living side byside for hundreds or even thousands of year tryto retain their separate entities by practicingendogamy
--M. K. Bhasin
Int J Hum Genet, 6(3): 233-274 (2006)
Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India:Indian Population Milieu
As a result the chart is going to show exactly what the researcher wanted it to show.Dr. Malhi et al,in a recent article discussed how researchers fail to publish information that disagrees with their research in the discovery of the M haplogroup in ancient America. See: http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Malhi_et_al_2007.pdf
Malhi et al,maintain that researchers continue to claim that their are only 4 foundational Native American haplogroups when they know others may exist. As a result, if a researchers claims Indians are closest to West Eurasians the research will "prove" it because you're only going to report results supporting your claim.
If you really want to see the relationship between two populations you have to compare the haplogroups yourself and support your findings with archaeogenetics evidence.
.
I did notice that as well about their proximate, in how they picked and choose to support their claims. Thus my references.
quote: Bayesian statistics has been often criticized because the interpretation of prior probability distribution in terms of ‘beliefs’ seems subjective. But this is far from reality, you can choose different priors: subjective (it should be used when you have some information about the parameters) or objective (in situations where there is no information on them).
Although it has not been explicitly mentioned above, the fact that we can express our beliefs about the parameter by means of a probability density function is the result of considering the parameters as random variables. This is one of the biggest differences that can be found with respect to classical statistics. It treats parameters as fixed but unknown.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again the thread topic is not comprehended.
The question is, is could a dark skinned East Indian be more similar to a light skinned European than to an African
the topic of the thread is not an investigation of all types of East Indians.
There are several Indian groups, so the question then becomes, of which do you speak.
If you reread the studies I had posts you'll see that.
But perhaps you can't comprehend this:
quote: The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
Then again, we have several populations in Europe who are compromised different as well.
Therefore your simplistic view is obsolete.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again the thread topic is not comprehended.
The question is, is could a dark skinned East Indian be more similar to a light skinned European than to an African
the topic of the thread is not an investigation of all types of East Indians.
There are several Indian groups, so the question then becomes, of which do you speak.
Again you don't understand the thread topic
The thread topic is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than a light skinned population
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again the thread topic is not comprehended.
The question is, is could a dark skinned East Indian be more similar to a light skinned European than to an African
the topic of the thread is not an investigation of all types of East Indians.
There are several Indian groups, so the question then becomes, of which do you speak.
Again you don't understand the thread topic
The thread topic is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than a light skinned population
Again, India is comprised out of multiple group. The question thus becomes which are you talking about.
I have cited a study explaining this, .... Here it is again:
"The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations)."
It's funny how you have a hard time understanding your own topic adressed. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again the thread topic is not comprehended.
The question is, is could a dark skinned East Indian be more similar to a light skinned European than to an African
the topic of the thread is not an investigation of all types of East Indians.
There are several Indian groups, so the question then becomes, of which do you speak.
Again you don't understand the thread topic
The thread topic is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than a light skinned population
Again, India is comprised out of multiple group.
Again you don't understand the thread topic You seem to think the topic is "what is the ancestry of East Indians" But that is not the topic Again the thread topic is>
is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than to a light skinned population?
Maybe you'll get it after about ten more pages of saying the same thing over and over or simply admit you don't want to address the question
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again the thread topic is not comprehended.
The question is, is could a dark skinned East Indian be more similar to a light skinned European than to an African
the topic of the thread is not an investigation of all types of East Indians.
There are several Indian groups, so the question then becomes, of which do you speak.
Again you don't understand the thread topic
The thread topic is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than a light skinned population
Again, India is comprised out of multiple group.
Again you don't understand the thread topic You seem to think the topic is "what is the ancestry of East Indians" But that is not the topic Again the thread topic is>
is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than to a light skinned population?
Maybe you'll get it after about ten more pages of saying the same thing over and over or simply admit you don't want to address the question
Again, in order to make such assumptions you need to understand the population.
Here read it again:
"The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations)."
