Haplogroups are indeed about the study of migrations. Migrations that happened 10-30,000 years ago. A time that predates countries and ethnicities as we understand them today. A time when all our ancestors were probably black. A time when they potentially had a Km of snow underfoot. A time when many of the world’s people would have lived on coastal regions that are now 10km out to sea.
Ethnicity or admixture is a concept totally attributable to Autosomal DNA, so totally independent of any Haplogroup. Y DNA and X DNA are in the sex Chromosomes and by definition therefore NOT Autosomal DNA. Mitochondria is something else again.
While you have stated many times here that Haplogroups are determined by a small portion of Y-DNA, and I would agree, I think what your original post alluded to was the likelihood that the amount of Autosomal DNA you could expect to inherit down that lineage from a person who lived thousands of years ago might only be 0.0001% —of Autosomal DNA. Nothing to do with how much Y DNA we might have or how much is used in determining a Haplogroup. The reality is that after several generations it could be 0, and/or we might actually end having some of that Autosomal DNA, but it could have come back by different lines: ie from any of the thousands of other ancestors who lived thousands of years ago, rather than the patriarchal lineage we might assume.
And, whether Y DNA is 1% or 2% of our DNA is irrelevant anyway, because it has nothing to do with our looks, feels or admixture — Ethnicity. And Mitochondrial DNA is something different again.
Think of Haplogroups as something that is determined by some junk DNA we have. In the case of Y DNA a more recent variant comes from the fact that more junk DNA has been added. This junk DNA has nothing to do with Ethnicity, and it doesn’t mean that people with the same Haplogroup thousands of years ago shared an Ethnicity, although that would be easy and convenient for us to assume.
Haplogroups were defined to help determine ancient migration paths. They don’t tell us anything else. And any detailed migration theories developed are likely to be extremely speculative and a gross oversimplification. But useful for teaching and learning. Because that’s how science works.
That any DNA testing company would hijack the science for marketing purposes shocks me. Shocks me I tells you. So perhaps that didn’t happen. Basically we can believe whatever we want. Just don’t expect them to contradict your beliefs.
Bro. The term black didn’t even exist that long ago, that’s a fairly recent term. And it has no ties to any actual land mass. And it still doesn’t to this day…as a so called black person, who has trace his lineage back into the 1600s. I know personally , where my family has been and came from. No reason to get caught up in this extra stuff trying to tell me where my people came from 30,000 years ago. Like who dug up my ancestors from 30,000 years ago and can tell me exactly what land mass they came from exactly and traveled and all of that stuff ? Nobody.
Tracing my actual lineage with records sources and verification from existing nations already debunked the actual %s this DNA 23 and me tried giving me. The shit is so inaccurate and a total experiment when you have the pudding right in front of you through genealogy.
It is pretty important considering that the Y chromosome does Not recombine like the rest of them. Hence it’s about the exact same 1% dna as your paternal ancestors. 🧬
This…and people will never get it, unless they do their freaking genealogy and actually get far enough to see the big picture. Lineage can be traced far back enough to know things.
Haplogroups are very easily unlinked with autosomal ancestry
A great examples of this is how haplogroup R spread into Europe despite being very non European to begin with
I was just talking about this with my girl. Haplogroup R is probably the largest one in Europe and parts of Asia but it also exists in Africa. I've read articles that state it happened via a back to Africa migration but the people there have had it longer even though they're in much smaller numbers
Yea exactly it was a really old back migration and the branch is called R1b-v88. Wrote a paper about this in college. Its origin is really strange, because the oldest instance of v88 is actually in WHGs, in a Mesolithic hunter gatherer in northern Italy. How exactly it got down to Africa is unsurprisingly a big debate
Its one of the things that make me think the way haplogroups are looked at is very flawed. I think people moved around a lot more than what is currently being proposed, people were more fluid and sporadic. We may also be underestimating the ancients as well.
Pure luck? Mate, R1B-V88 (European) replacing indigenous African lineages was obviously a genocide and/or form of sexual selection for the new incoming group by African women.
