Genetic distances between European and world populations

[pinguin]

Well, this is an aproximation, but you can deduce the following. SS Africans are a lot closer to Europeans than to Native Americans.

[Graeme]

That Wikipedia diagram is a little simplistic. What about the Middle Eastern groups, Lebanese, Palestinians and so on. I am sure they are closer to the African end of the Caucasoid group than the Italians. Indians and Iranians both have Africans descendants living in their countries today. The Makrani have African admixture. With Amerindians, their ancestors in Asia, the Siberians and the NE Asians had Caucasoid admixture before Europeans landed in the Americas but no sub Saharan ancestry. Amerindians should be placed closer to Europeans because of that admixture.

Please no bullshit about Olmecs and Africans. Keep that in those bullshit forums.

[pinguin]

.... Or maybe that there's SSA admixture in Native Americans, either due to pre-Columbian contact or due to mixing after colonization (i.e. the Native Americans samples aren't that native).

Pre-Columbian contact is impossible. Africans never invented anything beyond the truk to cross the Atlantic. How could they have reached the Americas? Swimming

[Don Keebals]

Don’t know how relevant this is to the topic. I remember reading that in Africa two tribes living close by are more diverse genetically than all Europeans taken together. Is it a scientific reality or the scientists were bashing it.

[Grasshoppa]

That Wikipedia diagram is a little simplistic. What about the Middle Eastern groups, Lebanese, Palestinians and so on. I am sure they are closer to the African end of the Caucasoid group than the Italians. Indians and Iranians both have Africans descendants living in their countries today. The Makrani have African admixture. With Amerindians, their ancestors in Asia, the Siberians and the NE Asians had Caucasoid admixture before Europeans landed in the Americas but no sub Saharan ancestry. Amerindians should be placed closer to Europeans because of that admixture.

Please no bullshit about Olmecs and Africans. Keep that in those bullshit forums.

Imo, all neighbor joining trees are simplistic. I don't trust em, in favor of PCA plots and structure diagrams. One would think that, perhaps the Iranians are placed farther away in this case because of Asian (Oceanian/East Asian) admixture (due to proximity). And, for example, Indians have significant Asian component, according to 23andme. I don't think it's wrong, it just doesn't tell the whole story.

[Graeme]

Well Don, all humans are overwhelmingly the same at least on the SNP level where 1% has uses for categorizing humans into geographical regions and consequently into differences that can be described as racial. That includes all humans. So it depends what you are comparing, SNPs show almost identical genomes for all humans.

[Game Theory]

Due to ascertainment bias in studies with Europeans samples The Game takes all SNP studies on Europeans with a grain of salt un til SNPs from all geographic regions are better represented in these studies, not just SNPs primarily typed in Europeans.

[Graeme]

I don't consider there is a Eurocentric bias in the results of random selections of various ethnic groups. The bias is in the choosing of which groups are to be used as a reference. Why the Americans, the Mormons? Why the French Basques? Why no Greeks? Why no Anatolian Turks? Why no Albanians? It is not so much Eurocentrism but the idea that the baseline for Europeans are certain NW European ethnic groups. Even Southern Europeans are compared with those people. Who made those people up north, the exemplars? There are no normal Southern Europeans in the European list. Sardinians and the Basques are really freaks, Tuscans and Bergamo Italians are more Central Europeans genetically. The North Russians, and the Adygei, WTF!

The bias is more Nordish than Eurocentric.

[PolskiMoc]

Is there a similar study, but with Native Americans, Japanese/Chinese and SSA (Yorubas)? What always stroke me as weird in some papers I read was that the Fst distance between JPT/CHB and YRI was higher than between Native American groups and YRI. It seems to say something about when Mongoloids appeared (after Humans went to the Americas). Or maybe that there's SSA admixture in Native Americans, either due to pre-Columbian contact or due to mixing after colonization (i.e. the Native Americans samples aren't that native).

Sub Saharan Africans did not inhabit a single island right off the coast of Africa first.

Portuguese inhabitated every major Sub Saharan African island first in the West from Cape Verde down.

Indonesians first settled Madgascar.

it is more likely that the Yorubas could have had contact from the Other side.

[ghostface]

only .0006 between Germany and the UK, where were those samples taken?

I figure its not NW Germany given the closeness to the Czechs and Slovaks, my interest is piqued