Genetics, Personalized Genotyping

[Anonymous No.7517172]

Hey, I wish there were a good resource on such a thing, but, does anyone know if there's a website where it's a database that ranks haplogroups (specific ones, not just "J" or "K", but, J1e, k1a1, etc.) by frequency, both over all known data and ethnicity?

Like, if I wanted to find out the most common Y haplgroups among Ashkenazi Jews, a list would read as Follows:
Ashkenazim (Y):
1. J1 (11%)
2. E1b1b1c1a (10%)
3. J1e (8%)
and so on.
I'm making these numbers up for the sake of explaining, but is getting the data this organized and specific even possible?
Pic semi-related--It's on the right track, but doesn't have specific ethnic groups or haplogroups listed.

[Anonymous No.7517218]

>>7517172
The problem with this field is that there are very little to no established "frequency, both over all known data and ethnicity". There is very little "known" data about this, and it's really hard to paint a clear pictures because human populations migrate like crazy and outliers abound. Some ancestry sites claim to know, but a lot of their data is based on the very small amount of published papers out there. Some of it comes from mummies that have been genetically analyzed, and some from current populations, but that doesn't really give reliable information on the subject 100% of the time.

Also, you should know that your haplogroup is just one line of ancestry. You may only share 1/100000 of your DNA with that line, and haplogroup is really a quite horrible way to identify someone's real ancestry.

That said, a lot of progress is being made and in a number of years I'm sure we'll have it more figured out.

[Anonymous No.7517230]

>>7517218
OP, here.
>Also, you should know that your haplogroup is just one line of ancestry. You may only share 1/100000 of your DNA with that line, and haplogroup is really a quite horrible way to identify someone's real ancestry.

Obviously. Hitler was not Somali. Racial purity is a myth.
I just meant out of curiosity.

[Anonymous No.7517367]

>>7517218
Wait a minute, though--Can't you kind of apply some kind weak law of large numbers, here?
Here's what I mean: It's useless to use haplogroups to say that an individual is a member of a particular ethnic group, but, it might be more useful to look at relative frequencies to determine if one ethnic group is related to another.

[Anonymous No.7517388]

Not this race pseudoscience again.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7517394]

>>7517388
Why are you pretending to know anything about genetics?

Take your feelings and anti-intellectualism back to >>>/pol/.

[Anonymous No.7517410]

>>7517388
>Not this race pseudoscience again.
OP, here.
I have no idea what it is you're objecting to.
Note that I posted this: >>7517230, with the line >Racial purity is a myth.

Haplogroups are surprisingly good at determining the relation of people you already know you're related to. For example, my mtDNA is HV5, and I have a 3rd cousin who is also HV5. So, we're attempting to get records of our great grandmothers, because they were very likely sisters.

But yes, you can notice relative frequency among one group to another.

[Anonymous No.7517419]

>>7517410
Oh and I forgot to add:

Why it matters to have the frequency by race:
Bayesian probability in determining ancestors. If two Ashkenazi Jews are 4th cousins and have the same Y haplogroup, if that haplogroup is VERY COMMON, it says little about their relation, but, if that haplogroup is not so common, it says a lot about their relation.

[Anonymous No.7517422]

>>7517388
> race is pseudoscience
nice meme

[Anonymous No.7517434]

>>7517422
>nice meme

Not that guy, but, let's at least note that the genetic variations unique to a particular race probably have very little to do with how race is defined.
Like, a person who is 20% black is probably considered black, but the skin color is due to so few genes, that it means basically nothing. And then, of course, there's genetic anomalies like pic related.

[Anonymous No.7517443]

europedia might have it for europeans.

you should know that the y dna haplogroups are revised every year i think by the isogg or whatwver its called.

maybe you could make a thread about it on the forums for 23andme or FTDNA

[Anonymous No.7517446]

>>7517434
> if race means nothing to me, then it should mean nothing to everyone.
Nobody cares what you think. Race deniers deny science and biology to fit it with their dreamy worldviews. Race matters to people and no matter how much you cry race will exist forever.

Skin color is just one of the physical manifestation of race. People wouldn't mind if it was nothing more than skin color.

[Anonymous No.7517475]

>>7517446
>Nobody cares what you think. Race deniers deny science and biology to fit it with their dreamy worldviews
Of course you are refering to your burger lads and the majority of people who spend their life not ignoring the media.

>Skin color is just one of the physical manifestation of race.
k

>People wouldn't mind if it was nothing more than skin color.
People want what their parents taught to them and what the media told them when they were younger.

Just spout what you want to say and go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7517484]

>>7517475
> ignoring all the points in the post by trying to act witty since he can't answer
no surprise there
> reddit trying to refer 4chan people to other boards
kek

This is why race deniers have no credibility. You can't sweep away biology and science with illiterate posts as such.

