U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2017, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,216 posts, read 12,800,785 times
Reputation: 10446

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
Race is very real, as a social concept. Not as a biological one.

An Irishman and Italian are genetically different, but the tendency is to call the difference ethnic, and not racial. An Irishman and a Kenyan are different genetically, but most people refer to the difference as racial.
It's true that because those two particular nationalities you picked out are far enough away from each other that they are unlikely to share much DNA with each other, but they do share a lot of DNA with neighboring regions, meaning there is no "Irish" race or "Italian" race. Genetically, it can be impossible to tell Irish native from a British native, or an Italian native from a Spanish one, because they share too much DNA. There is no DNA which is totally unique to one area of Europe, which is why Irish and Italian are ethnicities, not races. But Europeans and Africans are genetically distinct from one another, making them distinct races.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2017, 12:46 PM
 
Location: East Helena, MT
763 posts, read 478,094 times
Reputation: 2003
Reading through this tread, it is apparent that when speaking of race, people naturally only think of their own country. However the mixing of races has been very widespread, when you look at the world as a whole, for the last thousand years or so. In America, we usually expect to find some type of mixed heritage just because of the constant mixing of nationalities that have happened here the last 200 years. However in many smaller nations, that hasn't happened, and they have the opinion that they are pure.


I know in my families case, we do have Native American ancestry, along with Northern European. Per family lore, we were originally from Ireland. However, you never know how they got to Ireland in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2017, 02:08 PM
 
14,375 posts, read 7,085,168 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
It's true that because those two particular nationalities you picked out are far enough away from each other that they are unlikely to share much DNA with each other, but they do share a lot of DNA with neighboring regions, meaning there is no "Irish" race or "Italian" race. Genetically, it can be impossible to tell Irish native from a British native, or an Italian native from a Spanish one, because they share too much DNA. There is no DNA which is totally unique to one area of Europe, which is why Irish and Italian are ethnicities, not races. But Europeans and Africans are genetically distinct from one another, making them distinct races.
Just wanted to say your perspective is interesting to me in regards to Europeans and Africans being a "distinct race" due to the fact that humans share 99.5% of our DNA with each other no matter what part of the world we come from or how we look.

I agree with a previous poster and with what I stated before in the thread last year, in that humans are one race. There are different ethnic groups that account for that .5% DNA difference, but we are all humans and all the same race. Race IMO definitely is a social construct and I believe that I may have this opinion due to hailing from a pretty "multi-racial" family whereas I have very white/European looking family members who do not identify as "white" and instead identify as "black." Race categories in this country and in many other countries that have their own racial categories are much more social and cultural than genetic.

It also makes me wonder about your POV due to the fact that DNA ancestry tests can narrow down specific European, African, Asian, etc. DNA by suspected country of origin/geographic regions in that if Europeans within themselves are not a different race then how can the testing companies pick out the country/region genetically, is it race or is it just specific genes that are commonly inherited in specific geographic areas.

Want to note, I definitely don't think I'm an expert on DNA and just found your POV interesting. I think most of you are much more of an expert than myself. But I have learned through reading a lot of material and watching too many documentaries that many DNA differences in that .5% are inherited mutations/adaptations for specific environments/regions and not indicative of a different racial group. For instance, Tibetans who live in high altitude areas, scientists have discovered carry an inherited gene from the long extinct Denisovan ancestor that lived in their region. That gene allows them to survive in very high altitudes and not to succomb to altitude sickness like Europeans, Africans, AND Asians who did not inherit this particular gene. That would bring about the question of, if these people with that specific gene are Asian, does that make other Asians who do not have that gene a different race? I wouldn't think so. IMO we are all just humans who have a very small amount of differences between us based on our rather recent ancestry from the past 300-400 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2017, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,216 posts, read 12,800,785 times
Reputation: 10446
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Just wanted to say your perspective is interesting to me in regards to Europeans and Africans being a "distinct race" due to the fact that humans share 99.5% of our DNA with each other no matter what part of the world we come from or how we look.

