Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asia Minor?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Armando View Post
    You should go back and carefully read what I have written in the past so you can see that you are misconstruing my statements. I showed you a study of Cubans and a study of Mexicans. Those studies showed that Cubans have a significant amount of Native American DNA even though they have less Native American DNA than Mexicans. The Cubans in the study at http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.1004488 have an average range of 4% to 12%. Are you saying that 4%-12% is minor? I call that significant because it is an amount that definitely shows them to have Native American DNA regardless of their phenotype, oral history, or documented ancestry. It is also within the range of your daughter.

    Your daughter looking more Native American than people dancing at pow wows shouldn't make you question the science. It should cause you to understand that they are mixed like many other people are and that the phenotype doesn't always follow the major ancestry.
    Latinos from states in the Southwest, especially those bordering Mexico, have the highest levels of Native American ancestry, and those from the South have the highest levels of African ancestry. The scientists estimated that Native Americans and Europeans first started mixing about 11 generations ago, and that African ancestry first appeared seven generations ago in the Latino group. More male than female Europeans contributed to the European ancestry in Latinos.

    Overall, African Americans carry 73 percent African ancestry within their genomes, which also contains 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American ancestry, according to the study. African Americans born in the South, in particular, South Carolina and Georgia, had the highest levels of African ancestry, and those born in the West and Southwest had higher proportions of Native American ancestry. The researchers also found that more European men than women account for the European ancestry in African Americans.

    Individuals usually self-identified as African Americans if their African ancestry made up the majority of their genetic ancestry. This runs counter to the common expectation that someone with even a small amount of African ancestry would call himself African American. "We don’t find that everybody with some African ancestry identifies as African American," said Mountain.

    "Our results provide empirical support that over recent centuries, many individuals with partial African and Native American ancestry have 'passed' into the white community," the authors wrote.

    On the other hand, individuals with just 5 percent Native American ancestry usually called themselves Latino, "suggesting differences in sociological or historical factors associated with identifying with these groups."

    https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-re...-us-population

    Actually that last part is correct in just 5% Native American and is interesting. Good point.

    Comment


    • #62
      but in a world of European xenophobia even among scientist, you damn right I will question the science.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
        but in a world of European xenophobia even among scientist, you damn right I will question the science.
        Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Try and give at least equal consideration to analysis of DNA test results as you do to phenotype, even if it disagrees with your views on the subject.

        If you do disagree with the scientific evidence, then provide us with credible evidence that your view is correct. Merely rejecting scientific evidence doesn't convince anyone who has a different view than you.

        And please try not to cast aspersions, such as someone is coming from a racist viewpoint, on people you don't even personally know. Ad hominem attacks usually indicate that you're not interested in a reasonable, serious discussion, just in asserting your viewpoint over those who disagree with you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
          but in a world of European xenophobia even among scientist
          There isn't any evidence whatsoever that the scientists doing the DNA studies are xenophobic especially when the Native American DNA is so high in the published studies. If they had wanted to show that Clovis Anzick or Kennewick man weren't actually Native American they would have manipulated data to state the opposite. The great thing about the studies though is that the raw data is released to the public and the truth would have been discovered if they had tried to manipulate the data.

          Originally posted by BlackWolf View Post
          you damn right I will question the science.
          Initial questioning is fine. The problem is when there is a very large amount of data supporting the science and no data whatsoever supporting your belief.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
            Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Try and give at least equal consideration to analysis of DNA test results as you do to phenotype, even if it disagrees with your views on the subject.

            If you do disagree with the scientific evidence, then provide us with credible evidence that your view is correct. Merely rejecting scientific evidence doesn't convince anyone who has a different view than you.

            And please try not to cast aspersions, such as someone is coming from a racist viewpoint, on people you don't even personally know. Ad hominem attacks usually indicate that you're not interested in a reasonable, serious discussion, just in asserting your viewpoint over those who disagree with you.
            This science has only been around for how long? A couple of years? There are too many differences within admixture calculators and DNA companies to see this as being anything but interesting results at this point. Can you repeat the same effect in admixture with the same results? No, you can not, and that should be regarded right there as caution. Any good scientist will tell you that the data needs to be across the board for it to be taken as face value, even then, we all know that science changes rapid...never say never. I am not doing any ad hominem attacks, I am stating that I need to see proof across the board from several resources. Let me also point out that there are political people who are in the creation of these calculators, while there is nothing wrong with that, human beings can let their ideologies effect them. I do give consideration to the results, for instance, in regards to Native American, having those results show up on multiple calculators.

            http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog...s-not-so-good/

            In fact, because of these limitations, the very best we can get right now shouldn’t even be called an estimate of the percentage of our genes that come from a specific country. At best it might be called a guesstimate.

            The reality is that these percentages are dynamite at the continental level: European versus African versus Asian. And they’re pretty good at identifying descent from populations that are fairly isolated and not mixed with other similar populations. But for the most part they’re really a crap shoot when you try to distinguish, say, English from Irish from Welsh.



            Are they? If they are "dynamite" across the continental level then how come several DNA companies have vastly different results? World calculators as well can be vastly different on results even at the continental level. Let's just say that it is my belief these tests are simply limited to the populations that are in the DNA database and calculators. That being said they are interesting, yes they go along with my known ancestry and yes they are matching it....somewhat but still somewhat off

            Comment

            Working...
            X