[nomadbrah]

(07-17-2016 03:38 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Also, if anyone here is well versed in population genetics, I'd appreciate it if they'd chime in on the subject. I've been attempting to research the subject, and it hasn't been easy. Most of the material on the subject is incoherent and cryptic.

My understanding is that you can break down DNA genetics into yDNA (direct male lineage), mtDNA (direct maternal lineage) and autosomal DNA.

The official theory on genetics is that it can be use to trace the lineage of different groups of people based on their DNA markers. Further, with enough samples, DNA can be used to show where different people diverged from each other.

But there's been a number of situations I've run into that seem counterintuitive. Let's take for instance, the idea that we can use haplogroups to trace someone's relation to each other.

The Finns are a Finno Ugric people which are comprised of mostly Haplogroup N3. Therefore they're said to share a direct genetic affinity with other members of the N3 branch, such as the Siberian peoples. At the same time, the Finns would have no relation to the Dutch, who are type R1b. That leads to some rather strange situations to overcome.

For instance, this theory suggests that this man:



Is closely related to this man:



But has no relation to this man:



Does anyone find that strange? I've also been told that each person only has a single Y haplogroup, it can't be mixed. That seems rather strange that certain populations, Ashkenazi Jews for instance, have a vast array of Y haplogroups within their population (E1, G2, J1, J2, Q1, R1a, R1b) meaning that some would resemble Africans, some Kushites, some Semites, some Caucusites, some Turkic, some European. However, most Ashkenazi I've met seem to look rather similar to each other.

Further, I think it's kind of difficult to draw conclusions on the movement of people based on the concentrations of genetic groups in various locations. For instance, let's say a haplogroup shows up at 60% frequency in location A, but only 20% frequency in location B. On face value, it might be easy to suggest that the point of origin is location A because it has a higher concentration of that genetic marker. However, what if the real story is that their origin was location B, but a majority of the population was forced out by a neighboring tribe, so they settled in location A.

As a topic, genetics, based on the models and theories that I've been exposed to just doesn't seem very coherent to me. I'm still attempting to educate myself further on it, but I'd appreciate any outside help.

Which is exactly why you should not trust genetic studies made by just anyone and you should particularly not trust people online who throw around DNA lingo without attempting to explain it in laymans terms. I've largely found that people who do so are deliberately trying to discourage the layman to investigate.

The Finns are obviously very close to Indo-European peoples. You don't need DNA analysis to know that.

Besides, the problem with DNA analysis alone of ancient populations is that it is very suspectible to bias, since if we were to want to DNA test the British empire in India, without knowing the historical evidence, we would DNA test a bunch of Indians and conclude the British were Subcontinent Indians!

Linguistics, study of skulls, archeology, DNA, all goes together.

I'm also not sure of the specifics of haplogroups, but the main takeaway to understand is that haplogroup does not tell you anything about phenotype, which is important. A haplogroup apparantly makes up a miniscule part of the total DNA, which means it doesn't say much about anything besides shared common ancestors. If the Finns then have a common ancestor with other 'Asian' Uralic people, it simply means that they share some pre-split ancestors more than do Indo-Europeans.