Jump to content

Talk:African admixture in Europe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Additional studies showing higher sub-Saharan L sequences in Italy (and a brief discussion on the validity of the Arnaiz-Villena study on Greeks

The following study shows L sequences in a sample labeled "south Italians" at a rate of 8.1%. I believe this should be added to the article to show that in some cases, Italian L percentages are comparable to Iberian ones:

Joining the pillars of Hercules: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118863897/PDFSTART

A study showing sub-Saharan L sequences in Sicily at a rate of 4.4% is the following one. Note that there are fraudulent claims on various forums made by those with ideological interests (read: Small Victory a.k.a. Racial Reality, and Pontikos) that this study has been "refuted" by a study by Vona, et al (2001). This is impossible and dishonest. The Vona study merely tested 49 individuals in a Single Sicilian village and, unsurprisingly, came up with no L sequences. This cannot refute this study which was an island-wide study, testing 90 individuals, nor did it purport to. It merely compared results. At any rate, here is the study showing 4.4%:

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in Italy.III. http://thestudyofracialism.org/forum/120/semino-italy.pdf

See the page created by me on the subject at The Study of Racialism:

http://thestudyofracialism.org/about1563.html

It should also be noted that the HLA study by Arnaiz-Villena showing sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks is perfectly valid. Contrary to what Small Victory will have us believe, it was never retracted. I have corresponded directly with the author. The Arnaiz-Villena Study dealing with Palestinians and Jews was retracted, but for political reasons, and the three scientists supposedly disputing it for genetic reasons only did so because of political sentiments. This was admitted to me by one of the scientists in private correspondence.

The Greek study clearly shows sub-Saharan influence in many ways, using 2 loci. Genetic-distance calculations, cluster charts and most convincingly, a direct allele search, all show influence. The areas in which Arnaiz-Villena shows admixture, interestingly, are the same ones Frank Snowden (who studied the subject from the standpoint of art and literature) has found evidence of a sub-Saharan presence.

http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

Other studies, including some by Arnaiz-Villena and one by other researchers, support the findings. In one study, Arnaiz-Villena cites the Dork, et al. findings that Greeks are the only Europeans to bear cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans. I have the full studies on paper, and can scan them in. Otherwise, I can easily provide the abstracts.

See the page created by me on this at The Study of Racialism:

http://thestudyofracialism.org/about1335.html

Carhistorian (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank Snowden wasn't a genetic scientist, he was a historian who was trying to argue that race based upon color is a modern idealogy and it didn't exist in classical antiquity where slaves to both Greeks and Romans were not based upon color, he wasn't arguing that ancient Greeks and Romans were an admixture of blacks and white. Arnaiz-Villena study is dubious and full of misconstrued claims as all genetic scientists have clearly shown it to be, and it is not backed up by independent genetic studies which all others clearly show Greeks do not have any more suppose sub-Saharan presence then other European groups and clusters Greeks with all other Europeans and far away from sub-Saharan Africans. Also isn't it interesting that from all the European, North African and Middle Eastern samples the Arnaiz-Villena study supposedly 'tested' only the Greek samples ended up having 'sub-Saharan presence', not even the Egyptians who had regular contact with sub-Saharan people does the Arnaiz-Villena show them to have any sub-Saharan presence. In fact he clusters the Egyptians and other North African/Middle Eastern groups with the European samples that this pseudo papers calls an 'old Mediterranean sub-clad' and the only none sub-Saharan group he cluster with sub-Saharan Africans are the GREEKS. Yeah right, tell me THAT isn't rigged Not to mention the fact that it was funded by FYROM which reeks of political propaganda and alternative motives. (Angar432 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)).
Sorry, but if you've read Frank Snowden's books, you'll see that he does indeed mention a sub-Saharan presence in Italy and Greece (based on very reliable ancient sources -- he was careful to not be an Afrocentrist), and the absorption of these "Aethiops" into the European societies. He also mentions the same occurring in North Africa. As for Arnaiz-Villena, no amount of wishing or bashing can refute hard facts. There is a relationship between Greeks and sub-Saharans using a few loci and several different methods for analyzing those loci. There have been other studies that support this, and the Arnaiz-Villena study has been cited by other researchers. No credible scientist has taken issue with this study or its results. It was peer-reviewed, and accepted, and never retracted. Please see my page on the ODR Forum explaining the "claims" of refutations and the like -- it explains everything. Admixture in Greece is supported by other genes, such as HbS, Chr. 7 markers, mtDNA, GM, and autosomal markers. If the Arnaiz-Villena study is examined, it will be seen that the incidence of the sub-Saharan markers is only a few percent in the areas of Greece (as well as Hvar and Hungary) that have been tested. This is not inconsistent with other findings. NO ONE is saying Greeks are black Africans -- only that there is some minor admixture. Carhistorian (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey take a look at Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena's wiki page and check out how all of his claims are proven 100% wrong... Now if this is not enough proof of the irrelevancy/invalidity of Arnaiz-Villena's claims for you, then you are probably challenged in some way. Even in that case, let me inform you that this "scientist" was working for FYROM while conducting his skewed and laughable "research".
As for Frank Snowden, his work was about the status of black people in the Hellenistic and Roman empires. He never discussed the admixture of Romans and Greeks with blacks, so WHAT is your point?
Also there have been several researches that show that "black admixture" is lower in Greece compared to all Mediterranean populations.
Here is one example from 2010 (American Journal of Physical Anthropology): http://www.scribd.com/doc/22956855/Population-relationships-mediterranean-gonz
There is much more but I wont bother arguing in a wikipedia talk page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.16.232 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

were the first settlers the last?

I have removed a seemingly unfinished sentence which was on the end of the "first settlers" section. It said: "The "Out of Africa" migration resulted in the genetic isolation of Africans from non-Africans". The implication of this sentence is that the first Cro Magnons were also the last major movement into Europe with African origins. Obviously this is not the standard account and there is nothing controversial about saying that the original settlers may have been completely replaced themselves by later waves of immigration. Waves probably continued with a general origin from the Middle East until the Neolithic and possibly even later. I do understand that this raises a question of when exactly we should call immigration from the Middle East "African", but I think the only sensible solution is to deal with messy reality by NOT trying to give simplified and unrealistic accounts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

open lack of sources

there a large lack of sources, lets open this again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.206 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is a large lack?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moorjani et al. 2011

New study

  • Moorjani; et al. (2011). "The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews". PLoS Genetics. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Quote

We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed.

Wapondaponda (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


Admixture among Sardinians

the datas shown about sardinian population are outdated and wrong according to the recent genetic studies as Dienekes and Eurogenes.

Dienekes discovers an error in the calculation of level of admixture about sardinian population done by geneticians more than 10 years ago.

it is explained in this article: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html


"Sardinians are an important test case for the authors' model. Their 3-population test shows no evidence of admixture, while the 4-population test does. Moreover, their STRUCTURE analysis shows a trivial 0.2%, whereas the authors estimate their Sub-Saharan admixture as 2.9%.

Let's begin by performing a PCA analysis of Sardinians, CHB, and CEU, which is shown below.

(All PCA analyses are done in smartpca as implemented in EIGENSOFT 4.0 beta, withnumoutlieriter set to 0. All analyses are performed over datasets merged in PLINK with the --geno 0.001 flag, which effectively keeps only common markers and ensures a high quality dataset)



CEU is shifted towards CHB relative to Sardinian. This is made more visually obvious if we blow up the CEU/CHB portion of the above plot:


CEU is shifted towards CHB by 2.4% relative to Sardinians. This is quite close to the 2.5% East/South Asian K=3 admixture for Britons in my most recent analysis, done with a different East Asian reference and a different method (ADMIXTURE); the CEU sample of White Utahns has been repeatedly shown to be most similar to people from the British Isles or Northwestern Europe.

