Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always hear this phrase. 21st century DNA technology can tell the difference between the British and the Irish, it can tell you the difference between European descendants. The Spanish and Protgueses are brothers and sisters, so are the French and Germans, but they are all different from Italians and Russians.
When people say "white people" this is removing your European ethnicity to just a broad generalization. The Irish and the Spaniards are not white people, they are Irish and Spaniards. The same goes for any Europeans.
When you are not 100% European, they say your are multi ethnic, but being a mixture of European DNA, such as Russian Italian is multi ethnic too since you're not 100% of either.
I always hear this phrase. 21st century DNA technology can tell the difference between the British and the Irish, it can tell you the difference between European descendants. The Spanish and Protgueses are brothers and sisters, so are the French and Germans, but they are all different from Italians and Russians.
Actually, it can't tell the difference with much accuracy. There is no DNA which is totally unique to one area of Europe and if you look at the descriptions and maps of the different categories for a DNA test, you'll see there's a ton of overlap.
For example, Ancestry.com says I'm 55% British while FTDNA says I'm 0% British. This is because the British category is genetically so similar to the Scandinavian and West Europe ones and I have ancestry in all three categories. So in my case, my British, Scandinavian, and German DNA is indistinguishable. It's true that the more distant areas are more genetically different and unlikely to be mixed up - the most northern parts of Europe and the most southern parts are very distinguishable. But everything in between is a mixed bag and sometimes impossible to tell apart.
Quote:
When people say "white people" this is removing your European ethnicity to just a broad generalization. The Irish and the Spaniards are not white people, they are Irish and Spaniards. The same goes for any Europeans.
People are still allowed to have national identity, of course. But genetically, sorry to burst your bubble, they are not different enough to claim they are not both white.
Actually, it can't tell the difference with much accuracy.
Odd because it matched my three ethnic groups which are contained in my verbal ancestry, and told to me from my parents. So for me, it was highly accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK
Actually, it can't tell the difference with much accuracy.
There is no DNA which is totally unique to one area of Europe and if you look at the descriptions and maps of the different categories for a DNA test, you'll see there's a ton of overlap.
For example, Ancestry.com says I'm 55% British while FTDNA says I'm 0% British. This is because the British category is genetically so similar to the Scandinavian and West Europe ones and I have ancestry in all three categories. So in my case, my British, Scandinavian, and German DNA is indistinguishable. It's true that the more distant areas are more genetically different and unlikely to be mixed up - the most northern parts of Europe and the most southern parts are very distinguishable. But everything in between is a mixed bag and sometimes impossible to tell apart.
I don't think I said one group is totally unique, I said it can be distinguished with accuracy.
Ancestry says you're 55% British and FTDNA says you're 0% British, but Ancestry tells you how many people they have tested (195), and FamilyTreeDNA does not, and I have their familyfinder test which matches my Ancestry.com test. What does FTDNA say you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK
People are still allowed to have national identity, of course. But genetically, sorry to burst your bubble, they are not different enough to claim they are not both white.
They are not different enough to claim they are not both white? White is the color of a cloud, it is the color in a crayon box.
A Spaniard is not a French person. An Italian is not British, nor Irish. Over half of the 195 people tested in Ireland, over half have 95% of DNA tracing to the region of Ireland.
There is no "telling the difference." DNA autosomal testing cannot do this. There are only "markers" found more common within populations. However, all markers of all variations are found within ALL populations just more common in some than others.
Also, boundaries in Europe were changing, populations migrated and boarders broadened or narrowed. The population studies and profiles used in today's DNA ancestry profiling and inference are modern day, not ancient. When you have a White person who has let's say tests 61% Irish ancestry in autosomal, is not telling them that they are Irish. It is stating that 61% of that persons SNP's examined are closely related to or more common (WHEN COMPARED) to the Irish profiles used for inference in ancestry.
If you are a White person from America with Northwestern Euro ancestry, you are pretty pinned in the correct geographical location if you shown 61% Irish ancestry and thought you may have been primarily Southern European/Eastern European. Most people come back correctly defined within populations in a broad category; European, African, East Asian (includ. Native American). Native American and East Asian has no gradient and both are very difficult to tell apart. Native American DNA is Asian based. If only Asian people are used in a profile, Native Americans will lump with the E. Asian profile, however if you add only Native American, Asians will lump with Native Americans. If both are used, they for the most part will separate however, Native Americans to varying degrees will still carry the East Asian signal and some more than others show large amounts of E Asian in their autosomal profile. As profiles are removed or added, assignments can change, however geographical are pretty accurate, sub-regional should be not be taken too literally and change your identity so to speak. Tests can side on err but for many people is very accurate with their known ancestry.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 11-15-2015 at 09:12 AM..