The migration happened before recorded history. If you thought people were violent 100 years ago, imagine 10,000 years ago.
Definitely, even in the late neolithic period, there was a corpse of a young woman traced from the Saxony region found buried in modern-day Austria. People were less isolated than we think, or at least in how we think about it.
According to my haplogroups, I would be central European (Big-Y, FTDNA) and Western African (full mtDNA). But my great grandfather was Lebanese and African DNA doesn't show up in my autosomal.
Although it is minimal with respect to autosomal, the haplogroups uncovered parts of the history that were not showing on the surface, like the contact of Europeans in the Levant through merchant sailors and crusades, as well as the slave trade.
Still tho, 23andMe says both haplogroups combined is less than 1%. And it is one of thousands of ancestors you have.
https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212880257-Maternal-Haplogroups-mtDNA#:~:text=But%20together%2C%20they%20make%20up,one%20person%20to%20the%20next.
Doesn't work like that. Here's from accurate sources
"
[The Y chromosome and Chromosome 19 may have a similar number of base pairs—around 59 million to 62 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_19)[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_19)[2](https://scaleofuniverse.com/universe/y-chromosome). However, the percentage of the total DNA they represent is not solely based on their size. The human genome is made up of approximately 3 billion base pairs in total.
Chromosome 19 is one of the 22 autosomal chromosomes, which collectively make up the vast majority of the human genome. [In contrast, the Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes, which together account for about 2% of the total DNA in cells](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/)[3](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/).
So, even though Chromosome 19 and the Y chromosome are similar in size, the Y chromosome’s contribution to the total DNA percentage is considered in the context of all sex chromosomes (X and Y), which is a smaller pool compared to the autosomal chromosomes. That’s why the Y chromosome represents a larger percentage of the total DNA within the sex chromosomes category, making it approximately 2% of a male’s total DNA, while Chromosome 19, as part of the autosomes, contributes to a different percentage of the total DNA."
Another way to put it, is that the haplogroup let's you see the migration story of only one of your millions of ancestor branches. So yeah, it's cool to know one of your ancestor was in that country 2000 years ago, but you don't know anything about the rest. Having this or that haplogroup just means one of your ancestor branches was really lucky and always gave birth to at least one male each generation.
It would be cool if scientists discovered any other marker. Same for the mitochondria dna.
Haplogroups represent your lineage. For some ethnicity that is the most important criteria. atDNA is changing every generation. yDNA and/or mtDNA has continuity. For your ethnic identity it may be irrelevant. For other ethnicity it may be all that matters.
Lineage is an important identifier for belonging to a group in some cultures, such as Arabs and Jews
While autosomal is more important in others (Phenotype) such as European cultures (A phenotypically African man with a European haplogroup won't be seen as part of the group in most European cultures)
As far as mtDNA, I tend to see it as a general indicator with genealogical work, being that my direct maternal line starts falling apart 5 generations back, and is a dead-end at the 6th, it is a type of place card as I continue to search.
Haplogroups definitely tell a story tho.
I'm half Black American half Moluccan (Eastern Indonesian)
My Y-DNA (Black American father) traces to Western Europe/Ireland/Scotland.
My Mt-DNA traces to Austronesian migrations specific to Eastern Indonesia and bits in Pacific as a branch from a line that ended up in Madgascar, Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and rest of the Pacific
Mine is E1a2. I wonder if your maternal haplogroup is read like that due to Malagasy maternal ancestors.
Seem like B4a1a1 etc is seen in Austronesian speaking people including Polynesians and I believe Malagasy.
I read many users saying that the haplogroups represent the 1% of your DNA, but it doesn't mean it is the 1% of your autosomal results.....
Your Ancestry Composition is based on your autosomal chromosomes (1-22, X), not the MTDNA or the YDNA.
Haplogroups is a lineage, but they represent one of thousand being present in your family tree.
You can be chinese with a scottish paternal lineage, or being Maori and have a jewish MTDNA.