Now, let's look at Sardinians, CHB, and YRI:



and a blowup:


Sardinians are shifted 1.1% relative to CEU towards YRI. Again, this is close to the 0.9% K=3 Sub-Saharan ADMIXTURE result I recently obtained.

So, where does the 2.9% Sub-Saharan admixture in Sardinians come from? Moorjani et al. estimate this percentage under the assumption that Northern Europeans are not shifted towards Chinese, i.e., that East Eurasians are irrelevant. Clearly, as we have seen, this is wrong. As we shall see, this erroneous assumption leads to the erroneous admixture estimate.

2.9% Sub-Saharan admixture in Sardinians (?)

Now, I will demonstrate how the spurious 2.9% result can be obtained. By doing so, it will become obvious why Moorjani et al. obtained this result as a result of ignoring the eastern Asian shift of their northern European sample in their analysis.

Here is a PCA plot of Sardinians, CEU, CHB, YRI:


and the blowup:


When we run all four populations together, Sardinians are shifted towards YRI along Dimension 1, and CEU are shifted towards CHB along Dimension 2. Given that the eigenvalue for PC1 is approximately twice (50.15) that for PC2 (25.31), and doing a little high school geometry on the triangle (Sardinian, CEU, YRI), we project Sardinian onto the CEU-YRI line, intersecting at point X. We thus obtain the estimated "CEU" admixture as:

[distance(YRI,X)-distance(X,CEU)]/[distance(YRI,X)+distance(X,CEU)] = [distance(YRI, Sardinian)^2-distance(CEU,Sardinian)^2] / distance(CEU,YRI)^2

which equals 0.971021, and so, "YRI" admixture is 2.9%!"


all recent admixture studies show sardinians as the most genetic isolated population in europe, with lowest african and asian admixture among europeans: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TNvw62uqG9I/AAAAAAAAC4c/uHUxy9SuFdY/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.250.134 (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we summarize what has been published by publications which have some sort of clear reputation and fact checking, so we normally can no use blogs. However, perhaps these bloggers can help point you to published materials that might help balance and update this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Dr Moorjani has recently admitted to have committed some mistakes in that research, so i think is senseless shows wrong datas in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.251.177 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I just want to draw attention to the 'L lineages >1%' section. I don't have access to Pereira's 2005 paper, but several nationalities seem to have been added fallaciously. They were lacking last time I checked the section, are not reported elsewhere (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-haplogroup_L_%28mtDNA%29#Frequencies_.28.3E_1.25.29), and several of the percentages are impossible given the sample sizes. It's also the first time I've never heard of 2% L lineages in Finns. Also, Norwegians are supposedly reported as having 1% L mtDNA according to Rosenberg et al (2002), despite the fact that said was an autosomal study. The clean percentages are the giveaway, though I suspect the correctly-calculated Albanian entry is also a product of same vandalism. Could someone with access to the paper/s in question check this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeastCakeBeast (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

STOP ADDING Antonio Arnaiz-Villena His work on the "genetic proximity of Greeks and Ethiopians" has been totally rejected and ridiculed, as seen in his own wikipedia page. Refrain from re-adding his work here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.105.66 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for this?

I notice some edit-warring over the following paragraph, but I don't see any source cited. Is there one?

In Portugal sub-Saharan Y-DNA xE3b was found at a total of 3% (N. Portugal 4% / S. Portugal 2%) and 1.6% in Sardinia.[1] Genetic marker xE3b is the highest Y-DNA marker in sub-Saharan West-Africa and was absent (0%) in Sicilians and all other European groups.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When the two editors involved get back from there blocks ...I am hoping this will all get worked out here on the talk page and not the article itself.Moxy (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The source is there in the paragraph, the figures are located in table 1 [1]. The sources appear to back up the content being argued over and I think it should be added back in. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I will defer to Sarahj2107 opinion on this - as she has the masters degree in this field and sees the info as valid.Moxy (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I see a source for the first sentence, but not for the second. Or should the citation be moved to the end of the paragraph? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
It is for both ... restored with ref moved.Moxy (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Source List

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

This title is given in the study (cited) itself;
the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11260506
User:Al Khazar requested it
Daufer (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Exposing manipulation & Proposition for deletion

Due to the nature of this article, certain entities have taken over this Item to propagate and confect perverse editions. The article itself is being monitored by heads with an agenda to erase and conceal information, and thus, to keep the article written under a certain way under multiple campaigns of edits/reverts.

Individual Editors forcibly try to occult any information regarding Italy, with little to no information, while adding more and repeating even more futile paragraphs on Iberia.

If this article must be up, then...one must create a Wiki article entitled "Asian Admixture in Europe", "Arab Admixture in Europe", etc. In fact, we one would have to create for other continents, like "African admixture in Asia", "European Admixture in Asia, "Arab admixture in Asia" and forth "European admixture in Africa", "Asian Admixture in Africa"...and so on...

Should we start creating articles about other admixtures?

It makes no sense to have an article entitled "African admixture in Europe", while engaging in Edit wars, when there are no other Wiki articles regarding anthropology, that mirrors other admixtures in other emplacements. Such as, example: "Asian admixture in Europe".

I'm proposing the deletion of this article due to the recurring and future events, this article became the interest of racists.

There is already a Wiki page that deals with the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaniHard (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The page will not get deleted for the stern reasons above. Thus far your only edits to this article (aside from many deletion requests) was to change some stats without sources - we can easily tlak about this - do you have sources for the info being changed? In fact the article needs some more sources overall. As for other admixture articles - yes we should create many more articles about admixture - its how the field studies human migration and evolution - not to mention the medical applications. We also have articles like Archaic human admixture with modern Homo sapiens.Moxy (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks II

Can anybody tell me why the Greeks are singled out and have a special paragraph ("Admixture in Greeks") devoted to them ?

The passage itself is based solely on the controversial Arnaiz-Villena paper, without mentioning any other sources. At this point I don't particularly mind that. What disturbes me most is that while others (the Portuguese, Turkish Cypriots etc.) are all discussed togethere in the previous section, this particular ethnic group is singled out, as if somebody is trying to make a specific point. I suggest the merger of "Admixture in Greeks" with the previous section, unless it's deleted altogether. Athenianepirote (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed it. The whole section is sourced to that awful Arnaiz-Villena paper, which has since been retracted from the literature, for obvious reasons. Good catch. Athenean (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Admixture in Greece section

