Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurogenes K13 and K15 4-Ancestors Oracle

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

  • There is no evidence to show that the original inhabitants of Ireland were wiped out. There is no evidence to show that the Mesolithic inhabitants did not adopt farming.


    Any newcomers to the island would have been absorbed into the Irish gene pool.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
      There is no evidence to show that the original inhabitants of Ireland were wiped out.
      I don't subscribe to a 'wipeout' theory per se, as far as i know there isn't any enough evidence to completely support a wipeout theory. That being said I am not completely ruling it out as a possibility.

      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
      There is no evidence to show that the Mesolithic inhabitants did not adopt farming.
      There's currently no evidence to support it either.

      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
      Any newcomers to the island would have been absorbed into the Irish gene pool.
      So here, you're assuming that there were few newcomers who had little impact on the population? Correct?

      It would all depend on which 'newcomers' and which time-period you were referring to.

      Were there some points where the gene pool was in periods of complete isolation, and in a state flux later on due to encounters with other seafaring peoples from the British Isles, Continental Europe or further afield?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
        I don't subscribe to a 'wipeout' theory per se, as far as i know there isn't any enough evidence to completely support a wipeout theory. That being said I am not completely ruling it out as a possibility.



        There's currently no evidence to support it either.



        So here, you're assuming that there were few newcomers who had little impact on the population? Correct?

        It would all depend on which 'newcomers' and which time-period you were referring to.

        Were there some points where the gene pool was in periods of complete isolation, and in a state flux later on due to encounters with other seafaring peoples from the British Isles, Continental Europe or further afield?
        Mallory in his book suggested that there was little or no movement during the Mesolithic between Ireland and Britain. So, after the first people arrived they may have been cut of by the rising sea levels.


        Without a doubt some people brought farming to Ireland and France was the likely source.

        Comment


        • Yamnaya M951285
          Population * *
          North_Sea 28.14%
          Atlantic 4.42%
          Baltic 11.27%
          Eastern_Euro 33.52%
          West_Med - * *
          West_Asian 14.93%
          East_Med - * *
          Red_Sea - * *
          South_Asian 4.06%
          Southeast_Asian - * *
          Siberian - * *
          Amerindian 3.66%
          Oceanian - * *
          Northeast_African - * *
          Sub-Saharan - * *

          My K15
          Population * *
          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%
          Sub-Saharan - * *

          Unetice M370010
          Population *
          North_Sea 34.99%
          Atlantic 36.93%
          Baltic 11.91%
          Eastern_Euro 9.33%
          West_Med 4.19%
          West_Asian 2.65%
          East_Med - * *
          Red_Sea - * *
          South_Asian - * *
          Southeast_Asian - * *
          Siberian - * *
          Amerindian - * *
          Oceanian - * *
          Northeast_African - * *
          Sub-Saharan

          Using 4 populations approximation:
          1 Irish + Irish + Irish + Irish @ 7.359780
          2 Irish + Irish + Irish + West_Scottish @ 7.406608
          3 Irish + Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.473263
          4 Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.559216
          5 West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.663819
          6 Irish + Irish + Irish + Southeast_English @ 7.746123
          7 Irish + Irish + Southeast_English + West_Scottish @ 7.790779
          8 Irish + Southeast_English + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.854320
          9 Danish + Irish + Irish + Irish @ 7.858067
          10 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 7.894940
          11 Irish + Irish + North_German + West_Scottish @ 7.916199
          12 Danish + Irish + Irish + West_Scottish @ 7.923547
          13 Southeast_English + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.936294
          14 Irish + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.953793
          15 Irish + Irish + Irish + Orcadian @ 8.003642
          16 Danish + Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.005489
          17 North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.008284
          18 Irish + Irish + Orcadian + West_Scottish @ 8.088053
          19 Danish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.108608
          20 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_Dutch @ 8.131166

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            Yamnaya M951285
            Population * *
            North_Sea 28.14%
            Atlantic 4.42%
            Baltic 11.27%
            Eastern_Euro 33.52%
            West_Med - * *
            West_Asian 14.93%
            East_Med - * *
            Red_Sea - * *
            South_Asian 4.06%
            Southeast_Asian - * *
            Siberian - * *
            Amerindian 3.66%
            Oceanian - * *
            Northeast_African - * *
            Sub-Saharan - * *

            My K15
            Population * *
            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%
            Sub-Saharan - * *

            Unetice M370010
            Population *
            North_Sea 34.99%
            Atlantic 36.93%
            Baltic 11.91%
            Eastern_Euro 9.33%
            West_Med 4.19%
            West_Asian 2.65%
            East_Med - * *
            Red_Sea - * *
            South_Asian - * *
            Southeast_Asian - * *
            Siberian - * *
            Amerindian - * *
            Oceanian - * *
            Northeast_African - * *
            Sub-Saharan