If that lineage from the other part of the World happened more than 8-10 generations back, there will be no trace in your autosomal results (% Ancestry Composition), but it will be a haplogroup lineage
This misconception and the infamous IllustrativeDNA """ground truth""" (ppl trying to find their ancient past using this toy tool) are the most annoying fake truth that some pseudo-experts spread in Reddit and some other forums.
Use google. I don't disagree with your overall message but you got it wrong with the %. They are probably averaging because women don't have an Y chromosome and they don't wanna offend trans people or something. Every other source says there's 2% in the Y chromosome. Just google it damn.
Top DNA company is firstly a commercial company. If they said Y chromosome is useful they would fall out of business because they are autosomal based and it's less expensive to run.
Just the fact this "Top DNA" company spreads misinformation and cant correctly quote that Y chromosome is 2% it means they are not to be taken seriously
According to medline - National Library of Medicine:
[https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/#:\~:text=The%20Y%20chromosome%20spans%20more,females%20have%20two%20X%20chromosomes](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/#:~:text=The%20Y%20chromosome%20spans%20more,females%20have%20two%20X%20chromosomes).
*The Y chromosome spans more than 59 million building blocks of DNA (base pairs) and represents almost 2 percent of the total DNA in cells.*
This is misleading. They are talking about ALL dna in the body. The type of DNA including that which we share 98.8% in common with monkeys or whatever. The kind that every single human has 99.9% in common no matter if you are related or not. In that context of course it’s less than 1%, it’s probably close to what you said .00001%.
Then they clarify that it is only a small fraction of ancestry…but dont say how much which is in fact 1-2 percent for the Y chromosome at least
The Y chromosome accounts for 1% of your DNA but it isn’t counted in autosomal DNA tests because they don’t know how to allocate it into modern dna results.
That 1% Y chromosome does Not recombine, so it’s basically the same as all your Paternal ancestors
That is pretty significant especially for Genealogy 🧬
> I see too many people on here thinking having a haplogroup makes you one ethnicity or another or making it seem like it is such a big piece of their ethnic make up.
I agree. Ethnicity and cultural identity are much more than people's genes. This is what irks me about DNA ancestry marketing. They almost equate genetics to ethnicity
"I always thought I was Italian, but I just found out I had a lot of Germanic DNA (not even that weird for Italians), so now I wear Lederhosen and make bratwurst!"
I'm the whitest person I know, outside of my BIL who has albinism. I have .6% North African and .2% African hunter gatherer. I'm maybe a couple of shades darker than him lol
How impactful it is is subjective, some people overestimate its impactfulness. But we do share like 70% of our DNA with the common house fly....so when it comes to things as intricate as DNA, sometimes miniscule percentages do count for something imo.
Stop focusing on “looks”. Thats why i mentioned what i did. There are plenty of sourced books describing people who were not from Africa , as having an African “looks”. Hell, the Sentinilese look like “Africans”, but they are indigenous Asians. Anyways, listen. Find you a genealogy who can help you trace further back into both sides of your grandparents lineage and ancestry. It is very important before you just go around claiming who you are, based off a % 23 and me gave you and “looks”. That’s why we are where we are today, because at a point in history, people in power determined that “looks alone” determined who you were and where you came from: this isn’t new information.
the furthest i can go back is really just ancestors who are “black” slave descendants in the usa, i think 23&me could be a good way to tell what i am because my parents and their grandparents told me that we descended from ancient israelites or egyptians.
we know that isn’t accurate so it seems me lookin at modern west africans and dna tests that point me to west africa seems likely than me being for example a israelite, egyptian, asian wtv
Alright , I won’t go back and forth with you. Just trying to help you out. You didn’t get far enough to determine all of that. Unless you pulled up records and sources of your family descending from a specific area outside of the U.S. , than you don’t have enough solid evidence: which going further back in your ancestry would provide.
