PDA

View Full Version : My Genetic Geneaology



feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:02 AM
On 23 and me, I was delighted to find 100% European (although this is extremely crude and includes non-Europeans) as well as negative Ashkenazi Jewish on the ancestry finder tool. (with exception to three strands from Argentina, Russia, and Slovakia in multiple grandparents but this still doesn't necessarily mean you have jewish ancestry). My global similarity plot was also quite consistent with my said ancestry.

Some of the interpretation studies showed some funny but consistent results. So far I have done Eurogenes and Dr. Doug Mcdonald. Both of them show African admixture, and on Mcdonald it shows up in the middle eastern category on the map but it is still called African for some reason. There is the possibility that it is noise related to some stray Med ancestors or I am afraid that I have a jewish or Sub-Saharan slave ancestor somewhere. Regardless of whether I am racially mixed or not, there is something rotten in Denmark with the Doug Mcdonald results because they don't make much sense.

Please don't ban me yet because of this. I am still trying to sort things out and my family tree is not consistent with it, but I did want to post this because I feel a little bit guilty about calling myself Germanic under these circumstances and would like to know what others on here think. These tests can be very "noisy" so it is advisable to use caution when interpreting them in regards to your identity.

Mcdonald

109303

109304

109305

109306

Eurogenes

32.59% Northeast_Euro
0.29% Sub-Saharan
0.00% North_African
0.52% South_Asian
53.15% West_Euro
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% South_Siberian
0.00% North_Asian
0.00% East_Siberian
0.00% East_Asian
1.55% East_Mediterranean
1.73% Middle_Eastern
8.38% West_Asian
1.79% Volga-Ural

I really don't understand why I am getting so much Middle Eastern and African. It is remotely possible that it could make sense if it were like 10% of my whole ancestry, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that nowadays.

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:12 AM
My 23 and me results: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=21978

Basic Global Similarity:

Northern Euros: 67.85%
Southern Euros: 67.71%
North Africans: 66.37%
West Africans: 63.28%
Central Africans: 63.33%
Eastern Africans: 63.495
Southern Africans: 63.39%
Near Easterners: 67.11%
Central Asians: 66.89%
Siberians: 66%
East Asians: 65.74%
Oceanians: 65.58%
North Americans: 66.06%
South Americans: 65.99%

These are very average scores for a Northern European, with near eastern and central asian being a tad bit higher than most but again that could just not mean anything due to the higher similarity between them and Europeans.

Hammer of Thor
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:21 AM
Hey Feisty,

I'm not sure if you know this or not so if you do please bear with me. The red dot on the world map from Dr. McDonald is your European average, the blue dot is the Mid-East average, and the green dot is the overall average.

Normally, Dr. McDonald tests the small non Euro segments to see how strong or real they are by tweaking the parameters of his program. I can't say if it is indeed non Euro admixture or not. I would message him about it. Dr. McDonald could possibly explain its origin and the confidence level regarding the segment.

On the Eurogenes k=14 David said to ignore anything below .3%, so you are within this threshold. Also, I ran the data files from Genomes Unzipped through the k=14 calculator and several, such as JXA, show a little over 3% on the Mid East. He has never shown any Mid-East on any other assessments including the Euro DNA Calculator from Dienekes (he scored 100% NW Euro).

I have never shown any Mid-East or Ashkenazi in any of the projects in which I have taken part and I scored 2.32% on the Mid East, so I wouldn't be too worried. I have a friend who never shows any Mid-East either come up with 2.42%.


Anyway, I hope this helps. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about it. Message Dr. McDonald and see what he has to say before you get yourself too worked up about it.

Best of luck,
Hammer of Thor

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Hey Feisty,

I'm not sure if you know this or not so if you do please bear with me. The red dot on the world map from Dr. McDonald is your European average, the blue dot is the Mid-East average, and the green dot is the overall average.

Normally, Dr. McDonald tests the small non Euro segments to see how strong or real they are by tweaking the parameters of his program. I can't say if it is indeed non Euro admixture or not. I would message him about it. Dr. McDonald could possibly explain its origin and the confidence level regarding the segment.

On the Eurogenes k=14 David said to ignore anything below .3%, so you are within this threshold. Also, I ran the data files from Genomes Unzipped through the k=14 calculator and several, such as JXA, show 3% on the Mid East. He has never shown any Mid-East on any other assessments including the Euro DNA Calculator from Dienekes (he scored 100% NW Euro).

I have never shown any Mid-East or Ashkenazi in any of the projects in which I have taken part and I scored 2.32% on the Mid East, so I wouldn't be too worried. I have a friend who never shows any Mid-East either come up with 2.42%.


Anyway, I hope this helps. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about it. Message Dr. McDonald and see what he has to say before you get yourself too worked up about it.