......Over half of the 195 people tested in Ireland, over half have 95% of DNA tracing to the region of Ireland.
Modern day populations. No one knows today what peopled existed in Ireland thousands of years ago or what markers they carried. When people are used in ancestry profiling, they are selected due to "claimed" lineage, usually 4 grandparents born in Ireland. They are tested, and outliers are filtered out.
For example, if they test 300 people and high frequency markers; 150-come back ABC, 50-come back DEF, 50-come back GHI. ABC will be dubbed the IRISH marker for statistical exercises. Other populations may also carry the ABC marker but at a lower frequency. There are Irish people who don't carry the higher frequency Irish marker found in the sample base. However does not mean they they don't trace their lineage to Ireland.
We need to remember, in the grand scheme, there is not such a thing as an "Irish DNA" or an "Irish marker." These are mathematical assignments from isolated samples. Not all of Ireland has been sampled for variation(s) within the populations.
Odd because it matched my three ethnic groups which are contained in my verbal ancestry, and told to me from my parents. So for me, it was highly accurate.
Different tests can be more or less accurate for some. For me, 23andMe.com was the most accurate... I tested with them third and last - if I'd tested with them first, I might have thought "this is very accurate" and not tested with the other. That doesn't mean the science itself is universally accurate.
In fact, the reason 23andMe is most accurate for me is because they have "Broadly" categories. I have a certain amount of DNA they placed as "Broadly Northwestern European", which means it is not unique enough to any area more specific than that. They are the only company which is honest about some DNA not being unique enough to narrow it down further.
Ancestry.com also have a percentage range if you expand the details of the category, not just one hard percentage number. This is because they run several different analyses and then average all the results out to give you one percentage. The range shows you the lowest and highest percentage results you had among their various analyses. So if you tested with them, you can see just how imprecise the results are. Sometimes, the range can be quite large. What do your ranges tell you?
Quote:
I don't think I said one group is totally unique, I said it can be distinguished with accuracy.
And I didn't say one group is totally unique, I said there is no DNA which is 100% unique to one region of Europe. The results are determined by comparing your DNA with sample groups of people who say all four of their grandparents were born in the same region. Specifically, they look for certain combos of SNPs - but there are still times when a certain combo of SNPs in your DNA can be found in the sample groups from two or more areas.
There is technically no such thing as "British DNA" or "Scandinavian DNA", etc. All the test results are really telling you is "this percentage of your DNA was most similar to the DNA of our particular sample groups from that region".
Quote:
Ancestry says you're 55% British and FTDNA says you're 0% British, but Ancestry tells you how many people they have tested (195), and FamilyTreeDNA does not, and I have their familyfinder test which matches my Ancestry.com test. What does FTDNA say you are?
FTDNA:
0% British Isles
34% Scandinvian
26% West/central Europe
20% Southern Europe
3% Finland/Siberia
12% Asia Minor
5% Eastern Middle East
Ancestry.com:
55% Great Britain
2% Scandinavian
5% Europe West
31% Italy/Greece
1% Finland/Northwest Russia
2% Caucasus
1% Middle East
23andMe:
16.7% British & Irish
4.6% Scandinavian
17.4% French & German (West Europe)
18.9% Italian
9.3% Broadly Southern European
24.3% Broadly Northwestern European
8.5% Broadly European
Honestly, the only thing they all basically agree on is that I'm about 63% Northwestern European, and 37% Southern European. So, just like I said, they can tell North vs South apart pretty well, but not much more than that.
Quote:
They are not different enough to claim they are not both white? White is the color of a cloud, it is the color in a crayon box.
Sure, but isn't that getting a little pedantic? Plus, skin color is not necessarily a good indication of origins. Just by looking at someone, can you tell whether they are from Ireland, or Scandinavia? Of course not! The Spanish might stereotypicly have darker skin, but not always. Check out these fraternal twins who have one black grandparent: Meet the biracial twins no one believes are sisters | New York Post - would you EVER guess that the girl with pale white skin and red hair has one black grandparent?
I'm not saying there isn't value in knowing ones different European origins. But it doesn't mean I'm not white. Race and ethnicity are two different things. My race is white, my ethnic ancestry is British, Italian, German, and Norwegian.
The DNA tests also have Africa broken down into different regions. They are still black/African.