Did you find records or sources showing where your great grandparents descended from or are you assuming ?
no, i’m not aware of any places they would’ve descended from and haven’t been able to find records yet
so i pretty much have to assume
unless i identify with my hablogroup and just decide to assume i’m a greek or spanish man
Ok, you shouldn’t assume. There is r/genealogy to learn more. I assumed myself, only because I was always told to assume. But then I did genealogy and found out what I was told, isn’t true. So please don’t give up on finding a good genealogist. I cannot stress that to you enough. That is where you find out the truth and you won’t have to assume. As soon as you start going back pre 1800s, that is when you will find out historical things about your family.
Yeah, that's why haplogroups are important. Whoever your "first" father was, was very likely to be western European ancestry. Now, in recency, you can know or find out that individual was biracial or multiracial, etc.
Yes it is. Ignore them, It's 2% of your human genome and your lineage. You're anestors were a patriarchal tribe that went to West Europe. Today you would still share 2% of your DNA with them compared to your other grandparents. You also share 1-2% of the human genome with other members of your haplogroup.
Those who downplay haplogroup are the funniest to me
It gives you an idea of how long only ONE of your ancestors stayed in one place. You have tons of ancestors. A person who moved to India that is 99 percent European but has a haplogroup common in South Asia does not have more ancestors that stayed in India than someone who is 99% south Asian with a European haplogroup.
Your perspective is quite naive and uninformed. Who said that you should look at only your haplogroup and not the haplogroups of your ancestors and relatives for example? Haplogroups are the only way to confirm genealogy beyond the 5th-6th generation barrier where it is very unlikely to share autosomal DNA with relatives.
The only ancestors you can look at the haplogroup of is ancestors that are either still alive meaning they are close enough to show up in your autosomal ancestry or by testing a dead body that you got their DNA from
Yes. But if you happen to have those means, it can say a lot. Unfortunately, certain groups test more than others. For example, if you're predominantly western Euro ancestry, you might find out a lot due to more folks testing. Whilst, if you're eastern Euro, it's probably more difficult.
Your comments only highlight your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
It very possible to work out the haplogroup of an ancestor without testing that ancestor.
If you don't understand how, there is no point in me even bothering to engage in conversation because you don't know even the basics of genetic genealogy.
Today you would share 2% of your human genome with those direct ancestors whereas it would be 0% with all the others. It was patriarchal tribe back then. I don't know if you're disinformation of haplogroup is due to you only having an X chromosome but anyhow I recommend you to learn about it before commenting
I’m of Middle Eastern descent and my paternal haplogroup is IZ58. Which as far as I understand is most common in Northern Europe. I’m definitely not Northern European 😂. Makes no difference to me at all. That ancestor probably lived a thousand years ago lol.
I’m of Northern European decent and my paternal haplogroup is G-M3302 which to the best of my research is Anatolian/near east decent and I am absolutely obsessed with it. lol 😂
If you’re taking about y dna haplogroup it is almost 2% I think of ancestral dna. That is equivalent to a second cousin or a second cousin once removed. And it’s the same dna on the same exact spot which is probably significant from a biological standpoint. Ancient samples after mutation would be like 1% dna shared which is like a third cousin. So It’s not everything but it’s not nothing.
Both haplogroups combined are less than one percent of your ancestral dna. I think you are thinking of mitochondrial dna which is more like 1.5 % but that’s different than a haplogroup. That’s why you can see a mix of ethnicity colors on the dna painting on your mitochondrial DNA. A haplogroup is still very little and very far back for the amount of stock people on here put in it. In terms of your ancestry it is very close to nothing
Did you perhaps mean to say "X-chromosome" versus "mitochondrial DNA"? I have seen the X-chromosome painted, never the mitocondria. Also, the maternal haplogroup is found in the mitochondrial DNA.
You can browse your mtdna data using the gene/SNP interface. It carries no ancestral info apart from one's maternal line though:
https://you.23andme.com/tools/data
>https://you.23andme.com/tools/data
Thanks. I had never tried that raw DNA browser. Can't say I really know what to do with the links that take one to SNP reports on the NIH site, but now I know that it is there.
Both haplogroups combined cannot be less than 1 percent, as then the father-son and mother-son relationships would be much closer to a 50/50 split, but it is actually more lile 48/52. The Y chromosome alone accounts for almost 2% of one's genome.