I agree with a previous poster and with what I stated before in the thread last year, in that humans are one race.
If you ask me, humans are a species. Race is a sub-category of the human species.

Quote:
It also makes me wonder about your POV due to the fact that DNA ancestry tests can narrow down specific European, African, Asian, etc. DNA by suspected country of origin/geographic regions in that if Europeans within themselves are not a different race then how can the testing companies pick out the country/region genetically, is it race or is it just specific genes that are commonly inherited in specific geographic areas.
Actually, the DNA test can NOT narrow it down to a country or even a sub-region of a continent with total accuracy (in some cases with not much accuracy at all), which is exactly the reason why countries and sub-regions of Europe aren't distinct races - they do not have distinct enough DNA.

Here are my results from three different companies, to illustrate just how imprecise these estimates are:

AncestryDNA:
Great Britain 55%
Italy/Greece 31%
Europe West 5%
Scandinavia 2%
Finland/Northwest Russia 1%
Ireland < 1%
Caucasus 2%
Middle East 1%
Africa North < 1%
Asia South < 1%

FTDNA:
Scandinavia 34%
Western and Central Europe 26%
Southern Europe 20%
Finland and Northern Siberia 3%
Asia Minor 12%
Eastern Middle East 5%

23andMe:
French & German 17.9%
British & Irish 17.2%
Scandinavian 4.8%
Broadly Northwestern European 23.4%
Italian 19.3%
Iberian 0.1%
Broadly Southern European 10.1%
Broadly European 6.9%
North African 0.1%
Unassigned 0.1%

As you can see, my sub-regional results are all over the place. It's primarily because Europeans share too much DNA among neighboring regions to always be able to tell them apart with any accuracy, and therefore they vary from company to company where there are different samples and analyses. 23andMe are the most upfront about this by putting large chunks of my DNA into those "Broadly" categories. These categories are blatantly saying "this amount of your DNA is found too widely spread across Europe/a large part of Europe to narrow it down any further".

Have a read on this article, written by an expert geneticist: https://dna-explained.com/2015/08/19...g-and-results/

"These tests are reasonably reliable when it comes to a continent level test – meaning African, European, Asian and sometimes, Native American."

"Intra-continental results, meaning within Europe, for example, are speculative, at best. Do not expect them to align with your known genealogy. They likely won’t – and if they do at one vendor – they won’t at others. Which one is “right”? Who knows – maybe all of them when you consider population movement, migration and assimilation."

They are reasonably reliable when it comes to a continent level because the DNA on different continents are more distinctly different. They are not reliable on an intra-continental level because peoples within a continent share too much DNA.

Quote:
Want to note, I definitely don't think I'm an expert on DNA and just found your POV interesting. I think most of you are much more of an expert than myself. But I have learned through reading a lot of material and watching too many documentaries that many DNA differences in that .5% are inherited mutations/adaptations for specific environments/regions and not indicative of a different racial group. For instance, Tibetans who live in high altitude areas, scientists have discovered carry an inherited gene from the long extinct Denisovan ancestor that lived in their region. That gene allows them to survive in very high altitudes and not to succomb to altitude sickness like Europeans, Africans, AND Asians who did not inherit this particular gene. That would bring about the question of, if these people with that specific gene are Asian, does that make other Asians who do not have that gene a different race? I wouldn't think so. IMO we are all just humans who have a very small amount of differences between us based on our rather recent ancestry from the past 300-400 years.
I certainly don't think one unique gene makes a group of people a distinct race, but we're talking about much more than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2017, 10:20 PM
Status: "happy again, no longer catless! t...." (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,421 posts, read 16,677,475 times
Reputation: 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe View Post
Reading through this tread, it is apparent that when speaking of race, people naturally only think of their own country. However the mixing of races has been very widespread, when you look at the world as a whole, for the last thousand years or so. In America, we usually expect to find some type of mixed heritage just because of the constant mixing of nationalities that have happened here the last 200 years. However in many smaller nations, that hasn't happened, and they have the opinion that they are pure.