Quote:
A Spaniard is not a French person. An Italian is not British, nor Irish. Over half of the 195 people tested in Ireland, over half have 95% of DNA tracing to the region of Ireland.
You are thinking too much in terms of nationality. Actually, the areas of Spain and France have a lot of genetic overlap. Look at the map for Iberian Peninsula on Ancestry.com - though centered on Spain and Portugal, it covers France too. For Britain, look at the map and see that it covers Ireland and the top part of Italy - and that in the details where it says "Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Great Britain region", it shows that 55% of native British people also have results in the category for Ireland and 8% have results in Italy/Greece (possible Roman influence). The typical native of Britain only gets about 60% for the category of Great Britain.
I'm sorry but it's just not as precise as you think it is.
Modern day populations. No one knows today what peopled existed in Ireland thousands of years ago or what markers they carried. When people are used in ancestry profiling, they are selected due to "claimed" lineage, usually 4 grandparents born in Ireland. They are tested, and outliers are filtered out.
For example, if they test 300 people and high frequency markers; 150-come back ABC, 50-come back DEF, 50-come back GHI. ABC will be dubbed the IRISH marker for statistical exercises. Other populations may also carry the ABC marker but at a lower frequency. There are Irish people who don't carry the higher frequency Irish marker found in the sample base. However does not mean they they don't trace their lineage to Ireland.
We need to remember, in the grand scheme, there is not such a thing as an "Irish DNA" or an "Irish marker." These are mathematical assignments from isolated samples. Not all of Ireland has been sampled for variation(s) within the populations.
I think there are Irish markers because the ancient paintings of 1500s show a people with fair skin and red hair just as the Irish are today. This Irish DNA for facial, physical, and hair color characteristics are passed on from generation because the O'Mallory's, and McCormicks, and all the families largely would only mix with a similar people groups which means their alleles would only pass along similar traits, and you end up with the Irish we see today.
Not all of Ireland has been sampled because not all of them may indeed date far back to early Ireland. Thousands of years ago maybe there were different peoples, but it is not as if paintings of the 1500s show a different type of people that are in Ireland today.
The DNA tests also have Africa broken down into different regions. They are still black/African.
You are thinking too much in terms of nationality. Actually, the areas of Spain and France have a lot of genetic overlap. Look at the map for Iberian Peninsula on Ancestry.com - though centered on Spain and Portugal, it covers France too. For Britain, look at the map and see that it covers Ireland and the top part of Italy - and that in the details where it says "Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Great Britain region", it shows that 55% of native British people also have results in the category for Ireland and 8% have results in Italy/Greece (possible Roman influence). The typical native of Britain only gets about 60% for the category of Great Britain.
I'm sorry but it's just not as precise as you think it is.
In any case, you don't have the absolute knowledge to say that no DNA is unique to one part of Europe because you don't have a time machine.
It is precise for me, Ancestry.com matched my verbal lineage, they connected me with my parents and Granddad, and I don't have the same last name as my Granddad.
Maybe you just trace to people who are bunch of migrants. My DNA is the same from Ancestry.com to FTDNA, so maybe I trace to natives.
It all has to do with migrants, if people migrated in the 1500s from Italy to Spain and told their children you're a Spaniard, then yes, there will be a non-match. However, if you can get a group of people who date to Spain, and they all match with each other, it is then possible to get a native DNA count.
Spaniard is not nationality, Spain is a nationality, Spaniards are indigenous peoples to the nation called Spain, or Iberian Peninsula.
I always hear this phrase. 21st century DNA technology can tell the difference between the British and the Irish, it can tell you the difference between European descendants. The Spanish and Protgueses are brothers and sisters, so are the French and Germans, but they are all different from Italians and Russians.
When people say "white people" this is removing your European ethnicity to just a broad generalization. The Irish and the Spaniards are not white people, they are Irish and Spaniards. The same goes for any Europeans.
When you are not 100% European, they say your are multi ethnic, but being a mixture of European DNA, such as Russian Italian is multi ethnic too since you're not 100% of either.
I've got Irish ancestry, and I'm really, really...really white.
Beside, it's easier to call myself "white" than say, "I'm Irish, English, Italian, and a tiny drop of Choctaw". No, I'm "white".
I've got Irish ancestry, and I'm really, really...really white.
Beside, it's easier to call myself "white" than say, "I'm Irish, English, Italian, and a tiny drop of Choctaw". No, I'm "white".
Perhaps but I personally find "Irish, English, Italian and Choctaw" interesting whereas "white" about as boring without any character and as generic as one can get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