Best of luck,
Hammer of Thor

I know .29 is enough to be noise, but it is strange that I get it on both tests.

Oh I'm not worked up about it, history has already taken place lol, just a bit alarmed perhaps. He did in my email mention that the 100% European one was more accurate and that I am clearly some sort of Northern European, so perhaps he saw that on the first analysis and thought it was funny so he tested it again, but I'll shoot him another email.

Hammer of Thor
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:36 AM
This segment could be showing up intermittently when they change the parameters, which would lead me to believe that it is noise, but you never know.

Even if it is real the likelyhood of passing down a segment that is .29% is very slim.

Have you tried the DIYDodecad? This might also help you figure things out. You can also do a segment by segment analysis with that tool, which could be useful.

Let me know how it turns out. Talk to you later.

Hammer of Thor

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 01:43 AM
This segment could be showing up intermittently when they change the parameters, which would lead me to believe that it is noise, but you never know.

Even if it is real the likelyhood of passing down a segment that is .29% is very slim.

Have you tried the DIYDodecad? This might also help you figure things out. You can also do a segment by segment analysis with that tool, which could be useful.

Let me know how it turns out. Talk to you later.

Hammer of Thor

I agree, it would be quite impossible to have that much, but I think it is possible since I am female that my XX chromosomes could get magnified somehow and that it is in fact real in some way whether it's just middle eastern or a black ancestor.

I have been trying to figure out how to use it, but I'm having a difficult time downloading it onto my computer. Perhaps I could try the library computer, but I don't really like loading my raw data on there. But I will try again.

And btw guys I feel really stupid for spelling genealogy "geneaology." Please don't think I came out of a funny pumpkin patch lol, I was eating something when I made this thread.

Erich
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 04:21 AM
I had my genome sequenced a few weeks ago. Eurogenes doesn't always seem consistent. I have 0% SSA but higher Mideast than you for Eurogenes. I have nothing African or Asian for McDonald, but I show Mideast which isn't unusual for Europeans anyway. He said my position on his PCA plot was around Western Germany. If you send me your data, then I could run it through DIYDodecad.

Sigurd
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 04:21 AM
Umm, it's a genetic test, and not an ancestry test, for which haplotype testing is NOT for. Actually, for such a test getting back relatively little non-European is still pretty impressive. You're actually getting back a result getting interpreted as more "European" than Hitler's sample was and anyone calling him out on it will take it up personally with me. :P

Middle-Eastern and African ancestry in today's Germanic populations probably goes back to a stray ancestor from the Roman Empire who was of slave background. The reason it's not so consistent with your listed ancestry is also pretty obvious, as a female you can only test out mtDNA for yourself and not Y-DNA; that is lest you involve a close male relative in the equation (typically a sibling).

As such you're looking at what? Perhaps some British ancestor around 200CE who took a wife from another province whose great-grandfather was a freed slave that got around much. It doesn't really say that much really, I'd worry a little less. ;)

Erich
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 05:27 AM
Hitler's haplotype, E-V13, probably expanded into Europe during the Bronze Age with the Greeks and Thraco-Illyrians. It's a definite European marker. They ignorantly or purposely used it as a tool in German newspapers. It is leftist propaganda. About 10% of Austrian males have it by one study.

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 07:10 AM
Umm, it's a genetic test, and not an ancestry test, for which haplotype testing is NOT for. Actually, for such a test getting back relatively little non-European is still pretty impressive. You're actually getting back a result getting interpreted as more "European" than Hitler's sample was and anyone calling him out on it will take it up personally with me. :P

Middle-Eastern and African ancestry in today's Germanic populations probably goes back to a stray ancestor from the Roman Empire who was of slave background. The reason it's not so consistent with your listed ancestry is also pretty obvious, as a female you can only test out mtDNA for yourself and not Y-DNA; that is lest you involve a close male relative in the equation (typically a sibling).

As such you're looking at what? Perhaps some British ancestor around 200CE who took a wife from another province whose great-grandfather was a freed slave that got around much. It doesn't really say that much really, I'd worry a little less. ;)

This doesn't have to do with haplotypes and supposedly non-European haplotypes don't necessarily mean non-European ancestors. I'm just figuring out how extremely rare my haplotype is, all the people who have it on 23 and me are relatives. My results are

I don't think it is from a random slave ancestor if it is real, it is too much for that, even if it's magnified. It's probably jewish ancestry if it is, jews can definitely have Egyptian ancestors, and that's as far into Africa as it goes anyway.

My interpretome results are coming out suprisingly clear at basic settings, esp the ancestry painting so maybe it's noise. I cluster around the English populations and have neanderthal ancestry supposedly haha.