I have serious concerns about the repeated removal of this section from the article. It is properly sourced by peer reviews articles. After initial claims that the original, single source had been discredited and revoked (a claim that has not been supported by any evidence despite requests) I have added more references that also support the information. It has now been removed again as "pseudo-science". I can not see any problems with any of the articles cited or with the information given. If people do have a problem with it then I ask that they detail them here and provide evidence for those concerns. If the people objecting to the content fail to do that then I have to question their motives for the removal of the section and further action will need to be taken. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This has again been removed, to avoid an edit war I wont revert but it should be added back. Villena's article is not the only one there to support the claims I added work by another author. These are all still peer review articles and if there have been discredited in reliable sources I would like to see that, because I can't find it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see [2] and [3]. As far as edit-warring, yes, your edit-warring is starting to become a problem, so please stop. Athenean (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
These are peer-reviewed articles, but are you aware that there are other peer-reviewed articles by notable geneticist who strongly disagree with Arnaiz-Villena (here)? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Sarahj2107 had put another source: Hajjej, A. A., Sellami, M. H., Kaabi, H. H., Hajjej, G. G., El-Gaaied, A. A., Boukef, K. K., & ... Hmida, S. S. (2011). HLA class I and class II polymorphisms in Tunisian Berbers. Annals Of Human Biology, 38(2), 156-164. doi:10.3109/03014460.2010.504195
Abstract:
Discussion
Cavann (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Over view of the problems by George P. Patrinos head of the Pharmacogenomics Group in the Department of Cell Biology and Genetics at the Erasmus University Medical Centre. -- Moxy (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cavann, the WP bio says that Hajjej et al. "used the same methodology (same gene markers) and same data samples like Arnaiz-Villena et al." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Herodotus 1989? Is this some kind of joke? On a more serious note, single-locus HLA studies are just awful science and Hajjej's work appears to be just a repeat of Arnaiz-Villena's. Athenean (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course we do not need to report the historical speculations of scientists, but I do think we need to be careful about filtering out of what they say about their specialist field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It's indicative of poor scholarship to say the least. Using Herodotus to explain the nonsensical results of their single-locus HLA studies? This is as bad as bad science gets. Athenean (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said on my talk page; disregarding published data because the methodology is controversial sets a dangerous precedent. You should always report the controversial information and then critique it, and I have done this many times in the past with some pretty awful papers. The information should be included along with reliably sourced criticism and discussion of the problems. Also Athenean, accusing me of edit warring is pure hypocrisy. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sarahj2107, I agree that what you describe is the normal way of working. However we can also keep in mind that we do not need to report every publication. If something is really known to be controversial and also not widely cited or seriously discussed, then there is no need to cite it. If something known to be controversial and it IS widely discussed, then normally we should report that controversy as such but then we need to be careful not to report a controversial opinion in "Wikipedia's voice".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sarahj2107, this is not a case where source(s) A say(s) one thing and another source(s) B say(s) another thing and now they have a disagreement which we can simply go on to outline. This is rather a case where B says that A is an outlandish theory with little to no scientific merit. And the fact that no one less than Luca Cavalli-Sforza himself, the doyen of population genetics, is in group B further strengthens the case against Arnaiz-Villena's theory a lot. We have this discussion already at Antonio Arnaiz-Villena#Greeks and Sub-Saharans, so that people can make an informed judgment, but we don't need to replicate it in an overview article given its very controversial nature. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Major problems with this article, and why it should be deleted

This article is a complete mess full of inaccuracies and outright lies that's pushing Afrocentric POV and is mainly the work of a single individual: constant troublemaker Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda. Since it's a recreation of another article that had been deleted just two weeks prior, I tried to have it deleted as well, but due to a lot of ignorance and incompetence, that didn't happen. I then tried to add warning tags to it, but more incompetence and dishonesty got them removed and me blocked on the pretense that the tags were "non-constructive." Here I will disprove that absurd claim by laying out (yet again) the major problems with the article and its sources, which have only gotten worse since then, and showing why the whole thing should be deleted like it was before.


Lack of notability + POV

This article seems to be covering two unrelated topics: 1) Prehistoric migrations to Europe ultimately originating from Africa, and 2) Recent African admixture in Europeans, with emphasis on Sub-Saharan admixture (proving that it's no different from the previous one).

The first topic is not notable because Africans populated the whole world, not just Europe, and we already have an article about that (Recent African origin of modern humans), not to mention that it's also covered in Genetic history of Europe. Moreover, I would like to see the source that treats Out-of-Africa migrations as "African admixture" and includes this gene flow from prehistoric people who were "not, racially speaking, Africans" on the same level as recent gene flow from Negroid slaves. It seems to me like pure Afrocentric POV.

The same goes for including North African and Sub-Saharan African ancestry together as if they were the same thing. In reality, they're completely unrelated to each other, with North Africans being mostly recent migrants from West Asia who are genetically closer to Europeans than to other Africans:

We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from "back-to-Africa" gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.

[...]

Our North African population samples are clearly differentiated from other African populations (Figure 1, Figure 2). MDS component 1 separates sub-Saharan Africans from populations that currently reside outside of Africa (OOA), and the North African populations cluster closest to the Near Eastern Qatari. A subset of individuals are intermediate between the North and sub-Saharan African samples (Figure 2, Figure S2). At k = 2 (ADMIXTURE), 80% of the ancestry in North African individuals is assigned to a cluster defined by its maximum frequency in Near Eastern and European populations (Figure 1).

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002397

The second topic is not notable either because admixture levels are so low that they're virtually undetectable in genome-wide tests. One of the largest studies ever to analyze Europeans in a global context (Li et al. 2008), using representative samples and close to 650,000 autosomal SNPs, states the following:

In many populations, ancestry is derived predominantly from one of the inferred components, whereas in others...there are multiple sources of ancestry. [...] much of sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and East Asia appears to be homogeneous in Fig. 1A.

When we look at Figure 1A, we can see that homogeneity and that none of the European samples derive any of their ancestry from the African component. Even Southern Europeans like the Portuguese who are supposedly so "mixed" have only a tiny drop of Sub-Saharan admixture according to Figure S2 from Moreno-Estrada et al. 2013, a similar study which uses 390,000 SNPs.

So why has an entire article been devoted to something that's basically nonexistent? And why are there no other articles like it dealing with Asian or European admixture in different places? The only answer can be that it's a POV fork pushing Afrocentrism, which, as you'd expect, ignores recent, decisive studies like the above and resorts to outdated, flawed and inconclusive evidence. For example...


Two big problems with AIMs

The studies Frudakis 2007 and Halder at al. 2008 used 176 AIMs (ancestry informative markers) to estimate Sub-Saharan African admixture in Europeans, while Brisighelli et al. 2012 used only 52 AIMs for their estimate.

The first big problem is that these so-called "AIMs" come from the authors' genetic testing company DNAPrint Genomics, which Bolnick et al. 2007 have criticized as unreliable:

Furthermore, some of the most "informative" AIMs involve loci that have undergone strong selection, which makes it unclear whether these markers indicate shared ancestry or parallel selective pressures (such as similar environmental exposures in different geographic regions) or both.

The other big problem is the small number of AIMs used, which leads to inaccurate estimates and specifically to overestimation of African admixture, according to Bauchet et al. 2007 and Galanter et al. 2010:

Using <1,200 EuroAIMs of the type available in this panel gradually leads to loss of consistent structure and a corresponding increase in misclassification of individual origins (fig. 7C).

There was an inverse correlation between the number of AIMs used to estimate ancestry and mean and standard deviation of the error in ancestry estimation. Using AIMs, African ancestry was consistently overestimated, while the major ancestral component (European in Puerto Ricans and Native American in Mexicans) was systematically underestimated. Using 300 or fewer AIMs consistently produced a standard deviation of ancestry estimation error of 10% or greater.

That explains why results based on AIMs have not been replicated in countless other analyses, some using 390,000 markers and close to 650,000 markers. But this article chooses to ignore all of those and cite the few anomalous studies that use the same discredited method.


Moorjani et al. 2011 is flawed

This study used PCA projection (not the usual admixture analysis) to estimate admixture levels based on where populations cluster relative to each another on a principal component plot. However, the authors obtained their (inflated) results by assuming that Northern Europeans are "pure" and interpreting Southern Europeans' shift away from them and toward Africans as admixture. They ignored the fact that Northern Europeans are themselves shifted to an even greater degree toward Asians, which led to inaccurate admixture estimates.

