What's the Truth Concerning Admixture in Europe & Most of the World?

[danny.borkowski]

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!

[Delta1212]

Since ethnicity is a social and not a biological property, whether a given percentage of a person's genetic material descending from a particular population is relevant to their racial or ethnic identity depends entirely on whether people think having that genetic material is relevant or not.

[danny.borkowski]

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.

[Ophiolite]

 

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.

Incorrect. Get a textbook that wasn't written half a century ago. Seriously.

 

What is your personal opinion of the relevance of non-caucasoid genes in Europeans, if in fact present?

 

Irrelevant, except that individuals with a wider range of genes will likely be fitter in the evolutionary sense.

 

 

 

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."

 

In what way do you think it matters? You almost sound like you are saying, "But they wouldn't be pure. They would be contaminated with inferior genes." So what exactly do you mean?

 

 

[danny.borkowski]

 

Incorrect. Get a textbook that wasn't written half a century ago. Seriously.

 

In what way do you think it matters? You almost sound like you are saying, "But they wouldn't be pure. They would be contaminated with i

 

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.

Edited December 19, 2012 by danny.borkowski

[Delta1212]

You can certainly divide people into groups based on genetics, but where precisely those lines are drawn is fairly arbitrary and any significance assigned to them is socially constructed.

[Ophiolite]

 

6. Answer my damn question.

 

Not after an emote like that.

[Delta1212]

To give a more specific answer:

 

Do I find it personally significant to me? Not really. This isn't something that I base my identity around normally, and I've spent too much time immersed in biology to attach much meaning to what population a particular bit of genetic material first arose in except as a vaguely interesting data point. Certainly socially it's not something I care about.

 

Do I personally think that it has general significance? Only in so far as other people may find it significant. I don't think it has any objective significance, so it's really only social significance that would matter. I also don't think that enough people are scientifically interested enough to even know that this is true, that many of the people who would be most impacted by this knowledge don't want to know it, and that most people who do know it find it to be interesting at best and almost certainly not life changing to a great extent, I don't see it having much impact on society and societal views, and as such, personally doubt that it has much social significance either. Whether it should logically impact a number of people's worldviews is another question, but we're a rather irrational species with a lot of very resilient irrational beliefs, so I don't see that making much difference.

[Arete]

Genetically speaking, races don't exist:

 

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters.Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”"

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.short

 

 

"The genetic structure of human populations at neutral loci is largely characterized by clinal patterns that are consistent with global-scale IBD (Isolation by Distance)" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952507002326