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 07:47 PM
Wow, I just got contacted by a third cousin and he has helped me track down part of my mom's family tree. We are related by his g-grandparents and my g-g-g grandparents. And that is a paternal line, that doesn't even include the rare haplogroup we both share which we are probably related hundreds of generations back from. My g-grandmother's parents were Quakers from North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I haven't been able to do much tree tracking yet but their origins appear to be English with a touch of Welsh.

That is amazing technology. I never would have found the lead to put together my mom's family tree if I hadn't gotten that.

Sigurd
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 07:58 PM
That is amazing technology. I never would have found the lead to put together my mom's family tree if I hadn't gotten that.

Yes, that is one thing such pages ARE useful for, that is linking to distant relatives and the degree of relation, as that DOES help to say something about ancestry. Haplotype marking alone DOES NOT. ;)

That being said Egypt is not "as far into Africa as it gets" --- Egyptians are phenotypically and genotypically closer to Europid/European populations than to Negroid/Sub-Saharan populations. Also, if it went back to a noble line, it might well be as Greek as it gets, notice Cleopatra as the last descendant of Ptolemaeians. :P

Hesse
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 08:03 PM
I have not found any connections with my relative finder matches, so I'm somewhat concerned

I take that back, I did find one, but it's like an 8 or 9th cousin relationship between a predicted 3rd to 6th cousin

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Yes, that is one thing such pages ARE useful for, that is linking to distant relatives and the degree of relation, as that DOES help to say something about ancestry. Haplotype marking alone DOES NOT. ;)

That being said Egypt is not "as far into Africa as it gets" --- Egyptians are phenotypically and genotypically closer to Europid/European populations than to Negroid/Sub-Saharan populations. Also, if it went back to a noble line, it might well be as Greek as it gets, notice Cleopatra as the last descendant of Ptolemaeians. :P

Oh I know haplotype marker does not, but ancestry painting does. They look at your whole genome.

I didn't mean Egypt was as far into Africa as you can go, I mean that is as far into Africa as my Mcdonald results show. Egyptians are North Africans/middle easterners. My whole point was that it is probably middle eastern ancestry rather than some random black slave ancestor if it is real.


I have not found any connections with my relative finder matches, so I'm somewhat concerned

I take that back, I did find one, but it's like an 8 or 9th cousin relationship between a predicted 3rd to 6th cousin

That probably just means your ancestors and relatives don't have a lot of kids. The grandmother we are related through had a big family.

Hesse
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 08:26 PM
That probably just means your ancestors and relatives don't have a lot of kids. The grandmother we are related through had a big family.

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't say that I got few finder matches, I actually have quite a lot, around 400. But what I'm saying is that, I am not succeding at finding paper trail ancestral connections (common ancestors) between my relative finder matches, and that's where I have concerns. For example, one person who was predicted to be a 3rd to 6th cousin we share a common ancestor, but it's more like at the 8-9th cousin level, if you get what I'm saying.

feisty goddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 08:56 PM
No, that's not what I meant. I didn't say that I got few finder matches, I actually have quite a lot, around 400. But what I'm saying is that, I am not succeding at finding paper trail ancestral connections (common ancestors) between my relative finder matches, and that's where I have concerns. For example, one person who was predicted to be a 3rd to 6th cousin we share a common ancestor, but it's more like at the 8-9th cousin level, if you get what I'm saying.

Well I don't know what you're worried about, it's not common to find such a thing anyway because it is usually very complex to figure out with relatives that distant, you're lucky if you do. There is no chance that you got mixed up with another person, just stop worrying about it now, it is very silly. Please post this in another thread as well, this has nothing to do with my subject.

feisty goddess
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 05:54 AM
Alright, here are my DIY results. Erich said that in another test he got something like 90% Northern European and 10% Polish under a better termination condition than the default. From my understanding that means that the Polish may have been causing some noise to come up.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=109307&d=1316922900

Erich
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 06:21 AM
No, I said used a different termination to derive the component proportions. Then I inputted those values to yield the Oracle results. The closest distance results aren't necessarily the most representative.

feisty goddess
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 06:12 PM
No, I said used a different termination to derive the component proportions. Then I inputted those values to yield the Oracle results. The closest distance results aren't necessarily the most representative.

Forgive me, I don't really understand what that means.

Here is something a race scientist said on another site in response to my results. If you score some west asian, that could cause the North African to come up, so really it is very hard to tell whether it is actually a real jewish ancestor or not. Mcdonald said that Med often score some middle eastern and middle easterners often score some african even though all their grandparents are from their said country in the directions for interpreting it:

Genetic diversity, especially with West Eurasia, is very clinal, so think of those results as geographic coordinates.

