Category: admixture

They Wuz Dumb II: More Movement Misinformation about Race

Lies or stupidity – it’s anyone’s guess.

In all cases below, emphasis added.

Read this. After rehashing the points I made about Cheddar Man several days ago, we then get comments about Egyptians, ancient and modern, that are either mendacity or reflective of a problem with reading comprehension.

Today’s Egyptians have some sub-Saharan alleles, but this mixing appears to have begun only about 700 years ago.

The linked Nature article concerning that issue clearly states that the events of 700 years ago were in addition to the significant sub-Saharan ancestry that existed before:

The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq. 

Got it?  That’s 8% more than what was there before, not 8% suddenly appearing 700 years ago on a background of 0%.

See this.

The original paper:

…reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient…Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference population

Got it? Moderns have ~8% more than the ancients, but the ancients may have been as high as 15%, with a floor of 6%.

So, what is the take home point?  It is this: Der Movement, and particularly its HBD wing, LIES about race, LIES about population genetics, and LIES about racial history. Or, if you want to be more generous, they are not lying, but they are simply sincerely stupid, unable to read clear English, so they spread their wrong-headed misinformation around the Internet.

Thanks a lot for giving the Left ammunition to accuse racial activists of peddling pseudoscience about race. But, then, the HBDers do that a lot, don’t they?  I don’t call them the Alt Wrong for nothing.

By the way, did you catch this from the original paper: “depending on method and choice of reference population.”

Sound familiar?  Yes, it does.

Facts on race = EGI Notes

Falsehoods on race = Der Movement, Inc.


More on Admixture Testing

Don’t compare apples to oranges.

I will attempt to explain the problems about parental populations and genetic tests for the typical Type I “movement” Nutzi dimwit. I will use simplified examples to illustrate the concept.

Let’s say Company X is assaying the autosomal genome of a Russian and trying to construct “ancestry percentages.”  The parent populations they are using as the standards of comparison are Germans and Japanese.  The Russian tests out as “95% German and 5% Japanese” (cue heavy breathing from the anti-Slavic contingent of Der Movement, Inc.).  However, if that same Russian was tested with parental populations of Russians and Japanese, the test results may be “100% Russian and 0% Japanese.”  The same basic principle applies to other groups.  The more similar the person or group tested is to the parental populations, the less “exotic admixture” they will display, and vice versa.

This does NOT mean that “race is a social construct” or “genetics is subjective” or “deconstructivism is correct.”  In the example above, the Russian’s genome is what it is, and can be identified as ethnically Russian.  However how one wishes to describe the objective reality of the genome can be subjective, or partially subjective, dependent on what parental populations are used.  And, even more fundamentally, how those parental populations are named.  What if the German population was labeled as “European” and the Japanese as “Asian.”  Then the Russian is “95% European and 5% Asian.”  On the other hand, most Germans would test as “100% European” as they are essentially being compared to themselves (in practice  of course there is statistical error, and not all Germans derive from identical genepools, so typical German percentages may vary from, say, “98-100 European” in this case.  The main point is that if Germans are being tested against a German parental population that is labelled as “European” they will have higher European percentages than other groups).

Of course, one can argue that this critique can be taken too far.  If you want to know the admixture percentages of Puerto Ricans, then using, say, Iberian, West African, and Amerindian parental populations are reasonable.  Using Puerto Ricans themselves as the parental population, and comparing Puerto Ricans to Puerto Ricans – with people getting test results of “98-100% Puerto Rican” is not going to be informative about the admixture question asked.

Fair enough.  But what if we were asking: which Hispanic group has the most admixture?  And then assume you use as the parental populations Puerto Ricans and Japanese.  Mexicans are going to show more “Asian admixture” in this case, given their greater percentage of Amerindian ancestry compared to Puerto Ricans.  If the parental populations were Mexicans and Nigerians, then Puerto Ricans would be seen as a Mexican-Nigerian mix.  

You can see that the manner in which the question is asked, and what data are used to answer it, is going to influence the interpretation of the outcome.

Subtleties like this fly right over the head of the typical “movement” fetishist.

Genetic Detection of Immigrants

Multilocus genotypes.

Detecting immigrants from the analysis of multilocus genotypes: paper here.  An old paper; of course, methodology has gone past this since; nevertheless, it deserves to be noted, for the idea that looking at multilocus genotypes allows for distinguishing genetic types even when “bean bag genetics” differentiation is low.  The basic premise; emphasis added:

Immigration is an important force shaping the social structure, evolution, and genetics of populations. A statistical method is presented that uses multilocus genotypes to identify individuals who are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. The method is appropriate for use with allozymes, microsatellites, or restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) and assumes linkage equilibrium among loci. Potential applications include studies of dispersal among natural populations of animals and plants, human evolutionary studies, and typing zoo animals of unknown origin (for use in captive breeding programs). The method is illustrated by analyzing RFLP genotypes in samples of humans from Australian, Japanese, New Guinean, and Senegalese populations. The test has power to detect immigrant ancestors, for these data, up to two generations in the past even though the overall differentiation of allele frequencies among populations is low.

