Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe

[edit] mtDNA
A study by Gonzalez et al. 2003[5] found L haplogroups at rates of 0.1% in Scotland, 0.4% in England, 0.7% in North Germany, 1.4% in France, 2.9% in Galicia, 2.2% in Northern Portugal, 4.3% in Central Portugal, and 8.6% in Southern Portugal (Alentejo and Algarve) (note that these figures do not count the L3 lineage, which may be of ancient introduction and so remains ambiguous). For comparison, sub-Saharan mtDNA runs 21.8% in North Africa.

According to another study by Pereira et al. 2005,[6] sub-Saharan mtDNA L haplogroups were found at rates of 0.62% in a German-Danish sample, 0.94% in Sicilians, 1% in the British/Irish, 2.38% in Albanians, 2.86% in Sardinians. This paper which provides a deeper and more global insight into the African female influence in Iberia shows that the mean frequency reaches 3.83% in Iberians. The frequency is clearly higher in Portugal (32 sequences in 549 individuals; 5.83% with a high frequency of 11% in southern Portugal) than in Spain (8 out of 496; 1.61% with a higher frequency of 3.26% in Galicia) and without parallel in the rest of Europe.


[edit] Y-DNA
For the reasons outlined above, sub-Saharan markers are much less common in Europe. The small presence of the Haplogroups E(xE3b) (i.e. clades of E other than E3b) and Haplogroup A in Europe is almost exclusively attributable to the slave trade, as these haplogroups are characteristic of western, central and southern Africans and are barely observed elsewhere.[7] The haplotypes have been detected in Portugal (3%), France (2.5% - in a very small sample), Germany (2%), Sardinia (1.6%), Austria (0.78%), Italy (0.45%), Spain (0.42%) and Greece (0.27%). By contrast, North Africans have about 5% paternal black admixture.[8]

Originally Posted by Olympic Flame

Yawnz...
This is no such thing as "white or non-white DNA(genetic markers in DNA I suppose)". A typical North-Western European can have numerous types of genetic markers, with high frequency in North Western Europe, also being found in India and Northern China with somewhat less frequency within a sample size or randomly chosen population.

19th century classical antropologist used observarable physical traits to divided human into major races but such theoy fails in present era due to two major reasons.
1) The traits chosen to group people are arbitrary, such as the classified characteristics for instance skin colour, skull shape and hair texture. For example If someone chose a different approach to analyse the same set of organs/body parts but looking for different particular characteristics, the result can be vastly different.

2) Outer physical traits are very malleable and significant changes occur between centuries, if not decades as it is very largely determined by the influence of outer environment, eg climate and the nutrition we receive. This is very different from analysing DNA which contain segments unchanged since we stepped out from Africa.

Originally Posted by g hall

Not much of a personal friend then if you don't know what a waste of space he was. The only time I contacted him his first question was "Who did you vote for" as it happens I did vote for the Thatch tory party but with that question he gave the game away no wonder he lost at the next election
Waster

Originally Posted by The Bear

Nasty, but white scum do just as bad.

It's a social thing, not a race thing.

You accept people from different societies, you put them in deprived environments, you don't invest in educating them into our society but leave them to form into gangs, next thing you get is what we now face from people who have been treated in the way that some immigrants have been.

New York and other major US cities saw just the same kind of thing with “poor ignorant white folks” creating and running the gangs in their major cities.

The thing that helped wipe out such behaviour was education, investment, opportunity, and rigorously applied laws.

The same would work here.

Originally Posted by g hall

I wouldn't bother, the posters that statement is aimed at are to far up their own bigoted ar5eholes to even think about trying to understand it

Originally Posted by The Bear

It’s highly doubtful if the guys live there though. “Going up West” used to be a popular East End passtime and I doubt it’s changed much now.



Right, let’s look at that statement.

For one thing how do you KNOW it was racist? You have NO IDEA what prompted the attack, and so there is absolutely NO justification in writing that it was a racist attack. It could have been prompted by anything.

For another how do you KNOW she was “white”? To me she looked as if she might have been at least mixed race. What’s more the attacking group looked like a mix of people, one or two certainly didn’t look Asian to me.



Have you been down the East End recently? Have you seen the real social deprivation that exists there? I have.

Now I would agree that the ghettoisation by the predominantly Bangladeshi Muslim population has a great deal to do with this, as it does in other Muslim areas of several of our major cities, but the same can’t be said for other largely immigrant and non muslim areas that show similar deprivation and lack of opportunity for the young peopple caught up in them.



In my opinion there is never justification for any attack by a man on a woman, let alone a gang of men, but then I’m from a very much different background from inner city slum dwellers.

At the same time there is no justification for asserting that the attack was a racial attack or even that race was a factor in what took place.

Never mind, let’s not let a few facts get in the way of what we want to see or hear eh?

Originally Posted by Olympic Flame

What do Y-DNA and MtDNA mean?
They simply refer to an unbroken chain of genetic marker passed down from your paternal ancetry and maternal ancestry respectively. By unbroken it means that unless other genes that recombine, they remain distinct as a whole and passed down as a whole unless mutated.

