|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 21, 2005 20:09:17 GMT -5
The numbers speak for themselves; "low" is an arbitrary word with no hard limit defining what is low and what is not. For example, Finns and Hungarians are generally considered Caucasoids with low Asian admixture, even though they may have around 10% Asian input according to autosomal estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 21, 2005 20:43:24 GMT -5
The numbers speak for themselves; "low" is an arbitrary word with no hard limit defining what is low and what is not. For example, Finns and Hungarians are generally considered Caucasoids with low Asian admixture, even though they may have around 10% Asian input according to autosomal estimates. I think your math in estimating admixture from these figures is wrong. There's no way 9% is low or of "no importance". Where are your references to back up your calculations? Also, we don't really know what the frequency of this marker is all over Europe. You report say 0.01% is "normal" for Caucasoids. My report says anything under 1% is normal. |
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Aug 21, 2005 23:52:39 GMT -5
Berlin was literally raped by Central Asian "Russian" soldiers, wasn't it? From little girls to old women. Would any signifigant number of preganancies have from this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 0:14:41 GMT -5
Berlin was literally raped by Central Asian "Russian" soldiers, wasn't it? From little girls to old women. Would any signifigant number of preganancies have from this? I seriously doubt it from what I've heard and read (ie. suicides and abortions after the rapes). But the question remains...how did Dienekes come about his admixture figures? Are they valid in any way? |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 22, 2005 0:55:40 GMT -5
I think your math in estimating admixture from these figures is wrong. It's junior high school level math. Point the mistake if you think that my "math is wrong". My source indicates that it occurs at minute frequency in Caucasians. You have provided no report that says this. |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 0:58:43 GMT -5
I think your math in estimating admixture from these figures is wrong. It's junior high school level math. Point the mistake if you think that my "math is wrong". My source indicates that it occurs at minute frequency in Caucasians. You have provided no report that says this. Junior level math, eh? You think you can apply junior level math to these things? How about genetic drift and natural selection...maybe other factors? Show me a report that uses a similar admixture equation to yours... |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 22, 2005 1:07:16 GMT -5
Show me a report that uses a similar admixture equation to yours... Gladly. "The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%." evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Cinnioglu2004.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 1:24:54 GMT -5
Show me a report that uses a similar admixture equation to yours... Gladly. "The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%." evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Cinnioglu2004.pdfThis data concerns Y-chromosome markers...not blood antigens. Show me that the same type of admixture analysis can be done with blood antigens. Aren't blood markers much more prone to natural selection? |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 22, 2005 1:36:54 GMT -5
Di(a) is a Mongoloid marker. If it has been subjected to natural selection in the European environment, then this selection would have acted to _reduce_ its frequency, because Europeans have close to zero of this marker. Hence, under the scenario of natural selection, the given estimate would _underestimate_ the true admixture proportion.
In any case, you have not provided any evidence that Di(a) has been targetted by selection; but if it has, then the Mongoloid admixture would be underestimated if one considers the present-day frequency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Aug 22, 2005 1:55:34 GMT -5
So, it's 30% of the population, that have tat-c? In that case, it doesn't say anything about the mongoloid admixture, and as far as I have read, it's not common in "real" east asians (I may be wrong, though.) Studies show that 60-65 % of Finnish male have the TAT-C polymorphosis that is a marker for N3 haplogroup. It is found among the small Arctic populations, and is prevalent among the Yakuts, but not among the "Southern" Eastern Asians. However, the mtDNA found in Finland doesn't differ from the rest of Northern Europe in any significant way. |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 8:17:19 GMT -5
Di(a) is a Mongoloid marker. If it has been subjected to natural selection in the European environment, then this selection would have acted to _reduce_ its frequency, because Europeans have close to zero of this marker. Hence, under the scenario of natural selection, the given estimate would _underestimate_ the true admixture proportion. In any case, you have not provided any evidence that Di(a) has been targetted by selection; but if it has, then the Mongoloid admixture would be underestimated if one considers the present-day frequency. You have not provided any evidence that you can equate the level of this marker in Mongolians with East Asian admixture in Europeans. Blood antigens are not Y-chromosome paternal lineages. Natural selection in eastern Europe has favored blood group B, so why not Eurasian type blood antigens? We simply don't know...so I wouldn't be so quick to try your little equations with things you have little or no idea about. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 22, 2005 10:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 22, 2005 15:41:01 GMT -5
Blood group B occurs throughout Europe and throughout much of the world, and is not considered a racially diagnostic marker.
Di(a) is considered an Asian or Mongoloid marker as per the cited sources.
I will consider any evidence for selection on this marker, if it is presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 21:52:37 GMT -5
Blood group B occurs throughout Europe and throughout much of the world, and is not considered a racially diagnostic marker. Di(a) is considered an Asian or Mongoloid marker as per the cited sources. I will consider any evidence for selection on this marker, if it is presented. Blood group B was once thought to be an indicator of Mongoloid admixture in east European populations. And I will consider any proven equation that shows Di(a) levels can be equated with any certainity to levels of Mongol admixture. That book (something or rather...Mongolian realm) would be an interesting read...but I don't have access to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 23, 2005 10:15:10 GMT -5
That book (something or rather...Mongolian realm) would be an interesting read...but I don't have access to it. You can read more of it here. Di(a) is a secure marker of Central Asian ancestry, though not all Mongoloids have it, which means that the percentage should be always taken higher, except we assume strong genetic drift in favour of the feature. The other links I posted point to the same direction. |
|