If you score, say, 95% Irish and 5% Armenian, then that doesn't mean you're 5% Armenian. It's just one of a number of combinations possible to tell you where you cluster along the West Eurasian cline. Another one might be 99% Southeast English, and 1% Greek, and that would mean the same thing as the first one.

The reason this is possible, is because Europeans and West Asians diverged very late, so it's very difficult to separate them completely in most tests. In ADMIXTURE runs, even Northern Europeans will score some West Asian, Near Eastern or whatever.

The best way to check if you really do have some West Asian admixture, acquired within a reasonable timeframe, maybe via a Jewish ancestor, is to compare your results to people of very similar ancestry to yours. Then check whether you have an inflated level of similarity to fairly unmixed West Asian individuals, like Armenians or Georgians.

Naglfari
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Eurogenes

32.59% Northeast_Euro
0.29% Sub-Saharan
0.00% North_African
0.52% South_Asian
53.15% West_Euro
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% South_Siberian
0.00% North_Asian
0.00% East_Siberian
0.00% East_Asian
1.55% East_Mediterranean
1.73% Middle_Eastern
8.38% West_Asian
1.79% Volga-Ural

I really don't understand why I am getting so much Middle Eastern and African. It is remotely possible that it could make sense if it were like 10% of my whole ancestry, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that nowadays.

The African is likely noise as it is so small. The East Med and Mid East if real are probably ancient in origin. A Roman soldier, a Crusader, a Norman as they had territory in the Mid East could have brought back a woman from that part of the world.

Nothing here to fret over.

feisty goddess
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 07:24 PM
The African is likely noise as it is so small. The East Med and Mid East if real are probably ancient in origin. A Roman soldier, a Crusader, a Norman as they had territory in the Mid East could have brought back a woman from that part of the world.

Nothing here to fret over.

Polako said to pretty much ignore all values under 1%. Oh yeah, mideast and east med doesn't necessarily mean anything in people of my ethnicity if it is under 5%. Even Northern Europeans are not that genetically distinguishable from near easterners. It doesn't mean that it couldn't still come from a jewish ancestor though. These sort of tests vary from sibling to sibling anyway because of the way genes are so they are not perfectly exact in terms of telling percentages. However, the Northeast European does sound spot on, because I get about 1/4 Polish and Scandinavian put together from on grandparent, plus a little bit on my mother's side and some Scandinavian ancestors in my Scottish lineage, so I think it makes perfect sense.

Erich
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 07:34 PM
Forgive me, I don't really understand what that means.

Here is something a race scientist said on another site in response to my results. If you score some west asian, that could cause the North African to come up, so really it is very hard to tell whether it is actually a real jewish ancestor or not. Mcdonald said that Med often score some middle eastern and middle easterners often score some african even though all their grandparents are from their said country in the directions for interpreting it:

Genetic diversity, especially with West Eurasia, is very clinal, so think of those results as geographic coordinates.

If you score, say, 95% Irish and 5% Armenian, then that doesn't mean you're 5% Armenian. It's just one of a number of combinations possible to tell you where you cluster along the West Eurasian cline. Another one might be 99% Southeast English, and 1% Greek, and that would mean the same thing as the first one.

The reason this is possible, is because Europeans and West Asians diverged very late, so it's very difficult to separate them completely in most tests. In ADMIXTURE runs, even Northern Europeans will score some West Asian, Near Eastern or whatever.

The best way to check if you really do have some West Asian admixture, acquired within a reasonable timeframe, maybe via a Jewish ancestor, is to compare your results to people of very similar ancestry to yours. Then check whether you have an inflated level of similarity to fairly unmixed West Asian individuals, like Armenians or Georgians.

Who is this race scientist? Several Europeans have more West Asian than you even double yours but no African.

For the Jew question run Ancestry Finder on these settings. Set minimum segment size to 5cM to tick the other boxes. These are my results.

feisty goddess
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 07:50 PM
Who is this race scientist? Several Europeans have more West Asian than you even double yours but no African.

For the Jew question run Ancestry Finder on these settings. Set minimum segment size to 5cM to tick the other boxes. These are my results.

I don't know, I'd rather not say his name for his privacy, but he works on the eurogenes project. .29% isn't that much, it is perhaps a little high, but many pure Europeans do score something like .1%. Those tests are not done on that many people so you can't be certain that it isn't extremely uncommon.

When I do that it says not declared Ashkenazi jewish at 20.4% of my genome (also when I uncheck the US/Canada box), but when I download my data in a database, a couple of the strands say "true" like I said before from very likely places Argentina, Slovakia, and Russia.

Erich
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 08:16 PM
LOL, he's well known and not a scientist. He even had an account here (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1166).