This was explained clearly at the time in an anthropology blog post, and a year later some of the co-authors of the Moorjani study showed the validity of that explanation by confirming that Northern Europeans are Asian-shifted because some of their ancestors originated in Northern Eurasia:

The only plausible explanation we can see for our signal of admixture into the French is that an ancient northern Eurasian population contributed genetic material both to the ancestral population of the Americas, and also to the ancestral population of northern Europe. This was quite surprising to us, and in the remainder of the paper this is the effect we discuss.

Indeed, the Southern European samples used in the Moorjani study (from HGDP and POPRES) have been submitted to actual admixture analyses in the past based on ~450,000-650,000 SNPs, and they show no African admixture (here and here).


E subclade E-V13 is West Asian

Most of the haplogroup E in Europe belongs to subclade E-V13, which originated in West Asia and represents admixture from that region, not from Africa:

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%). [...] The low E-V13 frequency (0.9%) and microsatellite variance (0.13) in northern Africa do not support an antiquity greater than in western Asia. Thus, the most parsimonious and plausible scenario is that E-V13 originated in western Asia about 11 ky ago, and its presence in northern Africa is the result of a more recent introgression. Under this hypothesis, E-V13 chromosomes sampled in western Asia and their coalescence estimate detect a likely Paleolithic exit out of Africa of E-M78 chromosomes devoid of the V13 mutation, which later occurred somewhere in the Near East/Anatolia. [...] As to a western Asia–Europe connection, our data suggest that western Asians carrying E-V13 may have reached the Balkans anytime after 17.0 ky ago, but expanded into Europe not earlier than 5.3 ky ago. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1300

Hence, this marker has no place in an article about African admixture.


M1 and M1a are Asian/Mediterranean (and so is U6)

The article claims that the origins of M1 "have yet to be conclusively established" and that subclade M1a "is widely accepted to be of East African origin". The first statement is false and the second is a distortion of the truth. The article also claims that U6 is North African based on an old study from 1998.

In fact, three recent studies agree that M1 (along with U6) is of Asian origin, and that its subclade, M1a, either originated in Asia too or in Northeast Africa, later diffusing south to East Africa. Its presence (at low levels) in Europe is attributed to Arab/Berber or Jewish admixture, but not East African:

Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. [...] Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5806/1767

M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6+/-7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1+/-6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8+/-4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0+/-7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6+/-7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17786594

This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. [...] The presence in the Mediterranean basin and in West sub-Saharan Africa of M1a and M1c lineages can be taken as proof that these areas received influences both from the West and East North African centers of M1 radiation. [...] Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1945034/


L3 (and maybe E) arose in the Middle East

Haplogroup L3 may be highest in Africa today, but it's very old and it arose and expanded from West Asia, so there's no reason to assume that its presence in Europe is from "African admixture":

Taken together, these analyses suggest that the L3 haplogroup found in the Saudi were present before the bottleneck 50,000 YBP. Given the TMRCA estimates for the L3 haplogroup of approximately 70,000 YBP and the timing of the Out-of-Africa split, these analyses suggest that L3 haplogroup arose in the Middle East with a subsequent back migration and expansion into Africa over the Horn-of-Africa during the lower sea levels found during the glacial period bottleneck.

[...]

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans populated the Middle East before a split 110,000 YBP, underwent genetic drift for 60,000 years before expanding to Asia and Europe as well as back-migration into Africa. Examination of genetic variants discovered by Saudi whole genome sequencing in ancestral African populations and European/Asian populations will contribute to the understanding human migration patterns and the origin of genetic variation in modern humans.

http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130122833.htm

There's also new evidence that DE-YAP arose in West Asia too, which would mean that its descendant E, the main paternal "African" haplogroup, represents backflow from outside Africa and may even have originated there:

If, however, as suggested in §4a(iii), DE-YAP* originated just outside Africa, then technically non-African backflow in the Y locus includes E and could ultimately massively outnumber the original African Y throughout Africa.... http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1590/770.abstract

The similarity of patterns of different mutants indicates some secondary expansions. It is also interesting to sum the distributions of different haplogroups descending from the same mutation, as for example D and E, which both descend from DE-YAP, the first mutation that split into the E branch that perhaps returned to Africa (or arose there), whereas the other branch, D, is found today mainly in the Himalayas and Japan. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20174.full

What with L3, E, M1, U6, and others like F, J2 and R-V88, it would make more sense to rename this article "Eurasian admixture in Africa".


Y-DNA and mtDNA don't show admixture

There's a much bigger problem with uniparental markers. As we've seen, for quantifying admixture, the more markers used the better. Using a small number leads to overestimates because they only cover a small part of the genome. Y-chromosomes and mtDNA are each a single locus, possibly under selection, and therefore totally inappropriate for the purposes of this article. Many geneticists have criticized them and think they shouldn't be used to trace ancestry anymore:

The genome is divided into segments that have separate genealogical histories: while the ancestry of a single segment of the genome converges on a single common ancestor, each segment has a separate common ancestor. About MtDNA and NRC-Y: these particular segments do not represent an individual's ancestry any more completely than any other single segment. http://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Evolutionary_Genetics.html?id=104VAAAAIAAJ

Studies have focused primarily on the matrilineally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and patrilineally inherited Y chromosome. These two DNA sources have gained wide prominence owing, in part, to their use by ancestry-testing companies to identify the regional and ethnic origins of their subscribers. Yet these two sources provide a very narrow perspective in delineating only two of possibly thousands of ancestral lineages in an individual. http://genomebiology.com/2009/10/12/R141

Excessive reliance on uniparental markers (that is, mtDNA and Y chromosome) has been criticized before (Ballard and Whitlock, 2004; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2005; Bazin et al., 2006). Arguably, the most scathing assessment was reached by Harpending (2006) who described the entire field as a series of anecdotes ranging from the plausible and interesting to the absurd.

[...]

But all these qualities do not counterbalance the fact that a single locus likely to be under selection is inappropriate for population inference at large geographical scales (or over long periods of time in the context of ancient DNA analysis). We have reached an era in which publicly available data sets of large numbers of complete human genomes are a tangible prospect, and I believe it is now time to move on from the excessive reliance on uniparental markers.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v104/n5/full/hdy2009122a.html


Sickle cell (HbS) is adaptive

Why is sickle cell (HbS) included in an article about admixture when one of the sources cited states explicitly that it's useless for that purpose, due to its selective advantage in protecting against malaria?

African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region.

Despite this, the article quotes the high frequency of HbS in Sicily, but fails to note that when a less adaptive African marker was used, there was almost no admixture at all:

We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The Taql polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (Taql(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought.


GM and KM allotypes are adaptive

These markers are just like sickle cell, offering protection against malaria and other diseases:

Fulani and Masaleit, sympatric tribes in eastern Sudan, are characterized by marked differences in susceptibility to Plasmodium falciparum malaria. To determine whether the two tribes differ in the frequency of immunoglobulin GM/KM allotypes, which are associated with immunity to several pathogens, serum samples from 50 Fulani and 50 age- and sex-matched Masaleit subjects were allotyped for several GM/KM determinants. The distribution of GM phenotypes as a whole, as well as a particular combination of KM and GM phenotypes, differed significantly between the two tribes (P = 0.03). These data suggest that GM allotypes may contribute to the genetic aetiology of malaria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17430550


HLA genes are unreliable

This is another unreliable, outdated method of genetic testing. HLA genes are related to the functioning of the immune system, which makes them adaptive and not very helpful in determining population affinities. Geneticists don't use them much anymore, and here's what happened when some tried a few years ago:

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b.html

Note that this is the very same author (Antonio Arnaiz-Villena) and marker (HLA-DRB1) as in the study cited for the new disputed section "Admixture in Greeks". Indeed, all of the studies that use this data have been refuted by scientists.