And no, the complexion (phenotype) is not a direct relation the genotype. SMH
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Again you don't understand the thread topic You seem to think the topic is "what is the ancestry of East Indians" But that is not the topic Again the thread topic is>
is a given dark skinned population genetically always more similar to any other dark skinned popualtion rather than to a light skinned population?
Maybe you'll get it after about ten more pages of saying the same thing over and over or simply admit you don't want to address the question
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
And no, the complexion (phenotype) is not a direct relation the genotype.
Now you've fianlly got it
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
"The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations)."
The relationship between Indian mtDNA and the East Eurasian gene pool is irrelevant to the thread topic
Again, look at the genetic distance chart above the distance between European DNA and East Indian DNA It takes into account both paternal and maternal DNA not just maternal despite your hope to hide it This is why the average East Indian is at greater distance to East Asians and Oceanic people than to Europeans
Again this thread is about genetic distance maps
And even if Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool, M1 60% They still have mtDNA R, 40%, R1 found in Caucasians
And in Y DNA High frequencies of R1 and R2, Hap H
Again look at the above genetic distance tree It's averaged genetics of the entire country So in looking at that chart it's irrelevant to bring up the various populations' variances. It's diversionary unecessary detail. It obscures what is to be learned from the broader perspective of this type of macro analysis
Despite Indian mtDNA gene pool appearing to be closer to the east Eurasian gene pool it does not change the fact that complexion (phenotype) is not a direct relation the genotype.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
For some funny reason, you started to interpret in you own little funny way.
What you appeartently don’t get s that you plot is selectly. Since the buildup of India is diverse. As Clyde pointed out on the Bayesian statistics.
quote: The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
The East Eurasian gene pool is relevant because it is mediate.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No, they are not closer to the european. Since they came from a subset of the African. Europeans however subset of African, Middle Eastern and Asians including (east-) India.
Spencer Wells - The Journey of Man ( Part 6 of 13) - A Genetic Odyssey
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^No, they are not closer to the european. Since they came from a subset of the African. Europeans however subset of African, Middle Eastern and Asians including (east-) India.
Spencer Wells - The Journey of Man ( Part 6 of 13) - A Genetic Odyssey
Thank you for finally giving an opinion on the thread topic
However this video is about the OOA migrations. It is talking about the Indian ancestors of Oceanic people. If you go back to the periods that this video is talking about many haplgroups that we know of today didn't even exist. But you have to keep in mind that the thread topic is about modern 21st century people and modern people have evolved since then. In other words you can't avoid the genetic similarities or differences of modern people today by going back to an earlier time period where the situation was different, more to your liking.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: ^No, they are not closer to the european. Since they came from a subset of the African. Europeans however subset of African, Middle Eastern and Asians including (east-) India.
Spencer Wells - The Journey of Man ( Part 6 of 13) - A Genetic Odyssey
Thank you for finally giving an opinion on the thread topic
However this video is about the OOA migrations. It is talking about the Indian ancestors of Oceanic people. If you go back to the periods that this video is talking about many haplgroups that we know of today didn't even exist. But you have to keep in mind that the thread topic is about modern 21st century people and modern people have evolved since then. In other words you can't avoid the genetic similarities or differences of modern people today by going back to an earlier time period where the situation was different, more to your liking.
They explain the first subset of Africa to India. They don’t mention a “Hg-name”, because it’s just a name, Instead he mentions the sequence of the markers. I played by your rules, and beat you at your own game.
If you look at the picture again of those males you’ve posted. You will see that they look similar. Because the man tested was “your stereotype Indian”.
quote: Popularly known as Athens of the East, Madurai, like Varanasi, is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in India.
So, in essence what is being stated in that vid is that Indians are closer to the African.
And Europeans are a composition of different subsets, from Asia, Middle East and Africa. Europeans carry subclasses of those groups. Your simplistic reasoning is what is blocking you from evaluating.
And if we look at the gene-pool of the first expulsion from Africa, you are lost again in the wilderness.
Ps, its not my opinion btw.
quote:The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic