Origins of Americans

[altaylar2000]

It was generally accepted that modern americans(not only US) in general descendants of Europeans, but dna-genealogy says that almost all of them are from Asia, from region of Altay.
How it influenced on modern history science?

 

 

And not only male but also female genes of Asian origin

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

It was generally accepted that modern americans(not only US) in general descendants of Europeans, but dna-genealogy says that almost all of them are from Asia, from region of Altay.

Please supply a source for this claim.  I suspect that the genetics you are citing are about the indigenous people's of the Americas and not the European colonizers.

[altaylar2000]

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I suspect that the genetics you are citing are about the indigenous people's of the Americas and not the European colonizers.

This is map of distribution of the haplogroup Q  all over the world not America

[Bufofrog]

11 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

This is map of distribution of the haplogroup Q  all over the world not America

You are saying 'almost all' Americans are descended from Asians and not Europeans based on your supplied map.  I am simply asking for the source for that map.  As I said I think you are misreading the source and I would like verify what the source says.   Thanks.

[altaylar2000]

19 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You are saying 'almost all' Americans are descended from Asians and not Europeans based on your supplied map.  I am simply asking for the source for that map.  As I said I think you are misreading the source and I would like verify what the source says.   Thanks.

Specifically, this map is from Wikipedia, but they are all about the same, here is from another source

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overview-of-haplogroup-Q-a-Global-frequency-distribution-map-of-haplogroup-Q-M242-The_fig1_313459023

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I suspect that the genetics you are citing are about the indigenous people's of the Americas and not the European colonizers.

In fact, this group is not directly related to the Indians, in Asia there are many Altaians with Q, they do not outwardly differ from the "white" Americans

colonizers there

 

And in general, there are not many

Edited March 31, 2021 by altaylar2000

[Bufofrog]

Your sources state that the map show the population that have the haplogroup Q is the indigenous Americans NOT the general population as you stated.

From your Wiki source:

Q-M242 is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans and several peoples of Central Asia and Northern Siberia.

[altaylar2000]

42 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Your sources state that the map show the population that have the haplogroup Q is the indigenous Americans NOT the general population as you stated.

This says about the percent of Q in the world and its distribution, not matter what peoples

It is not about indians only as you try to say.

This means that about 80% of the south of North America and almost all peoples in South America are not europians by Y-chromosom

Also it means that almost all americans goes from Siberia

Because this mutation was in Siberia, before migration to America

mtDNA generally from Asia too

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB195/Lecture08/pics/mt-DNA-distirbution.jpeg

[joigus]

31 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

This says about the percent of Q in the world and its distribution, not matter what peoples

It is not about indians only as you try to say.

Yes, it is. Otherwise the statistics don't make any sense. The whole founding hypothesis --Luca Cavalli-Sforza-- of tracking down ancient movements of population is based on genetic analysis of pockets of population that have interbred among themselves for millennia, so their genetic makeup is a telling clue. Otherwise you're mixing migrant Asians with ancestral Asians. Unless I've misunderstood something essential in your argument.

The bone of contention is whether there was a pre-Clovis migration to the Americas. Hypothesis held by Dennis Stanford and others. This question was still hotly debated last time I looked at it.

[altaylar2000]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

This question was still hotly debated last time I looked at it.

Does anyone doubt this now?

[iNow]

Just now, altaylar2000 said:

Does anyone doubt this now?

The existence of doubt is generally inherent in all debate

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Does anyone doubt this now?

I don't think anybody ever doubted it. It's referred to thousand-of-years-old migration movements. That's all. A Korean family packing and moving to NY 70 y.a. is not included in there. Again: Unless I'm misunderstanding something in your argument.

[altaylar2000]

Incidentally, the story of colonization is not convincing in itself.
It is believed that the main motive was the agricultural development of American lands, and for this, Africans were used as slaves. But in a slave society, the elites are always in the minority, and if this were the case, the number of African Americans would significantly outnumber the "white people"

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

Also it means that almost all americans goes from Siberia

That's unrealistic, given how many are from, for example, Ireland ot Italy.
It's even more absurd once you consider African Americans who form  about 14% of the population.

Are you able to explain this, or is your assertion simply incorrect?

7 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

But in a slave society, the elites are always in the minority, and if this were the case, the number of African Americans would significantly outnumber the "white people"

By which argument, most people in France, Germany < England and so on would be black.
But they are not.

And so we know that the argument is wrong.

[altaylar2000]

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's unrealistic, given how many are from, for example, Ireland ot Italy.
It's even more absurd once you consider African Americans who form  about 14% of the population.

Are you able to explain this, or is your assertion simply incorrect?

I'm talking about most, not all. European genes are present there, I did not deny it

 

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

By which argument, most people in France, Germany < England and so on would be black.
But they are not.

And so we know that the argument is wrong.

slaves in Europe were not black

Edited March 31, 2021 by altaylar2000

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

 for this, Africans were used as slaves. But in a slave society, the elites are always in the minority, and if this were the case, the number of African Americans would significantly outnumber the "white people"

This does not follow.  The population of slaves can outnumber the population of the elites without outnumbering the population of non-slaves (i.e. white people, predominantly). It depends on what fraction of the population of non-slaves is considered elite.

It's not as if every single family owned slaves, and, of course, not everyone is an elite.

[altaylar2000]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

This does not follow.  The population of slaves can outnumber the population of the elites without outnumbering the population of non-slaves (i.e. white people, predominantly). It depends on what fraction of the population of non-slaves is considered elite.

It's not as if every single family owned slaves.

 

Yes you are right.
But it is believed that America was mastered primarily with the aim of deriving economic profit using the slave labor of Africans.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, altaylar2000 said:

 

Yes you are right.
But it is believed that America was mastered primarily with the aim of deriving economic profit using the slave labor of Africans.

In the south, yes. So much so that they went to war to preserve the arrangement.

[altaylar2000]

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

In the south

Why, then, African Americans now live mainly in the north?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Штаты_США_с_преобладающим_небелым_населением#/media/Файл:New_2000_black_percent.gif

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Why, then, African Americans now live mainly in the north?

First, this is irrelevant to the points made. Second, it's yet another wrong claim asserted by you.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

I'm talking about most, not all. European genes are present there, I did not deny it

What you are talking about is a map that shows the presence of a gene in roughly 90% of "some population" in parts of N America.

Well, if the population of the USA is 14% African Americans, 10% Irish Americans and 5% Italian Americans (virtually none of whom would have the gene) then the population represented on that map is not the population of the USA, is it?

 

So, what are you talking about?

Do you even know?
 

33 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Why, then, African Americans now live mainly in the north?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Штаты_США_с_преобладающим_небелым_населением#/media/Файл:New_2000_black_percent.gif

Your claim is the opposite of the map you have linked to.

You are going to need to work very hard to convince us that you are worth listening to.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You are going to need to work very hard to convince us that you are worth listening to.

Too late

[altaylar2000]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What you are talking about is a map that shows the presence of a gene in roughly 90% of "some population" in parts of N America.

Well, if the population of the USA is 14% African Americans, 10% Irish Americans and 5% Italian Americans (virtually none of whom would have the gene) then the population represented on that map is not the population of the USA, is it?

 

So, what are you talking about?

Do you even know?

let 70%. This does not change anything, the numbers are approximate. But this is the majority.

 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Your claim is the opposite of the map you have linked to.

yes, I'm sorry, I just confused east and south:)

And strictly speaking, this is southeast, not south

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

90%

there is 60-100

Edited March 31, 2021 by altaylar2000

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

And strictly speaking, this is southeast, not south

Strictly speaking, it is the south, not southeast. 

When speaking of the south in the United States, the reference does not include southern California, New Mexico, etc. It refers to the southern states in roughly the eastern half of the country. It's a history thing.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

But this is the majority.

Then you will have no difficulty proving it.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

yes, I'm sorry, I just confused east and south:)

And strictly speaking, this is southeast, not south

The geographic southwest was not part of the US during the civil war, so “the south” in this context refers to the southeast US.