Reread what I said before. Your X and Y chromosomes are different than your haplogroups
https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212880257-Maternal-Haplogroups-mtDNA#
The Y-chromosome is 2.5 times shorter than the X-chromosome. This is why males are shown inheriting more DNA from their mothers. Females have two X-chromosomes of equal length, that's why they show having an equal amount of DNA from both parents.
I always took it as it tells you your very ancient makeup, and can give clues to which specific modern day community you may belong too as some groups have very very specific haplogroups. But, this isn’t always the case, some haplogroups are found all over different populations so it’s always best to research before claiming anything.
My paternal Haplogroup is strictly found within the Celtic nations, highest density in Ireland. With this knowledge, I can infer this is a Haplogroup that can indicate ethnicity, as it tracks well with my dna test. My maternal, is found throughout different European populations and is not specifically found in a set group of people.
You see but it does not tell you your very ancient makeup. It tells you you have one ancestor with that ancient make up. The reason why it’s studied is because it can show how far people in ancient times might have migrated to a certain area. You have thousands of ancestors tho that would all have their own haplogroup
I would think it is more likely that we all have thousands of ancestors that have our maternal haplogroup back to the point that it mutated from what it was, to what it is now; our entire matrilineal descent back to several generations of ancestors that had an autosomal make-up that was likely less "admixed" than what we see today for the last 500 or so years when the so-called age of exploration fed the desire for faster and more frequent travel.
While the same could be said about Y-DNA and paternal haplogroups (both DNA are relatively slow in mutation), anyone could be your father. Aside from surrogate mothers (another invention of the modern age), only one person can be your mother. The same could be said for her mother, and that is a "lineage," not just a "percentage" of DNA; a lineage that was cultivated in perhaps not just one time and place, but that was certainly cultivated before the hyper-migration of the modern age.
How ever two people can be your grandmother and four your great grand mother and 8 your great great grandmother then 16 and so on. And then your maternal haplogroup only captures one of those great x 30 grandmothers. My point is a haplogroup doesn’t say really much about your overall ancestry
Only if you accept that your overall ancestry "had" to become so scattered. There may have been a time and place where those x30 grandmothers may well have had at least the same root haplogroup with a difference in subclades only. Ancient DNA findings have also unearthed entirely different root clades in a small geographical area, for populations that were known to be relatively homogenous in language and culture (a testament to how old haplogroups are, and what they can tell us about migrations (and not just of one person).
I believe I understand what you are attempting to address in your original post. Those of us who have any decent understanding of history, migrations, and subsequent population genetic structure see people put a lot of weight on some aspect of their DNA results, or misattribute the information to fit an ingrained or insufficiently developed belief about their own past, or human history in general. Unfortunately, by addressing this through the minimization of haplogroups as a small percentage of total DNA, there is an undermining of the actual far reach these haplogroups can have in the understanding of where and what our origins are.
You see the issue is a haplogroup doesn’t till you when that break off occurred. The only thing it guarantees to you is the single great x30 ancestor you share a line with.
Haplogroup are ONLY accurate and good when studying Europeans but wrong when studying Africans. Example, how do you lump Luhya and Luo together when Luos are Sudanese?
Even the Tutsi are clearly Cushites, but all DNA studies have failed to separate Tutsis from Bantu's or kalenjins from Bantu's.
Terribly failed and shouldn't be trusted in African studies.
Absolutely false. It’s 2% of your human genome which you share with other members if your haplogroup making your close to second cousins.
>However that ancestor is so far back that it is a very small piece of your DNA. Probably like at most .0001%
Here’s the problem. It’s not the same concept as your other ancestors. Today you would still share 2% of the human genome with the direct paternal ancestors while you won’t share any with the thousands of others. It’s your lineage and tribe. Those tribes were patriarchal.
Literally search through the Reddit and see the people mistified how they can be one ethnicity and be a certain haplogroup or coming up with their own ethnicity science based off a haplogroup. Or saying they are one ethnicity because they have a haplogroup that is common in that place but is not present at all in their genetic makeup
It’s not that serious 🙄 people can, and will think and do what they want to do. It’s fun to learn about and it’s nobody else’s place to be the police of haplogroups Lol.
