Donate Now
Goal amount for this month: 180 EUR, Received: 10 EUR (6%)
By donating, you not only support the continued existence of this site, you also improve this site in various ways, by making it affordable for ForumBiodiversity to upgrade the server with better hardware and licensed non-free proprietary software, but also motivating the staff to work harder. ABF will always be free of charge (gratis) to use. However, if everyone donates a small monthly amount, it makes a tremendous difference for the forum's overall quality in the long haul.
It is contradictory, on the compare genes tool East Asians are further away from Nigerians than Europeans (by a slight margin), on the global similarity points East Asians are closer to Nigerians than Europeans are (again by a slight margin).
This seems to agree that Asians are slightly more similar to Africans, than Europeans are...but they said the similarity is not "significant".
It appears they tried to account for "European" (meaning Caucasian) back migration into West Africa (likely from Morocco and Algerian area primarily into present day Niger, Nigeria, etc). They did say they had a problem tracing West African migration into Europe, which could affect the European sample.
They also talk about the fact that there is far more genetic drift in Asia than in Europe, which is obvious, because Europeans were primarily a subset of Eurasians and East Asians have been settled in their area (well roughly...meaning Mongoloids they are testing were settled in North Eastern Asia) longer than Europeans were settled in Europe...obviously there has been significant Mongoloid migration South and into places like Japan in the last 5-10 thousand years. They accounted for this, they said it was significant, but if I'm reading it correctly, it did not really change the findings much.
That being said, they also claim that there is no European "inbreeding" significance when compared to East Asians, which I find very interesting. You would think Europeans are fairly inbred, far more than Asians anyway (we are all inbred to some extent, humans are not nearly as genetically diverse as Chimpanzees).
Anyway if you read further down from the pages I cite, you can see they re-run the numbers when you take migration into account and when you do not.
Also keep into account, the authors estimate that Europeans and East Asians split genetically (or went into periods of relative isolation) only about 17,196 years ago, which is long after people were settling Europe, which says there was a lot of gene flow back and forth (I'm guessing through Central Asia).
Anyway to answer your question, the study found that Europeans and East Asians are about equal divergent from the average unmixed black West African and pygmies.
I guess it will depend on the individual, as they said, there was gene flow between Europe and Africa and they also spoke a bit about gene flow from Africa into Asia, my guess based on proximity is that depending on the individual West Africa (the tribe or region they are from) some might be closer to Europeans and some more close to East Asians, on average they are going to be equi-distant.
Be careful about 23&me as well, many people put their ancestry as "West African" but they are African American or Afro-Caribbean, etc. They obviously have a much higher likelihood to have affinity to Europeans, than a typical West African...although some Caribbeans, especially, might have a stronger affinity to East Asians, due to AMerindian Admixture on various islands in the Caribbean.
Last edited by JackKnightstick; 2010-03-08 at 15:02.
Blue,red and black (FAR LEFT)squeres are african
light blue is spanish(european)
And red crosses is east asian
Purple/green (FAR RIGHT)is american indian
Locking at this europeans is closer to africans, and american indians is the most distant.
Blue,red and black (FAR LEFT)squeres are african
light blue is spanish(european)
And red crosses is east asian
Purple/green (FAR RIGHT)is american indian
Locking at this europeans is closer to africans, and american indians is the most distant.
Whats your thought?
Well I think Amerindians is obvious because they went through a serious cultural bottleneck, no one dispute that.
So they are a very very small subset of whatever Asian groups lived in Siberia/Central at the time and moved East. They are going to be the most distant from Africans due to the fact they went through this bottleneck and were relatively isolated from Eurasia as well as Africa so got little to no gene flow from Africa in the last 20,000+ years.
but as far as far as Spaniards...I don't think they are a good European source population because Iberians are probably the Europeans with the most affinity to Africa (although it is slight)...due to migration (as spoke about in the study I posted) better to sample Germans, Danes, maybe Irish.
Still I agree that it appears that in most of the data you posted Europeans appear closer to Africans, in some significantly closer. In none of them did East Asians appear closer.
I can't answer the discrepancy. I just wonder what SNPs they were using and how many. A lot of this comes down to interpretation of the SNPs, not even the actual data set collected. Which is why I got two wildly different Admixture (Autosomal) results and I am seeking a 3rd and 4th opinion right now.
Genetic drift is the change of a gene frequency due to random chance or I guess selection.
Its like if a gene is bread out of a population but still present in a neighboring related population. Usually the longer a population has been separated from its parent population with limited admixture between the two, the more genetic drift you will have...its just a natural consequence of separation.
Genetic drift is the change of a gene frequency due to random chance or I guess selection.
Its like if a gene is bread out of a population but still present in a neighboring related population. Usually the longer a population has been separated from its parent population with limited admixture between the two, the more genetic drift you will have...its just a natural consequence of separation.
OK, but those it mean increasing genetic distance(from africa) over time and more mutations.
One more question, have mongoloids been seperated from africa longer than caucasoids?
I read caucasoids where the last to split from africans.
OK, but those it mean increasing genetic distance(from africa) over time and more mutations.
One more question, have mongoloids been seperated from africa longer than caucasoids?
I read caucasoids where the last to split from africans.
By the way, any comments on my sources?
No, Mongoloids were the first.
The first folks to come out of Africa, went South along the coastal areas all they way into Australia, but they were a minority. The majority went thought the Middle East, into Central Asia. It seems somewhere in Central Asia or the Siberian Steppe, there was a split again, the ancestors of Europeans went West (I'm sure there were already some folks who stayed in the Middle East who eventually also trickled into Southern Europe as well)...anyway...to answer, no.
Asians (depending on what kind of Asians, I guess East Asians) have been out of Africa as long as the majority of Europeans ancestors, because Europeans primarily came out of a joint Eurasian group. So it is like we both go to the grocery store together from my house. You go to a park and I go to my friends house. Who has been out of my house longer? Me or you?
So you can see Caucasoid split from Africans at the same time East Asians did.
The only difference is Europe, due to proximity, has gotten more gene flow from Africa on its border regions, than East Asians.
As far as your links...they are nice charts, but here's the reality.
As I said it depends on "interpretation of data" you can put up charts all day but that might not tell you much unless you understand the methodology behind the creation of them.
Scientist look at data and interpret or try to recreate process. Science is a process. Scientist don't look at "results". What we are really looking at is "results" and you are trusting the "process" was correct or the best process to getting the information you seek. That is not necessarily the case. To be honest I have no real opinion...but if I had to guess, I think that if you are testing Southern Europeans and East Asians, Southern Europeans are going to slightly closer to Africans (but both groups are quite distance)...if you are testing Northern Europeans and East Asians, both groups will likely be equi-distant.
So it depends on what Europeans you are sampling. The East Asian sample...if it be Japanese, Korean, or Chinese should not vary as much by region...there might be some variation in North and South Chinese, I'm guessing Southern CHinese would be even more distant from black Africans than Northern Chinese.
Thats exactly what i think to, but you did not answer my first question, do genetic drift increase genetic distances(from africa) and mutations, thanks again.
Are asians closer to africans than europeans?
Originally Posted by KRANG
Reply With Quote