Cavalli-Sforza and Bowcock's "admixture"

Editors have tried to insert this as evidence into articles before, and other editors have explained how they're misinterpreting it:

Actually, that is not at all what Cavalli-Sforza states. He speaks of the genetic distance of Europeans between Sub-Saharan Africans and Asians as being a product of geographic distance, not admixture as you seem to be suggesting/hoping. Causteau (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe/Archive_1#Misleading_inclusion_of_map_.26_dishonest_caption

Yet again, Cavalli-Sforza is being misquoted to say Europeans are simply a mixture of or originated as a mixture of East Asian and African populations. The actual statement is just that with one dataset Cavalli-Sforza used an artificial interpolation between Asian and African values winds up slightly less distant from European values than either the Asian or African starting points. This only means that there has been some diffusion of genes over time and that genetic distance very roughly correlates with geographic distance. It says nothing about origins. Please remove this statement from the article. --JWB (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_genetics/archive_2#2.2F3_Asian.2C_1.2F3_African

Here are Bowcock and Cavalli-Sforza explaining it in their own words:

We used a modified maximum-likelihood method to test the general model of admixture, using formulas derived from those given in ref. 22. The data were found to be consistent with admixture between the branch leading to Chinese after their separation from Melanesians and the branch leading to the two African populations. [...] One might even postulate a continuous admixture, in time, in space, or in both: a chain of populations somewhat similar to a stepping-stone model in which the ancestors of Europeans are geographically intermediate between the two extremes, Africans and Asians.

[...]

Historical evidence suggests that admixture was likely. The expansion of modern humans who replaced Neanderthals in Europe probably originated in West Asia; the languages spoken in paleolithic Europe, of which Basque is the only widely accepted surviving descendant, appear to have some residual similarity to languages from the Caucasus in West Asia (32). The population that originally replaced Neanderthals 30-40 kyr ago may have already been a mixture between Africans and East Asians, because West Asia is geographically intermediate between Africa and East Asia. A later expansion from the Near East toward Europe, Asia, and North Africa began with the spread of farmers 9-10 kyr ago (31). The estimated date of this last event is later than expected based on the 30-kyr date calculated for the single admixture, but this may have been one of several cycles of admixture.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50909/

So Europeans are genetically intermediate between Africans and Asians because their ancestors originated in the Middle East, not because they have "African admixture".


Natufians NOT source of European Neolithic

The article claims that (supposedly African-related) Natufians were the source of the Neolithic transition in Europe. But neither of the studies cited (Brace et al. 2005 or Ricaut et al. 2008) provide any evidence of affinities between Neolithic Europeans and Natufians. They simply repeat the theory that the two might be related. Culturally, there may have been some influence, but not biologically, as Pinhasi et al. 2004 and 2009 clearly demonstrate:

However, neither were clear affinities observed between Epipalaeolithic Near Eastern groups [Natufians] and any other Neolithic or Mesolithic groups. These results support a third scenario -- that the Epipalaeolithic population from which the first Anatolian farmers descended has yet to be discovered.... There is therefore no unequivocal evidence from biological morphometrics for local continuity between Natufian specimens and any of those from the Anatolian or Levantine PPN cultures. Statistical analysis of the Levantine populations indicates no obvious biological continuity between Natufian groups and their successors -- either the first Neolithic cultures of the PPNA or subsequently between the PPNA and the PPNB.

Figure 3 plots the first two principal co-ordinates of the craniometric distance matrix. The OTUs do not group according to any particular geographic or temporal pattern on the first or second principal co-ordinates. However, the first principal co-ordinate separates the archaeologically defined Neolithic OTUs from OTUs designated as Mesolithic plus the Natufian. Therefore, the principal co-ordinate analysis suggests that Neolithic and Mesolithic populations are biologically differentiated.

As a result, none of the Neolithic dispersal models shown in Figure 1 of the second study involve the Natufians.


Medieval and Modern Spain

The article mentions 14.6% and 8.3% Sub-Saharan African admixture in Medieval and Present Priego de Cordoba, Spain (respectively) from Casas et al. 2006, and then further down 7.4% in South Iberia, but those figures are nowhere to be found in the study. Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda took it upon himself (and others followed along) to add up frequencies of L, M and N and label them "Sub-Saharan", even though the authors only consider L1 and L2 to be evidence of Sub-Saharan admixture:

The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP [Medieval Priego de Cordoba]....

This is original research at its worst. Not only does it involve making calculations that aren't made in the study (which I was told is against Wikipedia Policy), but it completely ignores what the authors say and makes up its own rules.


I could go on pointing out flaws, mistakes, lies, original research and POV in this article, but I think the above covers all the main topics and more than suffices to show why it requires warning tags at the very least, but should really be deleted like it was before, and why Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda needs to be watched very closely in the future. --- Small Victory (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The problematic studies of Arnaiz-Villena

Response to user Inhakito asking why I deleted the section based on the genetic studies Arnaiz-Villena and those of Hajjej. I deleted that section for the simple reason that the claims made by Arnaiz-Villena and later by Hajjej in their studies about Greeks being closer to certain African populations then to other nearby European populations is totally contradictory to dozen of other genetic studies using superior methodologies that have found no evidence to support the astounding claim being made about Greeks in their studies. Arnaiz-Villena methodology has been criticized by many other geneticist such as Cavalli-Sforza, who even published a statement in regard to Arnaiz-Villena Jews/Palestinians study which has since been removed from scientific literature [4], which suffered the same methodological shortcomings has his other studies in which he stated his reported finding about Greeks and other genetic findings at odds with findings of the vast majority of other genetic studies in which Greeks populations were studied.

The conclusions about the relatedness of Greek and Sub-Saharan African populations put forward in these studies have seemingly found no acceptance in the wider field of population genetics studies. Fringe studies that all suffer the same methodology problems that are at odds with pretty much every other genetic study on a Greek and other European populations should not be included in this article at all in my opinion, and most certainly not as the section exist now in the article which fails to mention the criticism of these supposed finding by other geneticist, including some of the most prominent names in the field of population studies. A quick look at the archived talk pages for this article should make it obvious why I and others have routinely removed this material from this article.

The frankly ridiculous conclusion found in these studies are completely refuted by geneticist Costas D. Triantaphyllidis and his co-authors in their detailed analysis and damming critique of these studies which can be read here.

http://greek-dna-sub-saharan-myth.org/greeks-sub-saharan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrinoIV (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought this nonsense was over. I am going to investigate who put this staff back into the article after it had been removed in the past. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It was added back on 15 February 2014 by a 26-edit account against consensus. I didn't see it at the time, otherwise I would have reverted it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record the past discussions are in Archive 2: diff. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

POV dispute (December 2013)

Why does this article exist? What is the purpose of designating an article exclusively based purely on "African admixture in Europe" than just genetics in Europe? Also there is no articles on African admixture in Asia or South America or articles about Asian admixture in Africa. So it is obvious there was a agenda for this article and it was to promote a point of view in disguise. This point of view the author/author's are trying to promote by isolating exclusively "African admixture Europeans" is that indigenous Europeans aren't really that European basically "your not white, white people", "you don't exist your mixed". This is a unbalanced racially pointed topic. If the wikipedia wants to be balanced it will include articles about African admixture in Asia etc. or make the article a subcategory in Genetics of Europe or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.70.32 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I would like to see an article called Asian Admixture in Europe, for example, which is way much greater than the African admixture. But most interesting it is the way these studies are done: In places like England, were people are classified as white, black and so on, blacks are obviously not included in the study. In places like Portugal, were those racialist classifications are not done, all nationals are included, even people who may be mulattos. As a result you have these ridiculous results. By the way, here you have some pictures of the national teams of popular sports in some European countries. No more comments needed:

Spain

http://espaafutbolclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.republica.com/2012/08/12/espana-conquista-la-plata-tras-un-partido-muy-igualado-frente-a-eeuu-107-100_534823/

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1713277/0/mundial-balonmano/espana-dinamarca/campeon/

Italy

http://soccerplayerpict.blogspot.com/2010/07/italy-football-team.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_national_basketball_team_2011.jpg

England

http://blog.totalposter.com/2010/05/england-world-cup-soccer-team/

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/2LoyPESYmUa/Olympics+Day+2+Basketball/UGQtdoLNrV1

France

http://www.hothdwallpaper.net/wallpapers/hd/509587/france-soccer-team-wallpapers-1280x800

http://www.nbacircle.com/france-mens-basketball-team-roster-in-london-olympics-2012.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between African blood entering the European gene-pool, vs born-in-Africa athletes emigrating to European countries. Surely we should also have articles for "European admixture into Africa"? Wdford (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


I agree with some of the points above, plus a more detailed selection of samples should be done. People with ambiguous ancestry keep sending their samples (I even know about people with Middle Eastern ancestry sending samples as native of UK). An experienced geneticist would find clearly where someone is lying (either intentionally or not)about their ancestry. In Alcacer do Sal, there is minority descended from slaves (at least 2 families?) that´s put in isolation (the government determined so) and it has been said that they also sent their samples. How someone could tolerate this mistake? Such samples (and similar ones) should be sent back or used only for personal information, because it are useless to represent the local populations. And this country has a much lower population of black africans compared with France, Italy, Greece, UK and so on (even relatively). Plus, while in Portugal, the presence of africans and other foreigners keep declining, we still see africans arriving at other european nations, in big numbers. So in what should we trust?

Also some genetic markers tagged as SSA, can´t be associated necessarily with Negroids, since many are much older than the formation of this race (known until now). Sahara did had many cro-magnon populations classified as Caucasoid, therefore things can go either way. This subject needs clarification. Recently, for example, the mtDNA haplogroup L1b was assigned as of hunter-gatherer extraction and though still rare is the most common L haplogroup known in Iberia... So this show how complicated this subject is.

Plus, here are the results of a recent autosomal (entire genome) study:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555

«Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years.»

Now, I still think that samples supervision should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Some people have posted what they think it are non-caucasoid elements ancestry in Europeans from this study (http://dienekes.blogspot.pt/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.html):

Estonian ....... 13.2% Scottish ....... 12.5% Lithuanian ..... 12.4% Norwegian ...... 11.5% Icelandic ...... 11.3% Belorussian .... 11.1% Orcadian ....... 11.0% Czech .......... 10.9% Hungarian ...... 10.7% Ukrainian ...... 10.7% English ........ 10.0% Croatian ........ 9.5% French .......... 9.2% Pais_Vasco ...... 8.6% Basque .......... 8.1% French_South .... 7.8% Bulgarian ....... 7.8% Greek ........... 7.4% Tuscan .......... 6.7% Bergamo ......... 6.6% Albanian ........ 6.6% Spanish ......... 6.2% Sicilian ........ 4.4% Maltese ......... 3.1% Ashkenazi_Jew ... 3.1% Sardinian ....... 2.1%


But still more studies are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And where exactly in that LINK (Dienekes article) are these figures posted ? Agilulf2007 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, for not being more specific, but those results are based on this board:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SwmYsdrTrBA/Ur6VK7mKfmI/AAAAAAAAAUc/wNgf8ln11qs/s1600/Lazaridis2014_TableS12.7.png

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5354640/1/#new

And before someone stating now that Northeast Europeans are more Hunter-gatherer shifted, it should be noted that the study doesn´t account for recent admixture with Mongoloid groups, and that they are using Mesolithic samples like the La Brana, who was obviously admixed and it shouldn´t be used as representative of the local Epipaleolithic diversity (for example, just to give an idea there were 4 different local pre-neolithic mtDNA haplogroups found until now). Even someone with parents of different races (let´s imagine Germany-Japan)with mostly recent genetic extraction, could score more hunter-gatherer results using this method than a full European person with many true hunter-gatherer genes, just because the last one isn´t Asian shifted, since they are using a mixed example as representative of an hunter-gatherer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But the Numbers from that study EEF (early european farmer), WHG (west hunter gatherer) and ANE (ancient north eurasia) has nothing to do with whatever false ("non-caucasoid") numbers you were constructing earlier. EEF/ANE/WHG are a three-way mixture model from based on corpses of the mesolithic and neolithic found in Europe and Eurasia. Read the paper first before making absurd claims about it. And the opinions of certain members on a random forum are not a source. Agilulf2007 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had myself some doubts so wanted to confront different opinions. Anyway, by using that study method, you still can get flawed results by the reasons that I pointed above. And La Brana, was no way an example of Western European Epipaleolithic genetics. And hardly only one individual (or 2 it doesn´t matter) should have such broad designation (WHG). I see that many studies aren´t that unbiased or that ignore important facts, probably to fit a certain agenda. But implying things that aren´t supported is also not looking at what is posted on the boards and see which haplogroups and haplotyes are implied. We can find things on articles that authors don´t talk about and by pointing it, no one is necessarily lying.

The flagrant example of L1b in Iberia (in Iberia, L haplogroup is mainly represented by this main lineage), previously thought as a recent arrival and now found to be connected with pre-Neolithic arrivals (at least,a good if not most part of it) is something that confirms this tendency. Also I have read another absurd claims like implying that «L» haplogroup has necessarily some connections with Negroid race, when the Eurasian Eve, had herself a «L» haplogroup and when this haplogroup appear, much, much earlier than the oldest Negroid skeleton known.

But investigations keep going, hopefully something more will appear on the near future.


«Portugal is the only region in Europe where the Senegal and Bantu haplotypes are frequent. These may be associated with Portuguese naval exploits, including the Atlantic Slave Trade and the colonization of various African countries. »

This affirmation is completely non sense. One place (Coruche) is not representative for the entire Portugal . One study done in Coruche based on selected families with origin on the slave trade,likely isolated from the rest of the population, like the 2 families and relatives from Alcacer do sal (so many times quoted by trolls to joke about iberians) highly non representative of the portuguese population. Probably like less 1% of the entire population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