They do not explain our genetic profile. They are only an extreme tiny portion out of our extrememly long DNA.

The reason why they are often used to study populations because since they are passed down as a distinct and identifiable trait in DNA, it is very convenient to use them to study on patterns of early human migration rather than other segments that recombined when passed down from one generation to another.

However, to use them as an estimate for degree of genetic similarity is absurd. For example, if you and the other guy Tom have the surname Churchill, it is very likely that two of you share a single male ancester hundreds of years ago and hence having the same Y chromosome marker. however it is hundred time more likely that you and your cousin Dick have more similarity in genetic profiles than the stranger Tom although Dick and you have different surnames and different Y chromosome marker.

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

I'm not sure whether you have actually had some formal instruction in this stuff or whether you are cutting and pasting it out of some internet 'bluffer's guide'

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Either way, most of it is hardly to the point. Of course if you were to range the world (as the Nazis did) claiming kindred between unrelated peoples because they all had fair hair or the same shaped noses you would be wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

OTOH the similarities that distinguish many or most members of an ethnic group largely confined to a particular geographic area are clearly the result of genetic programming particular to that group. So the people we call 'English' tend to be relatively tall and to have fair skin. The people we call 'Japanese' tend to be relatively short, to have 'yellow' skin and to have the skin folds which produce the oriental 'slit eye' appearance.

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Both those ethnic groups have a track record of industriousness (well in the case of the English once did) and reasonable intelligence. To suggest that such characteristics cannot be transmitted in the same way as skin colour or 'slit eyes' seems to me to be odd to say the least.

Compare the state of civil society in Japan, or Singapore, with their equivalents in Haiti or Zimbabwe and ask yourself the question; why?

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

I'm afraid you boss-eyed optimists live in a total dream world.

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Humans are not equal and never will be.

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Were we equal to the Chinese when their civilisation was the greatest in the world?

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Balances alter over time and perhaps the day will come when the white and yellow men retreat back into barbarism and the black man becomes the superman of the future. However, as we will not live to see that it's not really worth the speculation.

Originally Posted by Olympic Flame

I have read recent years of scientific reports on Human population genetics as well as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes.


no disagreement


The English we call today largely consist of indigeneous British ancestry as well as the anglo-saxon invaders. In 2002, a study by Weale et al found genetic differences between test subjects from market towns in central England and Wales, and that the English subjects were, on average closer genetically to the Frisians of the Netherlands than they were to their Welsh neighbours. This study hypothesised that an Anglo-Saxon invasion had replaced 50-100% of "indigenous" men.

The white skin among Europeans today emerged about 6 to 12 thousands years ago as a result of genetic mutation. North East Asians had a separate mutation that cause depigmentation and a result of fair skin. It is not uncommon to find fair skinned people in Siberia, japan, Korea, Northern China as we can in England or Neitherland.

There is no single gene responsible for height as it is expected to be a characteristic derived from a combination of different genes. Thats why human height is inheritable, but only with a parent to offspring correlation of 0.57. A lot other factors comes from the environment as we use average height of a population as a way to access the measure of the health and wellness of the population.

Thats why in modern Japan with a standard of living of a developing world, has an average height eqivalent to that of Southern European nations such as Spain and Portugal while North Korean height remain stagnant for decades.
Bear in mind that the Dutch what we call the tallest European today were muchshorter than most population today in the 1800s prior to the advancement in health care service and rise of the standard of living in Europe. And in the continent of Africa which you can convinently label them as "black" the Bantu tribes were known to be the world's tallest ethnic groups while the African pygmy people are known to be the shortest people in the world.

In a gigantic country like China which you can conveniently label them as "Chinese" the height distribution is genetical( North to South divide) as well as environmental( Rural to Urban divide) with young Shandong Chinese and Manchurian Chinese with the average height on par of many Northern European states despite being less economic well off and provinces such as Guizhou or Guangdong being far shorter.

The reality itself is much more complicated than colonial myth.


In the same way the people in the past take for granted that the sun rise above the earth as they see it everyday. Seeing is believing right? What really matter is the scientific rigour behind any theory.


In fact Im quite realistic.

Equal in what? on an individual level or group level? whats the justification for group comparison especially so when in group variation itself follow a normal distributionn and ingroup difference far exceeds cross group difference?


Not so when China had the most superior economic, cultural sophistication and military strength for thousands of years until late Ming.
But the revival of ancient Greek learning and rivarly European states competiting against one another in Western Europe took giant leaps while the Chinese turned inward and the Arabs turned religious fundamentalistic.
To the contrary I see rise of fall of civilisations through cultrual shift and historical circumstances rather than simple "racial biological determinism".


The slavic tribes wandering in Europe was once refered by Roman historians as Barbarians and savages, but that doesn't impede the rise of Soviet Union as a world superpower comprising of largely former central asian and slavic speaking people.
Simple predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt.