Eurogenes K13 and K15 4-Ancestors Oracle

[Subwoofer]

Academics in Ireland don't know who exactly the Celts where or when they first came to Ireland. And then someone who is not from Ireland writes that they know the type of blood the Celts had.

Blood of the Celts is Jean Manco's new book which comes out in the Autumn, possibly you could wait until then before reviewing it : )

Probably it will be very good, Jean is an historian and is very considered with her research, plus (unlike some) she's not afraid to change her mind when new evidence presents itself.

[N21163]

I don't remember stating that Clovis had descendants.

I never said you did.

The fact that Clovis is closest to the modern Native American peoples says it all.

That some modern Native American populations descend from the same people as the Clovis sample yes.

I have already shown you that I am close to Hinxton 4 and my autosomal dna represents the modern Irish. What part do you not understand?

No I'm very aware of what you try and do and you often get ahead of yourself with trying to oversimplify things.

At this point the most that you could possibly deduce is that you and Hinxton-4 may have ancestry in common from the Iron Age...possibly...assuming all of the parameters of the calculator are correct.

That does not mean that it is wrong even though the end number is high.

So you're still trying to state that La Brana is Irish??

But wait a minute...does this mean that you and the Hinxton-4 sample both have North German ancestry as well??

You: 1 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.162835

Hinxton-4: 1 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.858814

But how could that be?? Aren't you 100% Irish?? You've told us all numerous times that all of your ancestors came from Ireland...
So is there work to be done on the calculator or is there more to your ancestry? Or both?? Wouldn't want to make too many assumptions too quickly there!

I'll try and explain the admixture calculators again so that you can understand.
There are a limited number of sample populations that are listed as having "average" percentages of a number of different groups.
If the end number is higher, it is less likely that the sample will be from these populations.
The high numbers are an issue for ancient samples, as you are comparing them to modern populations.

Lochsbour is closest to the modern Lithuanian and Swedish populations.The calculator picks the best fit population for every query.

Finally! Now that wasn't so hard was it? A best fit has limitations though. Further refining of the calculators is needed, this has been addressed numerous times.

The designer can adjust it if he wishes to do so.

Adjust what exactly? The end number? It's an output number generated from the algorithm calculator. To change the end number the sample population "averages" would need to be altered, more populations would need to be added or a new set of parameters would need to be developed. I'm not sure how you know about these sorts of things but it's not like flicking a light switch on and off. It takes some time to develop.

[1798]

I never said you did.



That some modern Native American populations descend from the same people as the Clovis sample yes.



No I'm very aware of what you try and do and you often get ahead of yourself with trying to oversimplify things.

At this point the most that you could possibly deduce is that you and Hinxton-4 may have ancestry in common from the Iron Age...possibly...assuming all of the parameters of the calculator are correct.



So you're still trying to state that La Brana is Irish??

But wait a minute...does this mean that you and the Hinxton-4 sample both have North German ancestry as well??

You: 1 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.162835

Hinxton-4: 1 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.858814

But how could that be?? Aren't you 100% Irish?? You've told us all numerous times that all of your ancestors came from Ireland...
So is there work to be done on the calculator or is there more to your ancestry? Or both?? Wouldn't want to make too many assumptions too quickly there!

I'll try and explain the admixture calculators again so that you can understand.
There are a limited number of sample populations that are listed as having "average" percentages of a number of different groups.
If the end number is higher, it is less likely that the sample will be from these populations.
The high numbers are an issue for ancient samples, as you are comparing them to modern populations.



Finally! Now that wasn't so hard was it? A best fit has limitations though. Further refining of the calculators is needed, this has been addressed numerous times.



Adjust what exactly? The end number? It's an output number generated from the algorithm calculator. To change the end number the sample population "averages" would need to be altered, more populations would need to be added or a new set of parameters would need to be developed. I'm not sure how you know about these sorts of things but it's not like flicking a light switch on and off. It takes some time to develop.

1.You contradict yourself.

2.I knew that already.

3.You underestimate me.

4.I am not the only Irish,Welsh or Scottish person with some north German ancestry and they belong in other "Y" branches also.The north German links could be ancient like the Funnel Beaker Culture who built Dolmens and Passage Tombs like those that are found in Ireland. This Culture may have had the LP gene.