            Using 4 populations approximation:
            1 Irish + Irish + Irish + Irish @ 7.359780
            2 Irish + Irish + Irish + West_Scottish @ 7.406608
            3 Irish + Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.473263
            4 Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.559216
            5 West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.663819
            6 Irish + Irish + Irish + Southeast_English @ 7.746123
            7 Irish + Irish + Southeast_English + West_Scottish @ 7.790779
            8 Irish + Southeast_English + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.854320
            9 Danish + Irish + Irish + Irish @ 7.858067
            10 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 7.894940
            11 Irish + Irish + North_German + West_Scottish @ 7.916199
            12 Danish + Irish + Irish + West_Scottish @ 7.923547
            13 Southeast_English + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.936294
            14 Irish + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 7.953793
            15 Irish + Irish + Irish + Orcadian @ 8.003642
            16 Danish + Irish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.005489
            17 North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.008284
            18 Irish + Irish + Orcadian + West_Scottish @ 8.088053
            19 Danish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 8.108608
            20 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_Dutch @ 8.131166
            I see similarities in percentages you have done this a few times now so I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
            I have stated the limitations of admixture calculators a few times before.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
              I see similarities in percentages you have done this a few times now so I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
              I have stated the limitations of admixture calculators a few times before.
              If 1798 is trying to convince us of some point he's making, he'd probably be more successful if he stated outright what his point is. Merely posting numbers from running kits on admixture calculators at gedmatch with no comment just leaves me (and probably others) trying to guess what his point is.

              But then maybe he believes that posting all kinds of numbers will impress some people to take his views more seriously. Still, if he wishes to convince anyone of his views, it would better for him to clearly state how these numbers prove that he's right.

              That is leaving aside the question of the limitations of admixture calculators, which is certainly a valid point.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                If 1798 is trying to convince us of some point he's making, he'd probably be more successful if he stated outright what his point is. Merely posting numbers from running kits on admixture calculators at gedmatch with no comment just leaves me (and probably others) trying to guess what his point is.

                But then maybe he believes that posting all kinds of numbers will impress some people to take his views more seriously. Still, if he wishes to convince anyone of his views, it would better for him to clearly state how these numbers prove that he's right.

                That is leaving aside the question of the limitations of admixture calculators, which is certainly a valid point.
                Good points

                Comment


                • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                  I see similarities in percentages you have done this a few times now so I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve.
                  I have stated the limitations of admixture calculators a few times before.
                  Perhaps you could show me the dna that I got from the Yamnaya sample.I can see the links between the Unetice and me.

                  I think that you are the one who encouraged me to join Gedmatch and now you say the calculators are not correct. I have learned a lot since I joined Gedmatch.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    Perhaps you could show me the dna that I got from the Yamnaya sample.I can see the links between the Unetice and me.
                    Did you phase your results for the ancient DNA samples?
                    You will get a much more accurate result of how connected you are to ancient samples, and be prepared some results will show no connection.

                    Having some English ancestry, I would have assumed that I would have some connection with the Hinxton samples.
                    None.

                    http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...584#post404584

                    That's just how it goes really.

                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    I think that you are the one who encouraged me to join Gedmatch and now you say the calculators are not correct. I have learned a lot since I joined Gedmatch.
                    I was possibly one of the people who encouraged you to join gedmatch. I do remember stating you should join.

                    I never stated that the admixture calculators were correct. I have stated that they have limitations with modern results and are not able to adequately handle ancient DNA admixtures. This has been stated numerous times.

                    Posting numbers of admixture calculators and comparing percentages does not indicate much. A far better understanding of "relatedness" lies in chromosome comparisons. I have also stated this numerous times before.

                    You have previously stated that you "find it difficult to express what you are thinking" at times (or something to that effect). Cutting and pasting results from an admixture calculation without explaining why you are doing this means nothing. In fact, cutting and pasting results just means you can cut and paste.

                    The admixture calculators are a fun exercise, but are ultimately flawed. In time, we see older ones refined, newer calculators developed and there will be disparity comparing some of the results.

                    People may feel that some calculators are a better "fit" for their "known" ancestry but they do not prove anything definitively.

                    Some oracle results may have you as Irish first, others may have you as Danish or German first and you dismiss the latter two as incorrect because you "know who you are". It doesn't always work that way so it is best not to write anything off.
                    Last edited by N21163; 30 March 2015, 07:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                      Did you phase your results for the ancient DNA samples?
                      You will get a much more accurate result of how connected you are to ancient samples, and be prepared some results will show no connection.

                      Having some English ancestry, I would have assumed that I would have some connection with the Hinxton samples.
                      None.

                      http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...584#post404584

                      That's just how it goes really.



                      I was possibly one of the people who encouraged you to join gedmatch. I do remember stating you should join.

                      I never stated that the admixture calculators were correct. I have stated that they have limitations with modern results and are not able to adequately handle ancient DNA admixtures. This has been stated numerous times.

                      Posting numbers of admixture calculators and comparing percentages does not indicate much. A far better understanding of "relatedness" lies in chromosome comparisons. I have also stated this numerous times before.