It appears you're not Jewish. The Slovakian and Russian segments probably match due to your European Polish ancestry which some Jews have.

feisty goddess
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 08:31 PM
LOL, he's well known and not a scientist. He even had an account here (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1166).

It appears it's not Jewish. The Slovakian and Russian segments probably match due to your European Polish ancestry which some Jews some have.

Exactly, hence why I wasn't alarmed by it when I first got my results.

It is interesting though that no east asian ever came up. I thought I would have that if any admixture given my more noticeable cheekbones but based on the results they are probably due to old, washed up West Asian genes.

Erich
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 08:39 PM
West Asians like pre-Turkic Anatolians and Caucasians from Caucasus usually have compressed zygomatic bones.

Hamar Fox
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 02:10 PM
Polako is a moron and should be ignored. I don't know why anyone would worry themselves over something he 'found'. McDonald, I don't know. But genetic testing is still far from being accurate. If you'd taken an AncestryByDNA test 10 years ago, you'd have had much worse values, as did everybody, because it was a bladder infection of a test, not because people really were 10% SSA and whatever other nonsense it used to find. In ten years, your currect findings will likely be redundant.

My personal recommendation is Dodecad, since it's free of any kind of ethnic agenda (unlike anything connected to that scum Polako), is quite sensitive, and produces the results that are more consistent with history and physical anthropology.

Naglfari
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 02:51 PM
My personal recommendation is Dodecad, since it's free of any kind of ethnic agenda (unlike anything connected to that scum Polako), is quite sensitive, and produces the results that are more consistent with history and physical anthropology.

He has a bias towards Mediterranean. According to Dodecad the average Brit is 22% Mediterranean. http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html for spreadsheet link. So I would be wary of his results also.

In the end they are both hobbyists doing this on their own and their results and are not subject to the peer review scientific process.

feisty goddess
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 03:01 PM
He has a bias towards Mediterranean. According to Dodecad the average Brit is 22% Mediterranean. http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html for spreadsheet link. So I would be wary of his results also.

In the end they are both hobbyists doing this on their own and their results and are not subject to the peer review scientific process.

Good point, my DIY results showed something like that, which is the average for what Germanics get. Theses studies aren't really there to help people figure out their racial background, they are there to prove someone's thesis, like that all Northern Europeans have med genes.

Hamar Fox
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 03:21 PM
He has a bias towards Mediterranean. According to Dodecad the average Brit is 22% Mediterranean. http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html for spreadsheet link. So I would be wary of his results also.

Well, I don't particularly care about 'Mediterranean' admixture, since obviously all Caucasoids are going to have elements of each other in them (simply by virtue of having recent common descent). I was thinking more in terms of non-Caucasoid admixture. Polako is a liar, having claimed that Britons are more racially mixed than Poles, while in reality the most mixed British sample I've seen (and I've seen lots) was still 5 times less mixed than Dodecad's Polish sample (and I've seen charts in other places to similar effect, only not with figures provided). If you follow him in discussions, you'll notice also that he's obsessed with proving Poles are racially pure, and that Western Europeans (and their colonial descendants) are more mixed than they actually are. He's vermin and should never be treated as an authority on anything.


In the end they are both hobbyists doing this on their own and their results and are not subject to the peer review scientific process.

Dodecad is more than one person, as far as I know. Dienekes is linked to it, sure, but Dienekes is a lot more respectable than Polako is -- though, granted, he probably has pro-Med biases. That said, Dodecad consistently shows S. Europeans as being more mixed than NW Europeans, so on account of that, I feel fairly safe that Dodecad is intellectually honest (although, of course, their methods may be less than perfect).

Hesse
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 03:57 PM
He has a bias towards Mediterranean. According to Dodecad the average Brit is 22% Mediterranean. http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/06/dodecad-v3-results-are-rolling-in.html for spreadsheet link. So I would be wary of his results also.

Just out of curiousity, what are average DIY Dodecad numbers for a Northern European? You did mention that Brites get 22% Mediterranean on average, what do Northern Europeans typically get in the other populations (although it may vary, but an average) ?

Thusnelda
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Well, I want to point to the fact that speculations and assumptions about the distant heritage (if there´s a distant specific heritage at all) of users without any evidence is wrong and doesn´t belong into the thread or in any other thread. We don´t support this "rumor business" (the border to calumny is fluent) and I want it to stop now. I also want to add that moderators can restore deleted posts from any day back if needed but I don´t see any reason for further investigation now.

Regardless of the question if the accusation of Freya is true or not (which we don´t know and so the debate about it is futile) I think we should concentrate on facts and evidences like the genetic genealogy results of feisty who prove that she´s clearly (Northern-)European and belongs to the board by culture, ethnicity and mindset.