[192971]

About distances in population fitting

Just in case you guys do not know this...

1. Your distance to yourself in a calculator would be zero.
2. The theoretical maximum distance between an individual and a modern population would be 100.

The distance value after @ sign is calculated as an Euclidean distance of two points in N-dimensional space, where N is the number of ancestral population components "found" when the admixture analyzer was developed. For example, modern population fitting to an individual's K15 results utilizes 15-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system.

If more than one modern population is used in the fitting, they are admixed mathematically by (weighted) averaging of their ancestral population component percentages. That is how one of the points is determined. The other point is the individual's, of course.

Euclidean distances are simple to calculate and obvious tools, but a problem is that they are abstract measures of something somewhat applicable here.

[1798]

When Q1a3a crossed the Bering Strait there was no R of any kind in Siberia so Mal'ta R did not survive. The Samara HG R1b is a long way time away from Mal'ta. And furthermore, the NA were not black.

[robertalabama]

The fact that Clovis is closest to the modern Native American peoples says it all.

So, I did the ancient DNA comparison on Gedmatch and had a 3cm segment in common with this Clovis-Anzick. I realize this segment is too short to be considered a "match," but does it mean anything at all ?

[N21163]

Just in case you guys do not know this...

1. Your distance to yourself in a calculator would be zero.
2. The theoretical maximum distance between an individual and a modern population would be 100.

The distance value after @ sign is calculated as an Euclidean distance of two points in N-dimensional space, where N is the number of ancestral population components "found" when the admixture analyzer was developed. For example, modern population fitting to an individual's K15 results utilizes 15-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system.

If more than one modern population is used in the fitting, they are admixed mathematically by (weighted) averaging of their ancestral population component percentages. That is how one of the points is determined. The other point is the individual's, of course.

Euclidean distances are simple to calculate and obvious tools, but a problem is that they are abstract measures of something somewhat applicable here.

I probably couldn't have explained it better. Thanks for posting this.

[1798]

Just in case you guys do not know this...

1. Your distance to yourself in a calculator would be zero.
2. The theoretical maximum distance between an individual and a modern population would be 100.

The distance value after @ sign is calculated as an Euclidean distance of two points in N-dimensional space, where N is the number of ancestral population components "found" when the admixture analyzer was developed. For example, modern population fitting to an individual's K15 results utilizes 15-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system.

If more than one modern population is used in the fitting, they are admixed mathematically by (weighted) averaging of their ancestral population component percentages. That is how one of the points is determined. The other point is the individual's, of course.

Euclidean distances are simple to calculate and obvious tools, but a problem is that they are abstract measures of something somewhat applicable here.

So, you are saying these calculators are useless. Someone should create one that we can use.

[192971]

So, you are saying these calculators are useless. Someone should create one that we can use.

I did not say exactly that. They can reliably tell what averaged modern population has the most similar admixture to an individual having ancestry mostly from that one population. Also, they can reliably tell when the situation is nothing like the before mentioned. When two modern population components are to be chosen to represent the ancestry of an individual, the calculators start to be less reliable due to methodology, and ever more when more populations are added to calculation.

In the end, no calculator can fix the problem that you get uneven shares of aDNA from your four grandparents, and that half of your parents' aDNA was randomly discarded in composition of your aDNA. So, there never will be a calculator which would totally agree with the admixtures of your (grand)parents. Family trees and genetics will show different results forever.

[1798]

So, I did the ancient DNA comparison on Gedmatch and had a 3cm segment in common with this Clovis-Anzick. I realize this segment is too short to be considered a "match," but does it mean anything at all ?

http://www.y-str.org/2014/09/clovis-anzick-dna.html



Also.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...rst-americans/
"Comparison studies of the ancient DNA showed that it was similar to the genomes of ancient people living in Siberia and the ancestors of East Asians. The team also discovered a deep genetic affinity between the boy's genetic material and those of 52 Native American populations living in South America and Canada."

[N21163]

I did not say exactly that. They can reliably tell what averaged modern population has the most similar admixture to an individual having ancestry mostly from that one population. Also, they can reliably tell when the situation is nothing like the before mentioned. When two modern population components are to be chosen to represent the ancestry of an individual, the calculators start to be less reliable due to methodology, and ever more when more populations are added to calculation.