R1b1c

The R1b1c in Sardinia is M18 a clade that is absent in all sub-Saharan and other African populations; It was only detected in Lebanon, Sardinia and Corsica; Its ancestral clade is V88 and V88 clades are most common in sub-saharan Africa but R1b-V88 itself is not sub-saharan; All ancestral R1b clades stem from eastern Eurasia and V88 ancestor is P25 (ancestor of both V88 and M269) which in turn derives from its ultimate ancestor is M207 (R1b/R1a); Thus before R1b (P25/V88) entered sub-Saharan Africa (from Eurasia/NearEast/North Africa) it must have split into subclade M18 and moved along the Mediterranean whee it is only presence today; As for the distribution of V88 clades in sub-Saharan Africa {Cruciani et al 2010}: "In summary, our data indicate a significant male contribution from northern Africa (and ultimately Asia) to the gene pool of the central Sahel. The trans-Saharan population movements resulting in this genetic pattern would seem to mirror the spread of the proto-Chadic languages, and most likely took place during the early mid Holocene, a period when giant paleolakes may have provided a corridor for human migrations across what is now the Sahara desert."
Cruciani et al 2010: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n7/full/ejhg2009231a.html
note the complete absence of M18 in Africa (Table1.) Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In response; But Boattini et al 2013 did and he equally found R1b1c to be only M18 (2.4% / 82 samples); The images you have are not representing the specified subclades tested (or they were not tested) as also by R1b1a2 (M269); Some bloggers and forum users (Mr. Rocca) have more details from the Fraccalacci et al 2013 study and deceiphered for example (R1b-U152) frequency; Try to find these specific tables; Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In response; No exactly not; The V88 clades in the sub-Saharan Chadic speaking Areas came (directly) from North Africa (ultimately) from Eurasia (P25 being the ancestral clade); M18 which is a clade of V88<P25 must have already developed from V88 in the Near East (Lebanon) and spread west the Mediterranean to Sardinia and Corsica (along with Lebanon the only modern places where it exists) before V88's further expansion into North Africa and thus long before its migration than from there to sub-Saharan Africa; Agilulf2007 (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In response; I can only advise and refer to the Cruciani et al 2010 study - link and quote in my first post; Again, M18 (V88<P25) does not derive from sub-Sahara Africa because V88 does not derive from sub-Sahara Africa, V88 derives from P25 Eurasia and its clades spread into sub-Sahara Africa from Northern Africa (Cruciani et al 2010); M18(subclade of V88) is only found in the Mediterranean (complete absenty in Africa) and M18 is also the only V88 clade found in Corsica, Lebanon and Sardinia making M18 an isolated clade of V88; And its place of Origins (high molecular diversity) can thus only be found in these three Mediterranean areas most prob. Lebanon i.e. spreading (M18<V88<P25<M343) from Lebanon via a western route (Mediterranean); Isolated from the the major V88(<P25) route into North Africa and than south into the Sahal region; M18 is Mediterranean (V88<P25<M343) and does not derives from a V88 subclade of the Chadic speaking areas, it derives from V88 before it migrated south into the Sahal region >from Northern Africa< (Cruciani et al 2010) and ultimately stems from Eurasia (as all other R1b clades) via P25<M343; I really hope that you correct/delete that entry otherwise a third party will be included; Agilulf2007 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

P25 mutated in V88 among Chadic Speakers of Cameroon, where the highest diversity of this haplogroup has been found.

No, that is exactly incorrect; As Cruciani et al 2010 remarks In summary, our data indicate a significant male contribution from northern Africa (and ultimately Asia) to the gene pool of the central Sahel; One of highest diversity of V88 (V88*) is still in the Siwa Oasis (Berbers) Egypt further manifesting V88 origins outside sub-Sahara Africa in northern Africa with V88 ultimately stemming from <P25<M343 Eurasia (Cruciani Asia) to begin with; V88 and certain clades moved south into the Sahel region but M18 was definitely not one of them for it is completely absent in all of Africa; The most prominent subclade of R1b-V88 in sub-Sahara (Chadic speaking areas) is V69; At best M18 also originated in the Siwa Oasis from V88 and traveled north/west into the Mediterranean (Corsica, Sardinia, Lebanon) or it already originated in Lebanon (from V88) and traveled west into the Mediterranean; But what is very clear is that M18 is not (as you falsely assert) of a R1b-V88 clade from sub-Sahara Africa; It is from V88 of north Africa or Near East (deriving from P25<M343 Eurasia);Agilulf2007 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In response; The Siwa Oasis is surly not a bottle-neck from a south to north migration; It is a remnant of the original north to south migration (Cruciani et al 2010) and the migration must have been north to south due to the ancestral clades (P25<M343) emerging from eastern Eurasia (Cruciani Asia); M18 is a clade from V88 of that migration either already in Lebanon (Near east) or from (now extinct) Siwa Oasis / Northern Egypt; But M18 has nothing to do with the V88 clades (neither derived, nor present) that later migrated from northern Africa into the Sahal and Chadic speaking areas; Therefor your assertions are false and M18 is never (not in any study) described as a sub-Saharan clade because it simply isnt and Cruciani explains the migration of R1b P25>V88 from Asia to northern Africa exactly; So either you quote a study that states M18 as a sub-Saharan clade or you remove the blatantly false info; Agilulf2007 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The last response; The testing that was done, however clearly indicates a (R1b) migration from Asia (P25<M343) and a zero presence i.e. complete absense of V88(M18) in all of Africa; Thus M18 (the only presence of R1b1c in Sardinia) has nothing to do with Africa; And what you claim to be 'obvious' is in fact (Cruciani et al 2010), simply false; So do correct your false edits; Agilulf2007 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"See also" section

Hello, I have just reverted an unexplained deletion of related articles, sorted alphabetically. Probably worth keeping an eye on, guys. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.8 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Melroross's edits

Your "common sense" is shere POV; Just consult (look into) the studies cited and the data provided/obtained from those studies; You are destoring and deleting the data obtained (sourced material) from those studies cited: and that is not "common sense" but vandalism. Agilulf2007 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To: Agilulf2007 my common sense is simply that. I don't care how many "studies" you invoke here simply because I am sure those "studies" were not impartial and carry an old, deeply sad political agenda- the Spanish as a nation are obsessed with being considered "white" because everyone knows half of them are descendants of Arabs/Moroccans/Algerians. So your so-called official genetic study made in America, to top it all (Americans have a natural dislike for Hispanics, and by Hispanic I mean Spain and ex-colonies as they all share the same culture and language); only confirms what is quite obvious: how convenient it would be if "officially" the Spanish were "proven" to be less Arabic/North African than say... the Portuguese. Wow, how convenient that sounds. Plus and for some mysterious reason, the genetics start already in Galicia-Asturias and continue down to Portugal, thus "proving" that the Moors settled outside of the Castilian sphere of cultural and historical sphere of influence. That is the most ludicrous, FALSE and delusional "study" or more sinister, manipulated and politically motivated attempt I have ever heard of relating to Iberian matters. And we all know how easily offical studies can be and sadly ARE manipulated: pick the type of samples you want, multiply those and voila, the results can be fascinating! And in this case, quite preposterous! Native Galician-Asturian-Portuguese do NOT have more African admixture than people from Andalucia, Castille, Navarre, La Mancha, Valencia, Balearics, Catalonia. Quite to the contrary, and also according to Wikipedia sources (how can this work if it is full of contradictions?!) oddly enough, the Galician-Portuguese have a much stronger genetic and cultural link to the Celtic, Atlantic nations of Europe than any other region of Iberia. So, you sad, sad person whomever you are (and I have no doubt that user Agilulf2007 IS either Spanish or Hispanic), accuse me and others of vandalism, revert entries as much as you want; but we both know thetruth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melroross (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

If you want to change a lead which has been stable for a significant period of time, you need to take to talk and attempt to reach consensus and support for your edit. Thank you. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Asilah edit's

"1) I suggest you stop using sockpuppets since this does not help your cause and will simply get your IPs banned permanently. 2) If you want to change a lead you need to explain and convince your reasons on the talk page first and obtain consensus. 3) Your editing is extremely childish. Arguing that modern science has an anti-portuguese agenda aiming to taint the name of Portuguese people by questioning their racial purity is at best pathetic. I suggest you move on from Wikipedia and/or learn how it works.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)"

______________________________________________________________________________________


First i have no ideia who is melroross or whatever you say. Second, i just added some l markers (across Europe), with sources, all of them, why did you undo that?

