Do DNA tests measure ethnic purity?

[GnaGnaMan]

I haven't looked into that 3,000 year ago ancestor but on it's face, it's dubious. Surely Australian Aboriginals don't share an ancestor with most of the rest of us, they were isolated for some 50-60,000 years and though there is mixing now, that would require everyone of them is of mixed ethnicity and I don't think that's true.

Afro-Americans all have some european ancestry, usually quite a lot (obviously ignoring very recent immigrants). I have never seen this fact used to claim that all Afro-Americans are of mixed ethnicity. They aren't, of course, because that's not how ethnicity works.
It really bothers me when Americans say ethnicity when they mean (an 19th century idea of) race.

 

[fuelair]

Thanks- I did not know of this type of site and it seems a lot less simplistic than 23&ME. As I've said, it can be a lot of fun in terms of thinking about the twists and turns in one's ancestry. I think mine is probably mostly boring- dominated by Eastern European Ashkenazi serfs growing potatoes for many generations with a few travelers or other outsiders thrown in every once in a while. Maybe someone interesting among them? I understand the Vikings, surprise, ran large markets in Eastern Europe (actually mostly slave markets)- Maybe they "met" my family back then. I think it would be exciting to "have Viking blood." I would love to pillage and sack the neighboring offices at work.

Who knows- maybe sometime I might try an analysis.

With real luck, you have Berserker Viking ancestry - that way you could be assured of very successful pillaging and sacking same!!!

 

[CORed]

Commonly held but no you can't. Obviously less likely but I have relatives that did not know their mother was not their mother for many decades. They only learnt the truth from a misplaced comment at a family funeral.

Knowing what I do about my fine upstanding staunch Christian family has got up to over the last hundred or so years I say all birth certificates should be viewed as provisional at best!

Good point. It used to be fairly common for the grandmother to claim to be the mother when a daughter got pregnant at a tender age.

 

[CORed]

The fossil record is full of gaps so it's not surprising to me that they've found other non-sapien branches of homo besides Neanderthal.

Just as a point of interest, genetic mapping of human migration out of Africa showed black skin evolved twice. Skin became lighter as humans migrated north and then darker again as they migrated down to the equator in South America. It takes thousands of years.

In the meantime whites in Australia need hats.

I have heard (don't know ultimate source so I can't say for sure if it's true), that Australia has the highest rate of melanoma of any country. It seems likely, with all those pale folks in that brutal sun. I'm very fair also and have to be very careful about sun in Colorado. I've manage to escape melanoma so far, but I've had second degree sunburn a couple of times and that's not fun (to put it mildly).

 

[Vixen]

Nobody who has read anything at all on the subject thinks that. The first discovery of evidence that they buried their dead was made in 1908.

The first neanderthal skeleton was discovered in 1908. Their burial rituals was a new discovery as of 2013 according to Scientific American.

 

[Vixen]

Does the kit ask you for basic information or does it test the DNA cold? Just curious.

FTDNA ask if you can volunteer the info for their database stats. However, it is only useful to them if you know for sure all four of your grandparents were Pygmies, or Dutch, or whatever. Was impressed they located my ancestry down to a tee. (I didn't tell them the specifics.)

23+me, I can't remember if they do ask. I didn't tell them, so I was impressed they got it (mostly) right. In the sense of what I was expecting. There were some intriguing surprises.

When I put it throught GEDmatch (or was it Ancient DNA) - it came up with a 10.70% match with Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500K year ( the skeleton of a young Native American boy buried in Montana).

The oldest match was Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000K YBN 16.69%.

 

[Vixen]

I'm not sure if I understand this but I think it's wrong? What kind of similarity and between who exactly?



I was so fascinated by the paper I quoted in post 43 that I had a look at papers citing it to see if there had been any more recent developments. One of the papers that caught my eye may answer your questions.

Cryptic Distant Relatives Are Common in Both Isolated and Cosmopolitan Genetic Samples

Abstract:

https://youtu.be/5rIKIvZVj7M

He met a young girl, who suited him nice.
He went to his Papa to ask his advice.
His Papa said: Son, I have to say no,
That girl is your sister, but your Mama don't know! (Harry Belafonte)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20623605

they are not a separate tribe, but rather not-too-distant converts.

That's not how I read this:

Specifically, Yemenite Jewish mitochondrial diversity reflects potential descent from ancient Israeli exiles and shared African and Middle Eastern ancestry with little evidence for large-scale conversion of local Yemeni. In contrast, the Ethiopian Jewish population appears to be a subset of the larger Ethiopian population suggesting descent primarily through conversion of local women.

Yemenite Jews are cousins and Ethiopian Jews are converts.

Maybe I'm interpreting that wrong?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Afro-Americans all have some european ancestry, usually quite a lot (obviously ignoring very recent immigrants). I have never seen this fact used to claim that all Afro-Americans are of mixed ethnicity. They aren't, of course, because that's not how ethnicity works.
It really bothers me when Americans say ethnicity when they mean (an 19th century idea of) race.