Classical theory in population genetics has focused on the long term effects of immigration on allele frequency distributions in semi-isolated populations, concentrating on the stationary distribution resulting from a balance between forces of immigration, genetic drift, and mutation (1–4). Less theory exists addressing the effect of recent immigration among populations with low levels of genetic differentiation. A theory describing the effects of immigration on the genetic composition of individuals in populations that are not at genetic equilibrium is needed to interpret much of the data being generated using current genetic techniques.

In this paper we consider the multilocus genotypes that result when individuals are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. We propose a test that allows recent immigrants to be identified on the basis of their multilocus genotypes; the test has considerable power for detecting immigrant individuals even when the overall level of genetic differentiation among populations is low. Molecular genetic techniques that allow multilocus genotypes to be described from single individuals are relatively new, and much of the information contained in these types of data is not fully exploited by estimators of long term gene flow that are currently available (5–7). We provide an example of an application of the method to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) genotypes from human populations; the method may also be applied to analyze multilocus allozyme and microsatellite data.


 At least three potentially misleading results may arise when applying the method considered here. First, the failure to reject the hypothesis that an individual was an immigrant, or descended from immigrants, may simply reflect the fact that the appropriate populations for comparison were not included in the analysis. Second, an individual might incorrectly appear to have originated in a particular population other than the one from which it was sampled. This might be due to similarities in allele frequencies, due to long-term gene flow, between that population and a third population from which the individual actually originated, but which was not included in the sample of populations. Third, the fact that many pairwise comparisons between populations are performed for each of a large number of individuals means that some individuals will appear to be immigrants purely by chance.

See this as well.  And also this.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was some work going on in population genetics concerning multilocus genotypes.  A lot of good could have come from that if it was continued.  By an interesting coincidence, work on this subject essentially ended around the same time Der Movement and the HBDers went online talking about, and dissecting, population genetics studies.  It could be a coincidence, but given how most population geneticists are hysterical SJWs, maybe some of them decided not to investigate areas of their field that would focus attention on the great degree of actual ethnoracial differentiation that exists when genetic structure is taken into account.

Siberian Gene Flow into Europe

Raciology alert!

Something to read, emphasis added:

Siberia and Northwestern Russia are home to over 40 culturally and linguistically diverse indigenous ethnic groups, yet genetic variation and histories of peoples from this region are largely uncharacterized. We present deep whole-genome sequencing data (∼38×) from 28 individuals belonging to 14 distinct indigenous populations from that region. We combined these data sets with additional 32 modern-day and 46 ancient human genomes to reconstruct genetic histories of several indigenous Northern Eurasian populations. We found that Siberian and East Asian populations shared 38% of their ancestry with a 45,000-yr-old Ust’-Ishim individual who was previously believed to have no modern-day descendants. Western Siberians trace 57% of their ancestry to ancient North Eurasians, represented by the 24,000-yr-old Siberian Mal’ta boy MA-1. Eastern Siberian populations formed a distinct sublineage that separated from other East Asian populations ∼10,000 yr ago. In addition, we uncovered admixtures between Siberians and Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Samara, Karelia, Hungary, and Sweden (from 8000–6600 yr ago); Yamnaya people (5300–4700 yr ago); and modern-day Northeastern Europeans. Our results provide new insights into genetic histories of Siberian and Northeastern European populations and evidence of ancient gene flow from Siberia into Europe.

Perhaps some of that leaked into the David Bromstad and Bjork family lines. Actually, Bromstad would seem to be a solid candidate to be recruited by HopeNotHate for their next Alt Right infiltration.  Infiltrate the Nutzis as well.  And if the Alt Wrong mistake him for a high-IQ Chinaman, so much the better, although I suspect the Alt Wrong and the Nutzis, with their yellow fever, would be more prone to accept Bjork as an infiltrator.

In any case, the idea of absolute racial purity takes another hit, and the unscientific “hypodescent” paradigm, as applied to Old World demographics, is again shown to be untenable, unless all of Northeastern Europe is now to be considered “Asian.”

Another 23andMe Fail

In a word: hogwash.

I’ve seen the “timeline” “data” from a number of people, and it’s all been as absurd as that (or more so).   If DNAPrint as “bad,” how is 23andMe better? In a gross sense it is, but in a net sense, compared to the “state of the art” at the time, and given what we should expect in 2017, and given Der Movement fantasies about absolute accuracy and precision, it’s not. For majority ancestry, no problem, but for fine-grained analyses – not good at all.

And when are any of these companies going to provide genetic kinship data to established ethnic and racial categories?  Of course, academic population geneticists shy away from genetic kinship data as well – after all, we can’t let the rubes know who they are most related to, can we?  I mean, they might get all, like, racist on us and all.

Genetic Continuity in the Levant

Extant Canaanites.

