Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Irish are not Celts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    The "real" Celts?

    Who are the imitation Celts then?
    The U106 lot!

    Comment


    • #77
      I think this was written by someone involved with the POBI.
      "We can see clear signs of certain patterns which are present in the DNA of samples from all over the British Isles – this means that they are likely to be very old, and is what we have termed the ancient British DNA,” says Donnelly. Researchers agree that the DNA evidence fits the known colonisation patterns of early settlers to the British Isles after the Ice Age between 9,600 and 8,000 BC. The first settlers made their way across to the warming tundra that was then the British Isles from North-West Europe via the land bridge that still attached the UK to the area that is now the Low Countries."

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
        The U106 lot!
        And the L21 Lot.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          I think this was written by someone involved with the POBI.
          "We can see clear signs of certain patterns which are present in the DNA of samples from all over the British Isles – this means that they are likely to be very old, and is what we have termed the ancient British DNA,” says Donnelly. Researchers agree that the DNA evidence fits the known colonisation patterns of early settlers to the British Isles after the Ice Age between 9,600 and 8,000 BC. The first settlers made their way across to the warming tundra that was then the British Isles from North-West Europe via the land bridge that still attached the UK to the area that is now the Low Countries."
          Page 27 and 28
          http://d3gjvvs65ernan.cloudfront.net/OT-TT-2013.pdf



          Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
          The U106 lot!
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          And the L21 Lot.
          Really people?
          Last edited by N21163; 19 June 2014, 04:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by N21163 View Post
            A failed attempt to try and get an answer...





            Really people?
            My answer although tongue in cheek was accurate, U106 is Germanic!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
              I think this was written by someone involved with the POBI.
              "We can see clear signs of certain patterns which are present in the DNA of samples from all over the British Isles – this means that they are likely to be very old, and is what we have termed the ancient British DNA,” says Donnelly. Researchers agree that the DNA evidence fits the known colonisation patterns of early settlers to the British Isles after the Ice Age between 9,600 and 8,000 BC. The first settlers made their way across to the warming tundra that was then the British Isles from North-West Europe via the land bridge that still attached the UK to the area that is now the Low Countries."
              To a great extent, POBI concerns itself with autosomal dna. With regard to autosomal dna, much of our ancestry does come from early settlers, i.e., Western Hunter-Gatherers.

              Studies of Beaker Folk sites make it apparent that the Beaker culture was a male-vectored revolution. Beaker males moved in and mostly took wives from among the local people.

              Most men of Isles and NW European ancestry have large WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer) and EEF (Early European Farmer) components and a much smaller ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) component to their autosomal profiles.

              Here's my own profile:

              EEF 46.49814568
              WHG 38.03949482
              ANE 15.4623595

              Those components are based on ancient dna testing, with ANE based on Mal’ta Boy, who was R*; so it is likely, in the case of the British Isles and NW Europe, anyway, that the ANE component was contributed by the R1b incomers.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
                My answer although tongue in cheek was accurate, U106 is Germanic!
                Your answer was an opinion like so P312 is Germanic!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                  Your answer was an opinion like so P312 is Germanic!
                  P312 peaks in Celtic areas and U106 Peaks in Germanic areas(including those settled later by Germanics), you don't think that's the case?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
                    P312 peaks in Celtic areas and U106 Peaks in Germanic areas(including those settled later by Germanics), you don't think that's the case?
                    The semargl maps show UK P312 39% and UK U106 42%. How does today's P312 and U106 frequency match up with P312 and U106 frequency 6000 years ago? When you are able to answer that I will listen.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      The semargl maps show UK P312 39% and UK U106 42%. How does today's P312 and U106 frequency match up with P312 and U106 frequency 6000 years ago? When you are able to answer that I will listen.
                      You will listen?, lol, I think most people who have read your posts would disagree

                      I do agree with some of your points, I think the issue with P312 and U106 distribution is the holes in the data, it's all very assumptive and based on modern sampling.

                      Who knows what the distribution was 6000 years ago, no one with 100% certainty. Well maybe Dr Who.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        The semargl maps show UK P312 39% and UK U106 42%. How does today's P312 and U106 frequency match up with P312 and U106 frequency 6000 years ago? When you are able to answer that I will listen.
                        Of course, 6000 years ago is irrelevant to a discussion of Celtic and Germanic groups, since it isn't likely either subfamily of Indo-European existed that long ago.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Stevo View Post
                          Of course, 6000 years ago is irrelevant to a discussion of Celtic and Germanic groups, since it isn't likely either subfamily of Indo-European existed that long ago.
                          Would you say that P312 and U106 folk were living along side each other at that time?, same culture(Beaker?)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
                            You will listen?, lol, I think most people who have read your posts would disagree

                            I do agree with some of your points, I think the issue with P312 and U106 distribution is the holes in the data, it's all very assumptive and based on modern sampling.

                            Who knows what the distribution was 6000 years ago, no one with 100% certainty. Well maybe Dr Who.
                            You don't have to read my posts.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                              So you are claiming African origin?

                              Or not claiming African origin?

                              What "ancient African Aborigine" SNP are you referring to?
                              Let me say that I was not the person to have made such a discovery. In recent years I have been working with several, very dedicated citizen-scientists who are concerned about the genetic group that I belong to, a group of both Irish and Scottish. And it turned out that two of us from the north of Ireland apparently have a rather ancient, far upstream, African Aborigine SNP marker. Yes, that came as a surprise to me!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Tourist View Post
                                Let me say that I was not the person to have made such a discovery. In recent years I have been working with several, very dedicated citizen-scientists who are concerned about the genetic group that I belong to, a group of both Irish and Scottish. And it turned out that two of us from the north of Ireland apparently have a rather ancient, far upstream, African Aborigine SNP marker. Yes, that came as a surprise to me!
                                So you were just told that you have an "ancient African Aborigine SNP" and you weren't told what SNP it was?
                                Personally I wouldn't take that at face value.
                                If it is far upstream it quite possibly means absolutely nothing.

                                As I previously inquired, are you claiming African ancestry or not? http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...7&postcount=74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X