Hamar Fox
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 04:09 PM
Just out of curiousity, what are average DIY Dodecad numbers for a Northern European? You did mention that Brites get 22% Mediterranean on average, what do Northern Europeans typically get in the other populations (although it may vary, but an average) ?

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1098133&postcount=11

I made a whole thread about it, but the specific post above should answer your questions.


Well, I want to point to the fact that speculations and assumptions about the distant heritage (if there´s a distant specific heritage at all) of users without any evidence is wrong and doesn´t belong into the thread or in any other thread. We don´t support this "rumor business" (the border to calumny is fluent) and I want it to stop now. I also want to add that moderators can restore deleted posts from any day back if needed but I don´t see any reason for further investigation now.

Regardless of the question if the accusation of Freya is true or not (which we don´t know and so the debate about it is futile) I think we should concentrate on facts and evidences like the genetic genealogy results of feisty who prove that she´s clearly (Northern-)European and belongs to the board by culture, ethnicity and mindset.

I haven't read the last few pages of the thread, and I'm not going to take sides. But I think everyone should be mindful of the damage they might do to the self-concept of others, especially when we're dealing with such a sensitive topic. I'm not saying FG would do this, but I'm sure some people have been driven to harm themselves over internet attacks of a deeply personal nature.

Thusnelda
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 04:12 PM
I haven't read the last few pages of the thread, and I'm not going to take sides. But I think everyone should be mindful of the damage they might do to the self-concept of others, especially when we're dealing with such a sensitive topic. I'm not saying FG would do this, but I'm sure some people have been driven to harm themselves over internet attacks of a deeply personal nature.
Exactly, and that´s why I´m going to delete any further post who tries to revive the debate about that assumption. Please return to original topic, everyone. :)

Olavssønn
Tuesday, September 27th, 2011, 02:07 PM
Please don't ban me yet because of this. I am still trying to sort things out and my family tree is not consistent with it, but I did want to post this because I feel a little bit guilty about calling myself Germanic under these circumstances and would like to know what others on here think. These tests can be very "noisy" so it is advisable to use caution when interpreting them in regards to your identity.

Well, how many of the Skadi-members are 100.0000000000% Northern European? None, if I shall do a guess.
Do you look, feel, think or behave like a Negro? If not, then I don't think it's any need to worry about such a small non-European segment in that ancestry-painting. ;)

Here's my results from Doug McDonald, I was lucky enough to get 100% European on this painting, similar to my 23andMe-results (which I will post later in the "DNA Tests Results"-thread):

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2433/ancestry.png

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5199/europeanplot.png

Erich
Tuesday, September 27th, 2011, 11:32 PM
Polako is a moron and should be ignored. I don't know why anyone would worry themselves over something he 'found'. McDonald, I don't know. But genetic testing is still far from being accurate. If you'd taken an AncestryByDNA test 10 years ago, you'd have had much worse values, as did everybody, because it was a bladder infection of a test, not because people really were 10% SSA and whatever other nonsense it used to find. In ten years, your currect findings will likely be redundant.

My personal recommendation is Dodecad, since it's free of any kind of ethnic agenda (unlike anything connected to that scum Polako), is quite sensitive, and produces the results that are more consistent with history and physical anthropology.

Polako has a superiority complex. He has several times tried to make Poles look German but ironically bashes Germans. He and his Polish friend Wojewoda are wackos that consider Poland the Proto-Indo-European homeland. He thinks that he's a proto-pastoralist straight out of the Andronovo and Timber-grave.

From the horse's mouth

No wonder then, that Poland is mentioned as one of the likely Indo-European homelands (along with east Germany and the Czech Republic) by several authors. Clearly all this isn't just my "uneducated" imagination.Dr. McDonald does analyze the X chromosome and checks for Amerindian admixture unlike the other two projects. I don’t quite know his methodology, but I think his results have some problems. He lists some possible pairs of populations in proportions. Since these pairs just so happen to fit, doesn’t mean they’re right like for example Jewish. He has offered his opinion to people saying it's likely Jewish when they don't have a single match any Jew. Since no German data is publicly available, his best fit examples for me included English + some other Near-East populations like Georgians and Armenians in various proportions.

feisty goddess
Tuesday, September 27th, 2011, 11:42 PM
I got a reply back from Mcdonald, he said that it is Middle eastern, not African. Here are his words:

Its 6.7% Mideast, not African. Usually these small Mideast numbers simply indicate

little pieces from way way back.

I don't know if it is in my family trees or not, but I don't have any minescule trace of that influence in my family, in terms of phenotype or culture, but I can't say it's impossible to have it very far back. What Mcdonald says is not a certain thing though, nor do any of these genetic tests prove me to be pure white, but they are pretty good indicators, better than the max research I can do on my family trees without photos of very distant relatives or anything like that.