Slovakia Slovakia 207 Malyarchuk et al. (2006) 0.97% England England 335 Achilli et al (2007) 0.60% Great Britain Great Britain 114 García et al. (2011) 0.90% Norway Norway 74 Passarino et al (2002) 1.40%

why did you report legit sources, Asilah? Modern science has no anti portuguese agenda, modern science proved and corroborates what I wrote, iberians score small 2% to 7% north-african berber and close to none/noise ssa. Of course, there is ignorance and erroneous conclusions in some of those studies, anyone with a basic knowledge about it can see that. The agenda is yours, that is why you undo facts. We are debating science, pathetic is your lack of know-how about it and your revert behavior of simple explanatory phrase and direct sources. That's intelectual disonesty, that's the real childish behaviour.Isildurada (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Of course, there is ignorance and erroneous conclusions in some of those studies, anyone with a basic knowledge about it can see that."

Please try to read on how wikipedia works, then return when you have understood the basic concept. Thanks. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African admixture in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Parties who want to implement changes to lead of article and are engaged in edit warring please discuss here and seek consensus prior to modification. Thank you.Farangizsaifi (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Farangizsaifi: I welcomed you on Wikipedia and posted a note on your talk page to help you as you're a brand new user in Wikipedia. You deleted it and didn't talk nothing with me, edit warring is when 2 users are not deciding whether to change or not in a page. The other user has been practically editing freely the page, that's not a stable version. It's also an anonymous user, which can change the IP in any moment. Anyways, that doesn't matter for me, i'm opened to talk. Just check the sources, Córdoba, Huelva and Sayago in Zamora. That's southwestern Spain and a small town in NW Spain. How can you say the entirety southern and western Spain ? That's completely inaccurate! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB Thanks for coming to the talk page. I am not a brand new user, I opened this account a couple of months ago when I forgot my password and have been an editor since 2006. In any case, that is the proper procedure on Wikipedia before implementing contested unilateral change on an article and starting an edit war. Please refrain from further similar reverts from stable version until you have agreed with other editors. I also note you seem to be changing your proposed version during your edit war when confronted with sources which typically implies there is some POV rationale here (I may be mistaken but, in my experience, that is often the case). Regards. Farangizsaifi (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


@Farangizsaifi: please read this! You're 1 edit away to break the 3 RR rule of wikipedia! See Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement --

Yes but the page was edited by an anonymous IP with no factual data to prove it. Just check the sources buddy, the sources don't say "western" and "southern" ! This is my main concern, as it's mentioning 2 places: Córdoba and Huelva (southwestern Spain) and Sayago (northwestern Spain). There isn't any source saying or showing that the admixture is bigger on the whole western or southern Spain, as that's very inaccurate!

1st. The page was edited by an anonymous user. And even if it had more time, it was a false edit. Just check the sources, the sources don't say that! 2nd. Thanks for your thank on my edition. I appreciate your rep, I surely think that we can achieve a point! If anyone wants to put "western" and "southern" then that person should ellaborate why, or post a source proving it. The sources actually don't talk about that but mention single zones/cities/towns, as it's represented not only on the sources but also below in the chart of this own Wikipedia article.

Regards! TechnicianGB (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB I'm not getting involved for now. Discuss the available sources with the editor/s in question who have every right to edit with an IP and that's it. That is how wikipedia works - you discuss before pushing contested changes. There are various supporting sources by what I see and it requires discussion on talk page. Patience and wait for other editors to respond! There is know hurry and for all I know you are right. I haven't looked into the sources thoroughly. There is no hurry. I kindly request you to self revert, you have already violated the 3RR and I don't want to take this to an admin since I have no actual dispute with you. Best.Farangizsaifi (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So you didn't look on the sources but you're just reverting my edits because you want, even without looking that i'm correcting false information, don't you? (you basically admitted it) Where is your constructive edit as per WP:BRD? And wasn't me who did a 3 RR rule but you, I warned you and you are accusing me now. This is officialy senseless!
Admins are taking care of the page so don't mind. Goodbye! --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Just remember you have violated WP:BRD by initiating an edit war against the stable version and have pushed through your version against other editors (not me) by requesting your version to be protected upon your 4th revert in 24 hours (EXCLUDING SELF-REVERTS- violation of WP:3RR). This is a breach of wikipedia rules. I indeed don't look at sources, I am not involved. I am looking at Wikipedia rules and your behavior which is currently below par. Kindly self-revert to stable version when this page is unprotected and wait for whoever you are edit warring with to respond. It has been extremely difficult for me to drag you to the Talk Page, but you still don't understand that discussions and consensus reached PRIOR to changing the stable version. Please read WP:STABLE. Best,Farangizsaifi (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Image

It seems there is no other sourced image on Commons showing African admixture in Europe - it is excellent we have this one! It maps aggregated prevalence of African Haplogroups in Europe (Mtdna L, U6 and M1 and Y-Chromosome E-M81) in Europe as stated in the study. It is invaluable to this article and adds enormous value. I understand "race" is a touchy subject to certain hit and run editors on wikipedia who feel their "whiteness" is being questioned on a map but WP:JDLI or digressions on why you disagree with the conclusion of an illustration summarizing the result of a peer-reviewed scientific study is just not enough. I see this article has been semi-protected in the past. It should be so again if this continues. 58.147.136.50 (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue of directionality has been addressed in the caption of the image. So no issue now. 58.147.136.50 (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A weirdly capitalized word

"From the same study, estimates of Sub-Saharan African admixture proportions in Europe using STRUCTURE:"
Why is STRUCTURE capitalized?--Adûnâi (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Belatedly, STRUCTURE is the name of a computer program and it is supposed to be all caps. Megalophias (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TNT

The entire article suffers from WP:SYNTH. In the context of archaeogenetics, "African" vs. "non-Africa" means sub-Saharan African, while geographically North African populations are part of the Western Eurasian lineage. It has to be made clear that sub-Saharan admixture is under discussion, or people will keep adding North African material.

Regarding sub-Saharan African admixture, the initial derivation of non-African anatomically modern humans from sub-Saharan Africa is also outside of the scope of "African admixture". Derivation is not admixture. "African admixture" refers to possible post-LGM admixture from sub-Saharan Africa. There appears to be evidence that this has indeed happened at some point in the early Holocene, but it doesn't concern "Europe" specifically, but the pre-Neolithic West Asian lineages, which have later reached Europe. Therefore, sub-Saharan African admixture to Western Eurasians would be a more pertinent title for this. There has been further sub-Saharan admixture to North Africa in the historical period, presumably via Arab slave trade, and this has in turn become part of the North African admixture in those parts of Mediterranean Europe historically under Muslim rule. This is technically on topic, but it is more of an admixture within an admixture and might more pertinently be discussed at Genetic history of North Africa. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

An absolute genetic separation between populations in north Africa and sub-saharan Africa does not appear to exist, so African admixture in Europe is appropriate as a page title. Most populations from the north carry at least some genes from those from the south, and in some areas vice versa too. This seems to have been the situation for a very long time because the earliest modern human remains excavated in north Africa and genetically analyzed were recently found to harbor some genes from an extinct southern population [5]. African admixture in Europe therefore could theoretically have been derived from anywhere on the African continent, including the north. 109.71.42.11 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that it is not so clear that African admixture always means sub-Saharan for every source, I think it sometimes does? Furthermore, the sub-Saharan component non-Mediterranean is always important in any such discussion? Anyway, I am not so sure about some of the edits you have made which seem to sweep that problem under the table rather than explain it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually African means African. It is difficult to claim that Haplogroup E-M81, originating in East Africa is of "Western Eurasian lineage".81.43.27.76 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181964/?tool=pmcentrez
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe/Archive_2&oldid=866240081"