[Anonymous No.7517500]

>>7517446
>Nobody cares what you think. Race deniers deny science and biology to fit it with their dreamy worldviews. Race matters to people and no matter how much you cry race will exist forever.
>Skin color is just one of the physical manifestation of race. People wouldn't mind if it was nothing more than skin color.

I'm not denying any aspect of race, simply that how we categorize race must not be so scientific. Of course the genes are going to do more than simply effect skin color and facial features, but my point was that the heuristics we have about race are precisely based on categorizing race by appearance.

We don't fully know what those genes do. We do know, however, that the genes unique to a race are very small in comparison to the genes unique to familial groups. That is to say that the variance between members within a racial group is very high, but the variance between racial groups is not nearly as high.

We could talk about how the warrior gene has 34% frequency in whites and 59% frequency in blacks, claim that this must surely be responsible for the high incarceration rate of blacks, and deny that societal racism exists, reeking of tremendous confirmation bias.

Here's my stance: Yes, of course different groups of people have different frequencies of genes among them. Well fucking duh. That's no reason to get all Hitler about it. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.7517507]

In general I opt out of trivial things like these, but if you're saying classical racial theory is pseudo-science you're thinking political and not scientific.

It's like saying Newton's law is pseudo-scientific bullshit because of QM.

Categorization is an extremely important topic and high level laws are often more important than more accurate, more fundamental ones.

Just like Newton's law is used to build skyscrapers and bridges, so is classical racial theory used in internal medicine to diagnose racial genetic diseases.


In any case OP's thread isn't about classical racial theory so that one faggot can get the fuck out and go browse /leftypol/ or whatever other eco chamber you hail from.

[Anonymous No.7517520]

>>7517500
> That is to say that the variance between members within a racial group is very high, but the variance between racial groups is not nearly as high.
[citation needed]

> high incarceration rate of blacks, and deny that societal racism exists, reeking of tremendous confirmation bias.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with those people actually committing crimes right ?

> That's no reason to get all Hitler about it
Easy now black panther, you won't accomplish anything by trying to eradicate the white race or shoot cops or glorify criminal teens.

[Anonymous No.7517533]

>>7517507
> so is classical racial theory used in internal medicine to diagnose racial genetic diseases.

And to identify suspects with DNA tests that hold up as evidence in jury trials
And to put more police resources near the statistically high crime expected areas
And so on...

[Anonymous No.7517542]

>>7517484
>keep spouting memes
arrivederci

[Anonymous No.7517546]

>>7517542
You have not come up with one post that offers any scientific view on race but rather shitpost and clog the board with gb2paulxD memes. You should leave and never visit any science board ever again.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.7517557]

>>7517520
>[citation needed]
The problem is that you're going to say Lewontin's studies are invalid.

But here's the point: We can't allow ourselves to simply take one or two scientific facts as a post-hoc justification for the way society has been structured. That would not be scientific.

[Anonymous No.7517560]

>>7517557
Just show it. As long as it's backed up by biological evidence it should be fine.

[Anonymous No.7517561]

>>7517546
>he doesn't know who finance most research
>he keeps emphasizing the importance of the people's wellness

Ok, boy

[Anonymous No.7517566]

>>7517561
> research is done by evil white men backed up by zombie Hitler who actually lives on the moon and trying to bring back the third reich again using magic.

[Anonymous No.7517567]

>>7517560
>there are so much robber niggers in my country
>genetics define the fate of every person
>thus, niggers are born delinquents

I bet that was your first thought.

[Anonymous No.7517569]

>>7517566
>keep spouting memes
Adiós

[Anonymous No.7517572]

>>7517567
>>7517569
I bet you'll keep evading questions and post /b/ tier personal attacks rather than discussing something like a mature person.

[Anonymous No.7517573]

>>7517560
>Just show it. As long as it's backed up by biological evidence it should be fine.

It's accepted as "common knowledge" such that evoking Lewontin's name should be enough, but here's the wikipedia info on Race and Genetics:

"In 1972, Richard Lewontin performed a FST statistical analysis using 17 markers (including blood-group proteins). He found that the majority of genetic differences between humans (85.4 percent) were found within a population, 8.3 percent were found between populations within a race and 6.3 percent were found to differentiate races (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines in his study). Since then, other analyses have found FST values of 6–10 percent between continental human groups, 5–15 percent between different populations on the same continent and 75–85 percent within populations"

Ergo, at the extreme highs for groups and lows for individuals:
A Yoruba person owes 10% of his genetic variation to being Yoruba, 15% to being subsaharan african, and 75% to being a member of his family.

[Anonymous No.7517596]

>>7517573
I want to read the paper about it, can you post the article

[Anonymous No.7517604]

>>7517596
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Between-group_genetics

[Anonymous No.7517962]

So now that we're done with the whole irrelevant race nonsense, can someone help out?

[Anonymous No.7518048]

>>7517172
You might look at the human genome project. Also, the companies that do haplotypes commercially collect a lot of metrics and you might be able to get their aggregate data.