You do know Australian Aboriginals are not, for the most part, related to blacks in the US, right?

As for the rest of your post, it's hard to follow but I suspect I don't want to get in yet another debate about 'those people'. We are all human, including the Aboriginals who have not been isolated long enough to evolve into a different race.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have heard (don't know ultimate source so I can't say for sure if it's true), that Australia has the highest rate of melanoma of any country. It seems likely, with all those pale folks in that brutal sun. I'm very fair also and have to be very careful about sun in Colorado. I've manage to escape melanoma so far, but I've had second degree sunburn a couple of times and that's not fun (to put it mildly).

They do have the highest rate of melanoma in Australia.

 

[Vixen]

You do know Australian Aboriginals are not, for the most part, related to blacks in the US, right?

As for the rest of your post, it's hard to follow but I suspect I don't want to get in yet another debate about 'those people'. We are all human, including the Aboriginals who have not been isolated long enough to evolve into a different race.

I know these islands are some 1.8K kms north east of Australia, but I found this article about blonde hair in Melanesians in the Solomon Islands, which is an interesting example of separate evolution from European blond hair.

 

[casebro]

FTDNA ask if you can volunteer the info for their database stats. However, it is only useful to them if you know for sure all four of your grandparents were Pygmies, or Dutch, or whatever. Was impressed they located my ancestry down to a tee. (I didn't tell them the specifics.)

23+me, I can't remember if they do ask. I didn't tell them, so I was impressed they got it (mostly) right. In the sense of what I was expecting. There were some intriguing surprises.

When I put it throught GEDmatch (or was it Ancient DNA) - it came up with a 10.70% match with Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500K year ( the skeleton of a young Native American boy buried in Montana).

The oldest match was Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000K YBN 16.69%.

That must have been AncientDNA. I wonder what they measure, those percentages are waaay too large to be percentage of your total genes. Those would make you first cousin or closer.

 

[Pixel42]

The first neanderthal skeleton was discovered in 1908. Their burial rituals was a new discovery as of 2013 according to Scientific American.

As that article says:

Some archaeologists have long argued that a number of Neandertal sites preserve evidence of burials,

The 1908 discovery was the one which provided the first evidence for that argument.

The latest discovery provides further support for that view, but it is certainly not a new idea. I've been reading articles and watching documentaries arguing that Neanderthals were not "brutes" for 50 years, so your original contention that "we all" thought they were until recently is mistaken. There are still disputes as to exactly how advanced they were, but it has long been established that they made tools and used fire.

 

[quadraginta]

Synchronicity.

xkcd from a day or so ago;

 

[Vixen]

As that article says:



The 1908 discovery was the one which provided the first evidence for that argument.

The latest discovery provides further support for that view, but it is certainly not a new idea. I've been reading articles and watching documentaries arguing that Neanderthals were not "brutes" for 50 years, so your original contention that "we all" thought they were until recently is mistaken. There are still disputes as to exactly how advanced they were, but it has long been established that they made tools and used fire.

You might not have, but it is undeniable that that is how they have been depicted in the mass media and popular culture.

 

[Vixen]

That must have been AncientDNA. I wonder what they measure, those percentages are waaay too large to be percentage of your total genes. Those would make you first cousin or closer.

I ran it through GED-match (they offer to run your 23+me DNA results through their databases), of which Ancient DNA is one (there are over a dozen, including Hunter-Gatherers vs Farmers). It's based on SNP's. Bio-archeologists only have fragments of DNA for these archaic remains.

The top oldest for me were:

BY AGE
1 F999902 Altai Neanderthal 50,000 0.66%
2 F999935 Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000 16.69%
3 Vi33 26 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.44%
4 Vi33 16 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.21%
5 Vi22 25 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.34%
6 F999936 Kostenki14, Russia 37,000 3.95%
7 F999903 Denisova, Siberia 30,000 0.68%
8 F999914 Mal’ta Siberia 24,000 1.39%
9 F999919 Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500 10.70%
10 F999918 Loschbour Lux 8,000 13.43%
11 F999931 KO1 2, Hungary 7,700 2.14%
12 F999937 NE1 Hungary 7,200 17.40%
13 F999932 NE6, Hungary 7,100 2.17%
14 F999927 NE5, Hungary 7,100 1.85%
15 F999916 LBK Stuttgart 7,000 17.23%
16 F999917 Motala-12, Sweden 7,000 3.76%

Highest by percentage match to me:

Age BY PROPORTION mtDNA
1 3,200 F999933 BR2 Hungary 3,200 18.56% K1a1a
2 7,200 F999937 NE1 Hungary 7,200 17.40% U5b2c
3 7,000 F999916 LBK Stuttgart 7,000 17.23% T2c2
4 45,000 F999935 Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000 16.69% R
5 3,200 F999950 RISE493, Russia 3,200 13.97% C4a1c
6 8,000 F999918 Loschbour Lux 8,000 13.43% U5b1a
7 12,500 F999919 Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500 10.70% D4h3a
8 2,000 F999957 RISE497, Russia 2,000 9.82% A2f2*
9 3,300 F999950 RISE505, Russia 3,300 9.68% U4a1b
10 3,700 F999941 RISE98, Sweden 3,700 8.69% K1b1a
11 2,000 F999958 RISE495, Russia 2,000 7.95% D4j1
12 4,200 F999967 RISE511, Russia 4,200 6.46% J2a2a
13 3,100 F999966 RISE523, Russia 3,100 5.63% G2a1
14 4,000 F999946 RISE552, Russia 4,000 5.10% T2a1a
15 1,500 F999943 RISE174, Sweden 1,500 5.10% W1
16 3,500 F999949 RISE395, Russia 3,500 4.55% U2e1
17 3,000 F999959 RISE496, Russia 3,000 4.53% U5a1a2a



What does it all mean? I don't know.

 

[casebro]

I ran it through GED-match (they offer to run your 23+me DNA results through their databases), of which Ancient DNA is one (there are over a dozen, including Hunter-Gatherers vs Farmers). It's based on SNP's. Bio-archeologists only have fragments of DNA for these archaic remains.

The top oldest for me were:

BY AGE
1 F999902 Altai Neanderthal 50,000 0.66%
2 F999935 Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000 16.69%
3 Vi33 26 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.44%
4 Vi33 16 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.21%
5 Vi22 25 Neanderthal, Vindija cave, Croatia 38,100 0.34%
6 F999936 Kostenki14, Russia 37,000 3.95%
7 F999903 Denisova, Siberia 30,000 0.68%
8 F999914 Mal’ta Siberia 24,000 1.39%
9 F999919 Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500 10.70%
10 F999918 Loschbour Lux 8,000 13.43%
11 F999931 KO1 2, Hungary 7,700 2.14%
12 F999937 NE1 Hungary 7,200 17.40%
13 F999932 NE6, Hungary 7,100 2.17%
14 F999927 NE5, Hungary 7,100 1.85%
15 F999916 LBK Stuttgart 7,000 17.23%
16 F999917 Motala-12, Sweden 7,000 3.76%

Highest by percentage match to me:

Age BY PROPORTION mtDNA
1 3,200 F999933 BR2 Hungary 3,200 18.56% K1a1a
2 7,200 F999937 NE1 Hungary 7,200 17.40% U5b2c
3 7,000 F999916 LBK Stuttgart 7,000 17.23% T2c2
4 45,000 F999935 Ust-Ishim, Siberia 45,000 16.69% R
5 3,200 F999950 RISE493, Russia 3,200 13.97% C4a1c
6 8,000 F999918 Loschbour Lux 8,000 13.43% U5b1a
7 12,500 F999919 Clovis Anzick-1, Montana 12,500 10.70% D4h3a
8 2,000 F999957 RISE497, Russia 2,000 9.82% A2f2*
9 3,300 F999950 RISE505, Russia 3,300 9.68% U4a1b
10 3,700 F999941 RISE98, Sweden 3,700 8.69% K1b1a
11 2,000 F999958 RISE495, Russia 2,000 7.95% D4j1
12 4,200 F999967 RISE511, Russia 4,200 6.46% J2a2a
13 3,100 F999966 RISE523, Russia 3,100 5.63% G2a1
14 4,000 F999946 RISE552, Russia 4,000 5.10% T2a1a
15 1,500 F999943 RISE174, Sweden 1,500 5.10% W1
16 3,500 F999949 RISE395, Russia 3,500 4.55% U2e1
17 3,000 F999959 RISE496, Russia 3,000 4.53% U5a1a2a



What does it all mean? I don't know.

It looks like you have 180% of the mito dna. Chimera perhaps?

 

[Trebuchet]

Synchronicity.

xkcd from a day or so ago;

[qimg]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/genetic_testing_results.png[/qimg]

Image not working, at least for me, so here's a linky.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

You do know Australian Aboriginals are not, for the most part, related to blacks in the US, right?

Ethnicity is not based on ancestry or genetics. If someone is accepted as belonging to a certain ethnic group then they do. Australian aboriginals are who they are regardless of any recent european ancestry.

As for the rest of your post, it's hard to follow but I suspect I don't want to get in yet another debate about 'those people'. We are all human, including the Aboriginals who have not been isolated long enough to evolve into a different race.

Just don't use ethnicity where you mean race and we're good. Don't just switch to a euphemism. Don't use the concept.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ethnicity is not based on ancestry or genetics. If someone is accepted as belonging to a certain ethnic group then they do. Australian aboriginals are who they are regardless of any recent european ancestry.


Just don't use ethnicity where you mean race and we're good. Don't just switch to a euphemism. Don't use the concept.

Whatever you think I posted, you misread it.

There is only one human race. Period.

As for discussing ethnicity when I mean race, that's kind of hard to do given there is only one human race, period!

Whatever else you are on about re your personal definition/version of ethnicity, that's your business, I'll be posting my version regardless.