I know in my families case, we do have Native American ancestry, along with Northern European. Per family lore, we were originally from Ireland. However, you never know how they got to Ireland in the first place.
Northern European ancestry in Ireleand is not uncommon as the Norse ships routienly raided and maintained outposts in the area, and the same in the Northern England. In areas where they settled, they also settled as farmers who stayed as the migration ended and mixed with local populations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 06:47 AM
 
14,375 posts, read 7,085,168 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
If you ask me, humans are a species. Race is a sub-category of the human species.



Actually, the DNA test can NOT narrow it down to a country or even a sub-region of a continent with total accuracy (in some cases with not much accuracy at all), which is exactly the reason why countries and sub-regions of Europe aren't distinct races - they do not have distinct enough DNA.

Here are my results from three different companies, to illustrate just how imprecise these estimates are:

AncestryDNA:
Great Britain 55%
Italy/Greece 31%
Europe West 5%
Scandinavia 2%
Finland/Northwest Russia 1%
Ireland < 1%
Caucasus 2%
Middle East 1%
Africa North < 1%
Asia South < 1%

FTDNA:
Scandinavia 34%
Western and Central Europe 26%
Southern Europe 20%
Finland and Northern Siberia 3%
Asia Minor 12%
Eastern Middle East 5%

23andMe:
French & German 17.9%
British & Irish 17.2%
Scandinavian 4.8%
Broadly Northwestern European 23.4%
Italian 19.3%
Iberian 0.1%
Broadly Southern European 10.1%
Broadly European 6.9%
North African 0.1%
Unassigned 0.1%

As you can see, my sub-regional results are all over the place. It's primarily because Europeans share too much DNA among neighboring regions to always be able to tell them apart with any accuracy, and therefore they vary from company to company where there are different samples and analyses. 23andMe are the most upfront about this by putting large chunks of my DNA into those "Broadly" categories. These categories are blatantly saying "this amount of your DNA is found too widely spread across Europe/a large part of Europe to narrow it down any further".

Have a read on this article, written by an expert geneticist: https://dna-explained.com/2015/08/19...g-and-results/

"These tests are reasonably reliable when it comes to a continent level test – meaning African, European, Asian and sometimes, Native American."

"Intra-continental results, meaning within Europe, for example, are speculative, at best. Do not expect them to align with your known genealogy. They likely won’t – and if they do at one vendor – they won’t at others. Which one is “right”? Who knows – maybe all of them when you consider population movement, migration and assimilation."

They are reasonably reliable when it comes to a continent level because the DNA on different continents are more distinctly different. They are not reliable on an intra-continental level because peoples within a continent share too much DNA.



I certainly don't think one unique gene makes a group of people a distinct race, but we're talking about much more than that.
On your ethnic breakdown, it does correspond to what I stated in that you can break out your European genes by country and/or region. Genes are what make Scandinavians different from the Irish.

But on the bold, what are you talking about then. Genes are our genetic makeup. Of course it makes sense that different groups of people who commonly intermarry and have children would share more of their genes in regards to your comments about European ancestry. My main point in this is that we are not a different race of people based on continents. Europe is actually attached to Asia therefore Asians have European genes in many parts of that continent, especially in the Caucasus region and the ME and beyond. Europe and Africa share the Mediterranean Sea and therefore those populations of Europeans and Northern Africans have shared their genetic material for thousands the years. Africa is very close to Asia and those regions have also shared genetic material for thousands of years.