The Canaanites inhabited the Levant region during the Bronze Age and established a culture that became influential in the Near East and beyond. However, the Canaanites, unlike most other ancient Near Easterners of this period, left few surviving textual records and thus their origin and relationship to ancient and present-day populations remain unclear. In this study, we sequenced five whole genomes from ∼3,700-year-old individuals from the city of Sidon, a major Canaanite city-state on the Eastern Mediterranean coast. We also sequenced the genomes of 99 individuals from present-day Lebanon to catalog modern Levantine genetic diversity. We find that a Bronze Age Canaanite-related ancestry was widespread in the region, shared among urban populations inhabiting the coast (Sidon) and inland populations (Jordan) who likely lived in farming societies or were pastoral nomads. This Canaanite-related ancestry derived from mixture between local Neolithic populations and eastern migrants genetically related to Chalcolithic Iranians. We estimate, using linkage-disequilibrium decay patterns, that admixture occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago, coinciding with recorded massive population movements in Mesopotamia during the mid-Holocene. We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age. In addition, we find Eurasian ancestry in the Lebanese not present in Bronze Age or earlier Levantines. We estimate that this Eurasian ancestry arrived in the Levant around 3,750–2,170 years ago during a period of successive conquests by distant populations.

So, essentially, modern-day indigenous Lebanese demonstrate highly significant – the large majority of their ancestry – genetic continuity with ancient Canaanites, with some more minor “Eurasian” admixture, tied to historical events, which mostly took place during the “ancient” Classical era.

Likely, most indigenous peoples would represent significant genetic continuity with ancient peoples that occupied the same territories, with of course some degree of subsequent admixture, some of which would be “ancient” and some “modern.”  There would be exceptions, there are always exceptions, and the degree of admixture would vary from case to case. But one suspects that continuity is greater than what Der Movement typically postulates, with its breathless accounts of retconned population changes to explain whatever ethnic fetishism is in style at any particular time. Changes in population character are more likely to be due to dysgenic degeneration of native stocks than it is wholesale population replacement, or admixture of such an extent that it is practically equivalent to population replacement. No doubt such extreme cases have occurred in human history, but those are the (relatively rare) exceptions, not the rule.

The problem of course is that today, European-derived peoples are actually faced with real population replacement, dealing with a catastrophic combination of extremely low birthrates, mass migration of far more fecund alien peoples, and treasonous native elites (coupled to clever anti-White aliens) dedicated to facilitating native race replacement.  However, one cannot always project current trends to past eras. Sometimes, perhaps. Always, no.

Of Declines and Falls

Not always an alien influx followed by racial admixture.

One of Der Movement’s favorite memes is the idea that national decline and the fall of civilizations always have an external racial basis – i.e., the decline and fall occurs as a result of some sort of alien influx followed by “racial admixture.”

A look at history provides many counter-examples.  Consider the Italian Renaissance, centered on North-Central Italy, particularly Tuscany-Florence. The great intellectual ferment there changes the world and then essentially vanished, all without the influx/admixture model being relevant.  What happened to the great Italian artists like Michelangelo and the all-around figures like Alberti and da Vinci?  Where are the great German composers today?  After Nietzsche and Heidegger, what happened to German philosophy?  What happened to French culture and French martial glory? Where’s the English Dickens and Shakespeare today?  Isn’t it true that the Third World influx into Great Britain occurred after, not before, they lost their empire?  Spain lost their empire, but that empire was formed after they had thrown off centuries of Arabic rule; it wasn’t that the “Arab influx” was responsible for Spain’s fall.  Does anyone really believe Portugal lost their empire because of “an influx of Negro blood?”  Was it really possible for a small nation like Portugal could maintain their lead in exploration and colonization after larger European nations got involved?  Did “racial admixture” lose the Netherlands most of their overseas possessions?  Did the transformation of Scandinavians from Vikings to SJW social democrats involve “racial admixture” or did the alien invasion of that part of Europe occur after the behavioral and cultural changes?

In these cases, to the extent the problem was biological, it was internal – dysgenics including the counter-selective effects of war, Frost’s genetic pacification, and the breeding of the unfit and the botched – as well as cultural/historical (Spengler?).  In many cases, alien influx and admixture, when it has occurred, was the consequence, not the cause, of decline. One can speculate that the Ancient World was similar.  In some cases of course, admixture may have caused decline (Ancient Egypt?  The Middle East?) but that’s as much the exception as it is the rule.

But Der Movement can’t get is head around such ideas, just as their heavy breathing about Paleolithic/Neolithic differences in Europe typically doesn’t understand that such differences were in place long before the beginnings of the Ancient World’s Classical Civilizations.

I would invoke “cognitive dissonance” here, but that implies some sort of cognitive process to begin with.

A note:

It’s a bit humorous that the same Alt Right that has disdain for S. Italians also has an obsessive man-crush on Julius Evola who is described thus:

Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola was born in Rome to a minor aristocratic family of Sicilian origins.

Again, I could say “cognitive dissonance” but that implies some degree of cognitive function, and I’m not sure how much of that Der Movement actually has.