danny.borkowski

Do me a few favors, Mr. "Resident Expert." 1. Go to one of the more respected (if not, THE most respected) CURRENT anthropology blog on the internet, by following the link below, and "Control + F" for the word "Caucasoid." You'll see it pop up many times. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html And then, if you have the time, do the same thing across any similar posts on that blog, and you'll find the term many more times. You'll also find the term mongoloid, negroid, and other similar ones, again and again. 2. Check out a study by Moorjani, Reich or any other major PRESENT DAY Geneticist, and look for the term caucasoid, mongoloid, etc., in their studies. You'll see those terms pop up again and again. 3. Chill out, because you obviously wrote your post with aggression (and it shows in your writing style). 4. Stop assuming that when I say "does that 1% matter", that I give a damn about racial purity. I know that doesn't exist. I know the term and concept of "race" is a social construct. All I'm referring to with whether it "matters" is how that can be interpreted from a social standpoint, or in teh formation of "identity." 5. Chill out one more time. You might need to do so twice. 6. Answer my damn question. Thank you.

Ok, that's fine. I wasn't really referring to ethnicity or nationality, in the social sense (like Irish, german, etc.) . I'm instead asking questions based on anthropological definitions of ancestry. Anthropologists and Geneticists accept that there are Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids, etc. I was just wondering if the genes of some of these groups are still present (even in some small degree) in modern Europeans, or Caucasoids. I've read posts and studies where tests pick up a non-Caucasoid contribution to predominantly Caucasoid people (or Europeans). For example, the Moorjani et al. paper in 2011 claimed that virtually all Southern Europeans had between 1% to 3% Sub Saharan genes. Other studies have found 5% to 10% of genes in Russians to originate in Mongoloid populations. I just want to know if there is a general consensus that all this is true, or if there are still reasons to believe that these studies are flawed, and form a "minority opinion" concerning genetics and ancestry.

Hi ! I'm a newbie to anthropology and genetics, but lately I've grown very interested in it, and might even go back to college and start majoring or minoring in it. Now, given some contradictory studies in the field of genetic/ancestry studies that I sometimes come across, I sometimes am left with more doubts than answers, concerning some of the key elements and findings in that field. I thought I'd politely ask if some of you could answer and clear up a few simple questions, ones that I've found all sorts of contradictory answers for in the past, and in other forums. 1) Do all Europeans and members of the "European diaspora (White Americans, White Canadians, White Australians, etc.)" currently alive today have non-European/non-Caucasoid genes? Or, at least, do most? Put even simpler: are there truly "pure"/100% caucasoid Europeans alive today? I've seen countless posts on genetics websites (yours, Dienekes, etc.), that show mongoloid admixture, negroid admixture, and even amerindian admixture in todays Europeans, but I've also seen people try to refute that, or at least downplay it. So, who's right? What's the truth on this matter? 2) If most or all Europeans/European diaspora members are indeed NOT "non-caucasoid admixed," what is the possibility that within the last 500 years, or 10, 15 or 20 generations, that most or all Europeans have at least ONE ancestor with some trace of non-caucasoid genes? Like an ancestor belonging to an "L" or B" haplogroup? 3) What is your personal opinion of the relevance of non-caucasoid genes in Europeans, if in fact present? If, let's say, a Sicilian has 2% Sub-Saharan genes, or a Finn has 5 or 10% mongoloid genes, should that be considered "relevant" to social or racial identity? I tend to think that even if someone is 1% of "something", that it matters, because even without that 1%, that person technically "can't be." Every second of their life, that 1% of their gene pool is "in action." It's alive. It's contributing to your existence. I don't mean to get too philosophical, but it never hurts to try. 4) What about admixture in East Asians (specifically, the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese)? I've seen a few charts of East Asian results on ADMIXTURE, and I rarely, if ever, see any indication of non-East admixture in East Asians. Are they really that "un-admixed"? Any specific answers would be much appreciated (if possible, maybe with links to back it up). Thanks!