Northern European
33.1% British & Irish
1.1% Scandinavian
58.5% Nonspecific Northern European
1.1% Ashkenazi
5.7% Nonspecific European
0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American
0.5% Unassigned
***
Doug McDonald's take on same data:
This is likely just plain English, but could also be
Spain= 0.381 Irish= 0.619 or
Irish= 0.674 Italian= 0.326 or
French= 0.634 Irish= 0.366 or
Irish= 0.734 Tuscan= 0.266 or
and the small and weak Mideast on the chromosomes does indicate
probably a small Mediterranean part. I see no Jewish.
Doug McDonald
13 comments:
Standard:
99.4% European
Northern European
33.1% British & Irish
1.1% Scandinavian
58.5% Nonspecific Northern European
1.1% Ashkenazi
5.7% Nonspecific European
0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American
0.5% Unassigned
***
Speculative:
99.8%
European
Northern European
63.6% British & Irish
5.7% Scandinavian
3.4% French & German
25.3% Nonspecific Northern European
1.1% Ashkenazi
Southern European
0.1% Nonspecific Southern European
0.6% Nonspecific European
0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
< 0.1% Native American
< 0.1% Nonspecific East Asian & Native American
< 0.1% Sub-Saharan African
< 0.1% Nonspecific Sub-Saharan African
0.1% Unassigned
***
Conservative:
97.6% European
Northern European
4.8% British & Irish
0.1% Scandinavian
64.7% Nonspecific Northern European
0.1% Ashkenazi
27.8% Nonspecific European
0.1% East Asian & Native American
0.1% Yakut
2.4% Unassigned
***
One question I'm posting around the internet:
I'm particularly interested in how to interpret the Ashkenazi element. Given my known background: rural, poor, north of England, this is a surprise.
I note that the 1.1% figure is the same in both Standard and Speculative views, almost suggesting that the Standard view on this point is speculative. Other numbers change between the Standard and Speculative views but not the Ashkenazi figure. It's also peculiar that they include the Ashkenazi figure under the European heading, and centred on Germany, where I would have expected even Ashkenazi Jews to be predominantly Middle Eastern genetically. Is that not so?
Any advice on how much confidence I can have in this figure? Or further steps I can take to verify it?
***
Answers I receive will be posted here in the comments thread. More comments and advice welcome.
AJL at Anthrogenica forum has been helpful:
Ashkenazi genetics are a mix of European and Near Eastern, but by most accounts significantly more Near Eastern than European ... Your 1.1% Ashkenazi is a little more than trival (i.e. probably means something) but is still not very much. Ashkenazi ancestry is always listed as European by 23andme and as Middle Eastern by Family Tree DNA, so you cannot read any more into it than that it is identified as being there. In the case of someone who is predominantly Central or Eastern European, a little Ashkenazi might mean the genes run Christian European > Ashkenazi, but in someone primarily "nonspecific Northern European" it could likely indicate a slight Ashkenazi contribution from somewhere like the Netherlands or Germany from perhaps the Middle Ages.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?517-23andMe-Ancestry-Composition-Results/page31
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?517-23andMe-Ancestry-Composition-Results/page32
Nothing yet at anthroscape:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5016167/39/
Or Stormfront:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1029036/
where I'm posting here, too:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1012896-2/#post11957027
I've sent my file to Doug McDonald.
At tWn, Tan got into a discussion about haplotypes with a CI.
Three men and a dog follow CI yet they're everywhere on nationalist and antisemitic sites making normal look kooky. It smells.
Now because Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis etc. was always so insistent that autosomal and multi-loci testing to reveal 'genetic structure' and genetic kinship were much more relevant to biopolitics than mere Y and mt-DNA signatures, and because that makes sense to me, I never gave much consideration to haplogroup.
Having got my 23andme results, I'm giving the matter of haplogroups some study for the first time. What does my I2-ness mean for me and say about me?
At tWn, I asked:
Bill Krapek and Tan both suggest that haplogroups code for characteristics.
What I don’t understand is why Y-DNA (which I believe I inherited from my father from his father from his father and so on ad inf.) and mtDNA (from my mother via her mother and her mother before that etc.) is any more important than whatever coding I inherited from, say, my father’s mother’s father’s mother’s father’s … contribution (where every possible combination like this vastly outnubers the Y and mt DNA).
Isn’t it the the sum total of our ancestors and how they combined that makes us, or our ethnic groups, what we are?
Is it merely that Y and mt-DNA are more easily identified by genetic testing, or that these haplogroups tell a more simplified picture of ancient human migrations? Or is there indeed something special about Y and mt-DNA?
http://thewhitenetwork.com/2014/03/11/ann-coulters-radical-rhetoric/#comment-74150
***
I know Tan did shows devoted to this subject so maybe he'll have some answers. Anyone else?
CI?
CI = Christian Identity, Lurker.
Cheers mate!
Anonymous, you have my best wishes. I hope you get things straightened out.
Doug McDonald is a chemist from the University of Illinois who was one of the pioneers of biogeographic analysis, offering this service before 23andme for example, and his database for comparisons is larger than theirs.
http://dna-explained.com/2012/09/09/doug-mcdonald-on-biogeograpical-analysis/
The consensus on forums like anthrogenica and eupedia is that McDonald tends to be more accurate.
In my case, where 23andme were only able to say 33.1% British and Irish, McDonald was confident enough to look at the same data and say 'plain English' -- which is correct as far as it's possible to say such a thing.
I intend to try eurogenes and dodecad, too. The more comparison the clearer the results.
I have 1.1% that 23andme labelled Ashkenazi, but that McDonald said was generic Med/middle eastern and which did not match his Jewish samples.
The 23andme categorisation is odd for reasons already mentioned, including, "the 1.1% figure is the same in both Standard and Speculative views, almost suggesting that the Standard view on this point is speculative. Other numbers change between the Standard and Speculative views but not the Ashkenazi figure."
I think it's reasonable at this stage to think that I have an unidentified med/middle eastern element in my make-up, equivalent to as if one of my 4 million or so great X20 grandparents c.1290 at the time of Edict of Expulsion were Jewish.
Mr Dean,
I appreciate your cordial reply.
VC
Thank you anon. When we pay 'em just enough to review just an assumed representative portion of our DNA, I suppose 'rounding up' and ascertainment bias are part of the deal.
***
Ashkenazi=Ashkenazi. The principal parent-populations and their relative contributions to the group as a whole and individuals will become clearer as time goes by.
***
I think all of the major BGA providers are quite accurate and broadly similar. When you consider that the conventional wisdom is 'race does not exist' and yet all the BGA companies will reliably identify a typical person's ethnic background somewhat closely and improving, these companies are not the proper target of criticism.
***
There is nothing odd about people wanting to identify with a tribe. That's human nature and the historical and contemporary global norm. People who pooh-pooh that kind of human bond are the peculiar ones.
Cheers, DanielJ.
McDonald was generally the second call, but he gets so many requests he's had to start rejecting most requests unless certain qualifications apply: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_BGA_project
I will get around to looking at eurogenes and dodecad eventually.
Post a Comment