There is one thing worth mentioning. I do have very thick, wavy hair, but it's strands are extremely fine and soft like a nordic's. Some people I've asked say this is just an old gene in anglo (british isles) people. It is quite rare from what I've seen, most obstensively pure whites with a lot of curly hair have something that leans more toward an afro.

feisty goddess
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 04:19 AM
Well, how many of the Skadi-members are 100.0000000000% Northern European? None, if I shall do a guess.
Do you look, feel, think or behave like a Negro? If not, then I don't think it's any need to worry about such a small non-European segment in that ancestry-painting. ;)

Here's my results from Doug McDonald, I was lucky enough to get 100% European on this painting, similar to my 23andMe-results (which I will post later in the "DNA Tests Results"-thread):

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2433/ancestry.png

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5199/europeanplot.png

There definitely is such a thing as 100% European, but it's less common in ethnically mixed colonial people, because they have more chance of getting questionable influences because their ancestors come from so many different regions of one country and nationalities. I'd say probably about 10% of whites (depending on where you go) have solely European influences from the get go. My results are at least all caucasian. Some middle easterners are caucasians, which are roughly similar to Europeans, but they are not Europeans.

Olavssønn
Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 11:00 AM
There definitely is such a thing as 100% European, but it's less common in ethnically mixed colonial people, because they have more chance of getting questionable influences because their ancestors come from so many different regions of one country and nationalities. I'd say probably about 10% of whites (depending on where you go) have solely European influences from the get go. My results are at least all caucasian. Some middle easterners are caucasians, which are roughly similar to Europeans, but they are not Europeans.

Yes, there are certainly a lot of people with pure European ancestry, but I haven't seen one single person on the internet coming out as 100% Northern European in the more detailed ancestry-analysis which operates with more than one European component.
Most Northern European results I've seen are absolutely predominantly Northern, but there's also components showing up which are more dominant in Southern Europe and similarly.
That doesn't mean we are not Germanics, of course, and for all I know, these smaller non-Northern components could very well have been present in even the ancient Germanics.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't go saying you are not Germanic or Northern European anymore just because of some other, minor influence showing up in these tests.

feisty goddess
Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 09:05 PM
Yes, there are certainly a lot of people with pure European ancestry, but I haven't seen one single person on the internet coming out as 100% Northern European in the more detailed ancestry-analysis which operates with more than one European component.
Most Northern European results I've seen are absolutely predominantly Northern, but there's also components showing up which are more dominant in Southern Europe and similarly.
That doesn't mean we are not Germanics, of course, and for all I know, these smaller non-Northern components could very well have been present in even the ancient Germanics.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't go saying you are not Germanic or Northern European anymore just because of some other, minor influence showing up in these tests.

Good gracious, I never said I don't identify as Northern European or Germanic anymore. I just wasn't sure how the people on this forum would feel about my results, so I offered them to give their opinions provided they understand how genetic tests work.

Olavssønn
Tuesday, October 4th, 2011, 01:34 PM
Good gracious, I never said I don't identify as Northern European or Germanic anymore.

No need to feel upset, I just gave you my personal opinion as you wished. :thumbup


I just wasn't sure how the people on this forum would feel about my results, so I offered them to give their opinions provided they understand how genetic tests work.

Exactly. When judging someones "germanicness" I'd first and foremost take a look at their physical racial characteristics and their way of behaviour, of course.
I don't think I'd exclude anyone because of a few percents of non-European ancestry as long as this didn't affect their racial qualities as mentioned above.

The Aesthete
Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 05:13 AM
A Germanic North Western European of course

feisty goddess
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:43 AM
No need to feel upset, I just gave you my personal opinion as you wished. :thumbup



Exactly. When judging someones "germanicness" I'd first and foremost take a look at their physical racial characteristics and their way of behaviour, of course.
I don't think I'd exclude anyone because of a few percents of non-European ancestry as long as this didn't affect their racial qualities as mentioned above.

I dislike it when others try to judge my emotions from what I write on a computer screen, but I suppose it's human nature. I am not upset by what you said, just reacting zealously to it. Of course behavior and appearance are the first things you should judge someone by, but genealogy and genetics certainly have some importance. For example, I wouldn't want someone with a bunch of native American admixture, no matter how blonde and good looking they were. I think if little non white ancestry percentages that come up on these gene test are non-traceable and non-visible, then they can't be considered for that though. Except in certain cases like if a person has some siberian or east asian on there, and they have obvious lappic influences that can't be traced, then that is something you can judge them by.