What exactly is the "much more than that?" I guess is my question. If we are all humans and all of us who are in neighboring regions share genetic material, when does an African become a distinct race from a European geographically or genetically and who has determined that this is the case? Europe and Asia share a large regional landmass in various parts of Eurasia. When does an Asian start and an European begin genetically on that super continent? We all are basically like the first portion of your comments that I placed in bold IMO. There is only one human race. It is not "pure" because we come from a variety of regions and continents however, many of them do overlap and neighbor each other. Regardless of the mixture of regions of the people genetically, they are still of the human race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 08:32 AM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,198 posts, read 2,269,902 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
Northern European ancestry in Ireleand is not uncommon as the Norse ships routienly raided and maintained outposts in the area, and the same in the Northern England. In areas where they settled, they also settled as farmers who stayed as the migration ended and mixed with local populations.
And after the glaciers receded, until about 8,000-6,000 BC, what is now the UK was connected by land to what is now northern Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,216 posts, read 12,800,785 times
Reputation: 10446
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
On your ethnic breakdown, it does correspond to what I stated in that you can break out your European genes by country and/or region. Genes are what make Scandinavians different from the Irish.
You're not really listening to what I'm saying. The companies TRY to break down the DNA within continents into intra-continent regions, but as you can see from the vastly different results from each company, it is not possible to do so with any consistency or accuracy. The reason it's not accurate is because Europeans share too much DNA among them. You mention the Scandinavians being different from the Irish, but look at my Scandinavian results - 2% from AncestryDNA, 34% from FTDNA, and 4.8% from 23andMe. And actually, because the Scandinavians raided Ireland during the Viking era, it is possible for the Irish and Scandinavians to share DNA.

Quote:
But on the bold, what are you talking about then. Genes are our genetic makeup. Of course it makes sense that different groups of people who commonly intermarry and have children would share more of their genes in regards to your comments about European ancestry. My main point in this is that we are not a different race of people based on continents.
But we are, because DNA proves it. That is my point. The DNA found on different continents is distinctly different from each other and easy to tell apart. If you ask me, that's a large part of racial makeup. My other point, which was in response to someone else, was that the DNA found within Europe is NOT distinct enough in different countries for nationality to also be a race. You seemed to be trying to argue that the sub-continent regions/countries are just as distinct as continents - and I understand that was to actually prove we are all one human race even if we're all genetically different too - but regardless, sub-continent regions/countries can't be broken down with any accuracy.

Quote:
Europe is actually attached to Asia therefore Asians have European genes in many parts of that continent, especially in the Caucasus region and the ME and beyond. Europe and Africa share the Mediterranean Sea and therefore those populations of Europeans and Northern Africans have shared their genetic material for thousands the years. Africa is very close to Asia and those regions have also shared genetic material for thousands of years.
There is some mixing between continents but not enough to make it difficult to tell continental DNA apart. I'm sorry you're finding the facts so hard to accept but I provided you with more than enough evidence, examples, and expert testimony to prove that what I'm saying is true. Continental DNA is easy to tell apart because it's distinctly different, whereas intra-continental DNA is difficult to tell apart with any reliable accuracy because people within a continent share too much DNA.

Quote:
What exactly is the "much more than that?" I guess is my question.
Well, we're talking about a person's overall genetic makeup (as relevant to ethnicity), not one little gene. The ethnicity reports look at as much DNA as they can, and they actually look at unique combinations of SNPs to find certain combos more commonly found in one area of the world than another. They are looking at much, much, much more than one gene. How much more? Well, 23andMe uses 577,382 autosomal SNPs, 2329 Y SNPs (if you're male), 19,487 X SNPs, and 3154 mitochondrial SNPs. FTDNA includes about 690,000 autosomal, 18,091 X SNPs, and zero Y or mt data because they have separate Y and mt tests. AncestryDNA includes 637,639 autosomal SNPs, 1691 Y, 28,892 X, and 195 mt. You can get all this info here: https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA...mparison_chart

Quote:
If we are all humans and all of us who are in neighboring regions share genetic material, when does an African become a distinct race from a European geographically or genetically and who has determined that this is the case?
When it's possible to look at a person's DNA (and only their DNA) and accurately say "your origins are African" or "your origins are European", or even "you're half African, half European", then I'd say it's a race. No person has "determined" it, the DNA speaks for itself and accurately shows the difference between an African and a European.