In the end, no calculator can fix the problem that you get uneven shares of aDNA from your four grandparents, and that half of your parents' aDNA was randomly discarded in composition of your aDNA. So, there never will be a calculator which would totally agree with the admixtures of your (grand)parents. Family trees and genetics will show different results forever.

Thank you for a detailed explanation.

[1798]

I did not say exactly that. They can reliably tell what averaged modern population has the most similar admixture to an individual having ancestry mostly from that one population. Also, they can reliably tell when the situation is nothing like the before mentioned. When two modern population components are to be chosen to represent the ancestry of an individual, the calculators start to be less reliable due to methodology, and ever more when more populations are added to calculation.

In the end, no calculator can fix the problem that you get uneven shares of aDNA from your four grandparents, and that half of your parents' aDNA was randomly discarded in composition of your aDNA. So, there never will be a calculator which would totally agree with the admixtures of your (grand)parents. Family trees and genetics will show different results forever.

The calculator got it 75% right for my dna.

[1798]

Maybe someone can explain this for me. What dna did this Yamnaya man's relatives bring to Ireland? He certainly did not bring any because he died in Russia.

Population Irish K15
North_Sea 34.43%
Atlantic 31.38%
Baltic 13.42%
Eastern_Euro 7.33%
West_Med 5.38%
West_Asian 5.47%
East_Med -*
Red_Sea -*
South_Asian 1.95%
Southeast_Asian -*
Siberian -*
Amerindian 0.44%
Oceanian -*
Northeast_African 0.20%



Yamnaya 10176
North_Sea 17.98
Atlantic 9.73
Baltic 14.12
Eastern_Euro 26.52
West_Med 0
West_Asian 21.1
East_Med 0
Red_Sea 0
South_Asian 5.99
Southeast_Asian 0
Siberian 0
Amerindian 4.45
Oceanian 0.12
Northeast_African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

[James78]

K13 - Oracle 4
North_Atlantic 48.55%
Baltic 23.37%
West_Med 13.59%
West_Asian 5.42%
East_Med 6.11%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.06%
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.76%
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 0.27%
Sub-Saharan 0.87%

1 Southeast_English @ 2.818830
2 Orcadian @ 4.937635
3 South_Dutch @ 5.119075
4 Southwest_English @ 5.465875
5 Danish @ 5.533367
6 North_Dutch @ 5.549969
7 North_German @ 6.091981
8 Irish @ 6.420862
9 West_German @ 6.437692
10 West_Scottish @ 6.673770
11 Norwegian @ 8.315095
12 Swedish @ 10.129988
13 French @ 11.483827
14 Austrian @ 13.529466
15 East_German @ 14.381823
16 North_Swedish @ 16.104662
17 Hungarian @ 18.828215
18 Spanish_Cataluna @ 19.606329
19 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 21.010237
20 Southwest_French @ 21.221125

K15 - Oracle 4
North_Sea 32.72%
Atlantic 29.38%
Baltic 10.85%
Eastern_Euro 8.42%
West_Med 9.30%
West_Asian 3.94%
East_Med 3.32%
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.83%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian 0.23%
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 1.01%

1 Southeast_English @ 3.403062
2 Southwest_English @ 3.893429
3 South_Dutch @ 4.869030
4 North_German @ 5.157701
5 Irish @ 5.202199
6 West_Scottish @ 6.047247
7 Danish @ 6.092682
8 North_Dutch @ 6.579273
9 Orcadian @ 8.001540
10 West_German @ 8.639512
11 French @ 10.112618
12 Norwegian @ 10.896699
13 Swedish @ 11.954221
14 West_Norwegian @ 12.236145
15 East_German @ 13.285188
16 North_Swedish @ 14.350145
17 Austrian @ 16.954191
18 Southwest_Finnish @ 17.898115
19 Spanish_Cataluna @ 18.211969
20 Hungarian @ 18.559036


Can someone clarify one thing for me - the @ 2 or whatever how would one translate that into generations back.

[N21163]

Can someone clarify one thing for me - the @ 2 or whatever how would one translate that into generations back.

That's not how it works. You may wish to refer to this previous post for clarification: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=229