Middle eastern and south asian are very common admixtures to show up for a mixed ethnic European. The south asian is just an ancient washed up gene that spread from the vedic ages, it doesn't mean anything. The middle eastern and west asian is a little questionable, but again all Europeans have those genes in some form, and English people tend to have higher percentages of that, although they don't have anything recent of course, it's just ancient. Now, it could mean something in terms of a mischling jewish ancestor somewhere, but it's impossible to discern from a gene test since Europeans have similarities to them, those things have to be determined by your family tree, unless it's too high of a percentage for someone with their said ancestry, which it's not. The only reason I was really worried about it was because I thought it was African, but he was picking up middle eastern, and the SSA admixture on dodecad and eurogenes is very small and shouldn't be taken seriously, although it could be an indicator of a stray AA ancestor, but looking at my family tree, I don't see how that's possible. The best possible explanation for these admixtures is that they have already been there for thousands upon thousands of years and are the product of old, washed up mixing between Northern Europeans and Meds who had some kind of questionable influences. My SSA level is apparently at the same amount of certain British groups I may be descended from, and it is not due to race mixed people getting on there and skewing the results.

Hesse
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:48 AM
Of course behavior and appearance are the first things you should judge someone by,

That seems quite shallow.

Are you sure that's what the Bible wants us to do, judge people based solely on their appearance? For example, some can be not so great looking but have an admirable personality and character

I think we should leave the judgement to the Holy one above us


Except in certain cases like if a person has some siberian or east asian on there, and they have obvious lappic influences that can't be traced, then that is something you can judge them by.

If they can't be traced, than what's the point in judging them by it?

Granraude
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:54 AM
What the hell has that Judean book to do with judging "sub-races" on appearance? I find it quite logical to look at the appearance.

Hesse
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:55 AM
What the hell has that Judean book to do with judging "sub-races" on appearance? I find it quite logical to look at the appearance.

I thought she meant judging people in general

And I am guilty of judgement myself for that comment above. Everyone is guilty of judgement to some extent

feisty goddess
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 01:15 AM
That seems quite shallow.

Are you sure that's what the Bible wants us to do, judge people based solely on their appearance? For example, some can be not so great looking but have an admirable personality and character

I think we should leave the judgement to the Holy one above us

For fleas sake wallflower. Please try to put what someone is saying in context before you make ridiculous comments like that. Someone's appearance is a very valid argument for their racial purity, in terms of subracial traits. I'm not talking about esthetic requirements like proportion and pretty eyes or nose, it's unrelated to the discussion. Although those are also very valid reasons to judge a potential mate for your own happiness and attraction, but they don't really have anything to do with racial hygiene.

Also, why do you assume everyone believes in that dangerous, hypocritical nonsense? You can't expect everyone to want to bow down to something that clearly doesn't exist. What you're saying (judging someone by their character) does not have to come from the bible either, it has to do with being a caring/considerate/benevolent person, unless you don't really mean it and are doing it because you have faith in something mystical.

Hesse
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 01:24 AM
For fleas sake wallflower. Please try to put what someone is saying in context before you make ridiculous comments like that. Someone's appearance is a very valid argument for their racial purity, in terms of subracial traits.

Not necessarily. Maybe "judgement" in regards to subracial traits when someone experienced and knows what theyre doing is classifying, but it sounds like you have not accepted me as a Northern European, and that is why I am disappointed. Genealogy and genetics certainly overrides appearance, and I refuse to believe that my ancestors are racially mixed, because they aren't. They are German.

feisty goddess
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 01:29 AM
Not necessarily. Genetics certainly overrides appearance, and I refuse to believe that my ancestors are mixed.

Well, if that gene test overrides the importance of your subracial appearance, you're certainly in trouble. Refusing to believe something despite logical evidence is just denial. Not saying you are denying anything, but that is not a healthy attitude, certainly not for a Germanic preservationist. You are perfectly fine subracially from what I can see, so I don't even know why we're having this discussion.

Hesse
Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 04:07 AM
Well, if that gene test overrides the importance of your subracial appearance, you're certainly in trouble. Refusing to believe something despite logical evidence is just denial.

Well, in this case the logical evidence is that all my ancestors were European. My genealogy agrees, for I have traced back my family tree quite far and I don't see anything to support your belief that I am not pure. You seem to be hell bent in beleiving your little lie about me which is unsubstantiated. You want to see my family tree? I can PM it to you if you would like.

And on a different note, I certainly fully disagree with your idea that subracial classifications of a person is a better indicator of ancestry than both traditional paper trail genealogy and DNA testing.
If you think that subracial appearance is better at determining a persons heritage than the cold hard facts (paper trail genealogy, DNA testing) then how will anyone ever know if they have non European admixture or not? If someone (as an example) has a fully Bavarian family tree and their DNA proves it, but an ancestor had somewhat non white looking eyes due to genetic adaption and variation, then is that individual forced to not think of themselves as Bavarian, but a non European of some kind?