                      You have previously stated that you "find it difficult to express what you are thinking" at times (or something to that effect). Cutting and pasting results from an admixture calculation without explaining why you are doing this means nothing. In fact, cutting and pasting results just means you can cut and paste.

                      The admixture calculators are a fun exercise, but are ultimately flawed. In time, we see older ones refined, newer calculators developed and there will be disparity comparing some of the results.

                      People may feel that some calculators are a better "fit" for their "known" ancestry but they do not prove anything definitively.

                      Some oracle results may have you as Irish first, others may have you as Danish or German first and you dismiss the latter two as incorrect because you "know who you are". It doesn't always work that way so it is best not to write anything off.
                      I don't dismiss anything but don't ask me to use something that you believe is faulty. I posted my K15 results and the Yamnaya to show you and others that I am not related to him and some people still insist that I am. I think that most of the posters here are clever enough to work things out for themselves without me having to write an explanation for every thing that I post.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        I don't dismiss anything but don't ask me to use something that you believe is faulty.
                        Admixture calculators have LIMITATIONS...I never used the word "faulty".

                        How can this be made any clearer?

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        I posted my K15 results and the Yamnaya to show you and others that I am not related to him and some people still insist that I am.
                        Have you considered that people who state that you are related to Yamnaya samples, may have it wrong?

                        I've previously talked to people who think they are a "direct descendant from ancient remains based on having the "same" or similar haplogroup....some people will just clutch at straws where they can and are not aware of terminal SNPs.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        I think that most of the posters here are clever enough to work things out for themselves...


                        Some may be...making yourself clear early on will eliminate possible misinterpretations.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        ...without me having to write an explanation for every thing that I post.
                        If that were the case we wouldn't be having half of these conversations.

                        If it's too much effort to explain yourself in every instance, perhaps consider collating your thoughts present them in a clear and concise manner. It's good practice if anything.


                        Lastly, I did ask you question in my previous post and I am interested in knowing your answer:

                        Did you phase your results for the ancient DNA samples?

                        You will get a much more accurate result of how connected you are to ancient samples, and be prepared some results will show no connection.
                        Last edited by N21163; 30 March 2015, 04:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                          Admixture calculators have LIMITATIONS...I never used the word "faulty".

                          How can this be made any clearer?










                          Did you phase your results for the ancient DNA samples?
                          That is not possible for me. I am the oldest member of my clan left in Ireland.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            That is not possible for me. I am the oldest member of my clan left in Ireland.
                            There is a method on Gedmatch that paying customers can use called "Lazarus" where "pseudo DNA kits" of ancestors can be recreated.

                            Please do not quote me on the effectiveness of this tool. As I am yet to use it myself.

                            Like any other software that uses algorithms i.e. admixture calculators, there will be limitations to it's effectiveness.

                            From what I have read in a number of blogs you can attempt to reconstruct a DNA kit of say, your mother if you have kits of your siblings and kits from her siblings.

                            A donation of $10 USD to Gedmatch makes this tool available for a month - it would be worthwhile to do this once you have results from others.

                            In addition, this is not the only tool available to paid gedmatch customers.

                            Please read through these links thoroughly before embarking on this tool:

                            http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com...ay-raise-dead/

                            http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/10/...-paid-members/

                            http://allmyforeparents.blogspot.co....-gedmatch.html

                            http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/14/...ogether-again/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                              There is a method on Gedmatch that paying customers can use called "Lazarus" where "pseudo DNA kits" of ancestors can be recreated.

                              Please do not quote me on the effectiveness of this tool. As I am yet to use it myself.

                              Like any other software that uses algorithms i.e. admixture calculators, there will be limitations to it's effectiveness.

                              From what I have read in a number of blogs you can attempt to reconstruct a DNA kit of say, your mother if you have kits of your siblings and kits from her siblings.

                              A donation of $10 USD to Gedmatch makes this tool available for a month - it would be worthwhile to do this once you have results from others.

                              In addition, this is not the only tool available to paid gedmatch customers.

                              Please read through these links thoroughly before embarking on this tool:

                              http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com...ay-raise-dead/

                              http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/10/...-paid-members/

                              http://allmyforeparents.blogspot.co....-gedmatch.html

                              http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/14/...ogether-again/
                              I am not interested in phasing my dna. I can learn all I want to with the results that I have at present. I think that the FF is one of thee best tests at present for the price. There is so much info in the raw data.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                                I am not interested in phasing my dna. I can learn all I want to with the results that I have at present. I think that the FF is one of thee best tests at present for the price. There is so much info in the raw data.....
                                This is a guest blog posting by Ann Turner in the The Genetic Genealogist blog - http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com...a-phase-makes/.

                                She presents a very compelling case study of the usefulness of phasing data. She shows the problem of false positives with small segments using unphased raw data.

                                Of course, many, if not most, of us, don't have a parent still alive whose raw data we can use for phasing. But those who do have a living parent or parents should definitely recruit one or both to test to get the most accurate matching in autosomal testing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X