Quote:
There is only one human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens - there is no mention of race here, only species.

Quote:
It is not "pure" because we come from a variety of regions and continents however, many of them do overlap and neighbor each other. Regardless of the mixture of regions of the people genetically, they are still of the human race.
It's certainly true all humans are genetically similar, because we are the same species, but there IS enough distinct DNA between continents to accurately tell people apart.

To me, what you're saying would be like saying a circle and a triangle are the same because they are both shapes. What I'm saying is that it's true they're both shapes, but you can tell just by looking at them that they are also distinctly different - different enough to clearly identify as different and categorize them differently. To clarify, I'm using shapes as a comparison to DNA data, not to the way people look (ie, I'm not using physical appearances to define race). Let me also take the opportunity to clarify that just because genetics can define different racial groups, in no way, shape, or form does it mean I think any one group is superior to any other, or that we shouldn't be able to co-exist. I wish that that went without saying but sadly, it doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 12:49 PM
 
14,375 posts, read 7,085,168 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens - there is no mention of race here, only species.



It's certainly true all humans are genetically similar, because we are the same species, but there IS enough distinct DNA between continents to accurately tell people apart.

To me, what you're saying would be like saying a circle and a triangle are the same because they are both shapes. What I'm saying is that it's true they're both shapes, but you can tell just by looking at them that they are also distinctly different - different enough to clearly identify as different and categorize them differently. To clarify, I'm using shapes as a comparison to DNA data, not to the way people look (ie, I'm not using physical appearances to define race). Let me also take the opportunity to clarify that just because genetics can define different racial groups, in no way, shape, or form does it mean I think any one group is superior to any other, or that we shouldn't be able to co-exist. I wish that that went without saying but sadly, it doesn't.
The black is basically what I'm getting at. IMO a "race" is a species, i.e. "the human race." We are the same species aka race of people.

On the blue, what I'm actually saying in regards to your analogy is that a triangle in Europe or Africa or Australia, even if one is red, blue, or purple, and different sizes, the triangle is still a triangle - it has 3 sides - it is a triangle. They have very minor differences amongst each other but they are still the same shape. Just like all humans have minor differences we are still the same species/race.

Mostly what people speak on in regards to race has a social or cultural context and is not genetically based. Genetically we are the same species and there are minute differences based on us having homogenously situated ancestors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,216 posts, read 12,800,785 times
Reputation: 10446
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
The black is basically what I'm getting at. IMO a "race" is a species, i.e. "the human race." We are the same species aka race of people.
I suppose if you insist on going against what experts think and insisting that race is the same thing as species, we are at an impasse.

Quote:
On the blue, what I'm actually saying in regards to your analogy is that a triangle in Europe or Africa or Australia, even if one is red, blue, or purple, and different sizes, the triangle is still a triangle - it has 3 sides - it is a triangle. They have very minor differences amongst each other but they are still the same shape. Just like all humans have minor differences we are still the same species/race.
Okay, since you introduced color as an analogy for DNA data, I'll go with that instead. What you're saying is that the color red and blue are the same because they're both colors. What I'm saying is that they are totally different colors. Let's say blue represents Africa and red represents Europe. It's easy to see just from looking at them they are distinctly different, even if they are both colors. There are no other shapes or sizes here, just the colors.

Quote:
Mostly what people speak on in regards to race has a social or cultural context and is not genetically based.
Yes, but this topic is about genetics.

Quote:
Genetically we are the same species and there are minute differences based on us having homogenously situated ancestors.
Yes! Exactly, the same species, not race. They are not the same thing. Minute as the differences may be, they are still significant enough to easily tell continental DNA apart, denoting different races within our species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top