Ancient Peoples DNA

Edited by Barbapapa - 08-Jun-2009 at 15:11

Barbapapa wrote: Well, there is only a handfull of Norse and Swedes that ever made a DNA Test. It simply could happen that not enough Sami from Sweden or Norway made a test to be significant.  But for the missing Sami in Noway and Sweden: I would simply say.... not enough of them did a DNA Test yet. ;)

But that's not the way it works. It doesn't matter how many make the test...

If the results are based on how many people take the test then it cannot be accurate.

Most western countries have a DNA-bank of their citizens. That's where material is taken for research and comparison, not by the testers themselves. Has Igenea in this case contacted for example the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish authorities to get a sample bank + samples from relics of dead people that have been found in ancient graves?

I'm pretty sure i had some great great great great sami ancestors (Like probably most Swedish people) and i say this cause my swedish family has a tree from 1516AD onwards. In that case as you mention, if i took the test then no sami ancestry would be found in me. If amongst 1000 people in Sweden not a single "sami marker" is found then something is terribly wrong. If for the same amount only 8% is found in Finland, then something is terribly wrong again.

Now, while browsing the site, something that struck me is that there's no Hallogroup N in Finland nor a LLY22 nor a U (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)) nor a K!!! Those are groups i have seen to appear in Finland in all other genetic reports. How come they are completely absent?

http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=15

When it comes to Sweden (http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=47) the Hallogroups I1A (m253), K and U are completely absent!!!

Now, have a look on this comment as well: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524093928AALHMso

I'm afraid iGENEA doesn't make any sense. It's been said that they use ambiguous suppositions and unclear labels to obtain (misleading) statistical inferences. Moreover it's been rumoured that they are merely selling ancestry information, of whichever origin the buyer is ready to pay for. If we already know that humans have 99% similar DNA, and that iGENEA research has a large margin of error, up to 15%, according to some genomic experts, then what is really verifiable in their studies? When we consider that genetic tests cannot determine ethnic identity, the results become even more misleading. A more reliable source is the article "The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing" (Science 19 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 399 - 400 DOI: 10.1126/science.1150098). The 2 most important premises in the article are: 1. The tests track only a very SMALL portion of your DNA (less than 1 percent of a person's genome!) 2. The tests cannot determine ethnic identity. The most important flaw on the part of iGENEA would be that their methodology has not been published in any peer reviewed journal. This alone may be proof enough that what they're doing has no real scientific value. Source(s): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh...

Edited by Flipper - 01-Jun-2009 at 16:55

Edited by Barbapapa - 08-Jun-2009 at 15:12

Barbapapa wrote: Shut the f**k up. ;) Recall the flooding of the black sea that is believed to be the origin of the biblical flooding myth.

Barbapapa (Barbarossa), according to almost all ancient sources, the people who lived in ancient Poland were neither Slavs nor Germanic but Iranians, mostly Sarmatians and Scythians, archaeological findings like the golden Scythian treasure which was discovered on the Poland-Germany border, also confirm this fact, you can read more about it here: Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland, the fact is that people of Poland themselves also believe this thing, you probably know about Sarmatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

Barbapapa wrote: Doesnt change the fact that R1a did arrive in Scandinavia 5000 years ago. Ok say for unknown reasons by unknown people. And it randomly happend during the battle axe period. ok? ;)

Edited by Barbapapa - 08-Jun-2009 at 15:14

Edited by Barbapapa - 08-Jun-2009 at 15:14

Edited by Barbapapa - 08-Jun-2009 at 15:14

Barbapapa wrote: btw Tacitus claims the East Germanic tribes (gthe Bastarnii for example) have the ugly faces of the Sarmatians and he guesses they mixed. He still claims them Germanic however.