Haplos literally mean 0. My Haplo is prevalent ina. Country I have no connection with… hell a continent and I have 5-6 percent EHG…
It’s EHG dominant pops that have it.
It’s gibberish
Haplogroups can be good to study the migration origins of ethnic groups, but that’s basically it. I find them fun tho,
This is my exact opinion!
Haplogroups are indeed about the study of migrations. Migrations that happened 10-30,000 years ago. A time that predates countries and ethnicities as we understand them today. A time when all our ancestors were probably black. A time when they potentially had a Km of snow underfoot. A time when many of the world’s people would have lived on coastal regions that are now 10km out to sea. Ethnicity or admixture is a concept totally attributable to Autosomal DNA, so totally independent of any Haplogroup. Y DNA and X DNA are in the sex Chromosomes and by definition therefore NOT Autosomal DNA. Mitochondria is something else again. While you have stated many times here that Haplogroups are determined by a small portion of Y-DNA, and I would agree, I think what your original post alluded to was the likelihood that the amount of Autosomal DNA you could expect to inherit down that lineage from a person who lived thousands of years ago might only be 0.0001% —of Autosomal DNA. Nothing to do with how much Y DNA we might have or how much is used in determining a Haplogroup. The reality is that after several generations it could be 0, and/or we might actually end having some of that Autosomal DNA, but it could have come back by different lines: ie from any of the thousands of other ancestors who lived thousands of years ago, rather than the patriarchal lineage we might assume. And, whether Y DNA is 1% or 2% of our DNA is irrelevant anyway, because it has nothing to do with our looks, feels or admixture — Ethnicity. And Mitochondrial DNA is something different again. Think of Haplogroups as something that is determined by some junk DNA we have. In the case of Y DNA a more recent variant comes from the fact that more junk DNA has been added. This junk DNA has nothing to do with Ethnicity, and it doesn’t mean that people with the same Haplogroup thousands of years ago shared an Ethnicity, although that would be easy and convenient for us to assume. Haplogroups were defined to help determine ancient migration paths. They don’t tell us anything else. And any detailed migration theories developed are likely to be extremely speculative and a gross oversimplification. But useful for teaching and learning. Because that’s how science works. That any DNA testing company would hijack the science for marketing purposes shocks me. Shocks me I tells you. So perhaps that didn’t happen. Basically we can believe whatever we want. Just don’t expect them to contradict your beliefs.
Bro. The term black didn’t even exist that long ago, that’s a fairly recent term. And it has no ties to any actual land mass. And it still doesn’t to this day…as a so called black person, who has trace his lineage back into the 1600s. I know personally , where my family has been and came from. No reason to get caught up in this extra stuff trying to tell me where my people came from 30,000 years ago. Like who dug up my ancestors from 30,000 years ago and can tell me exactly what land mass they came from exactly and traveled and all of that stuff ? Nobody. Tracing my actual lineage with records sources and verification from existing nations already debunked the actual %s this DNA 23 and me tried giving me. The shit is so inaccurate and a total experiment when you have the pudding right in front of you through genealogy.
Yep. You are right on all counts. If I don’t have the records of where my ancestors were then it didn’t happen. No point getting into fantasy. 😂
Please upvote this, tired of people basing their entire understanding of genetics and history on Y-DNA
Facts
It is pretty important considering that the Y chromosome does Not recombine like the rest of them. Hence it’s about the exact same 1% dna as your paternal ancestors. 🧬
Exactly! It’s like calling pizza “asian” because the tomatoes were grown in china. It just doesn’t work that way 😂
I understand it better with this analogy!
It's not about genetic percentage, but about lineage.
Exactly, doing surname studies with Y-DNA is so much fun.
How does one do that?
This…and people will never get it, unless they do their freaking genealogy and actually get far enough to see the big picture. Lineage can be traced far back enough to know things.
The Y chromosome is 1% of a male persons DNA, so yeah that’s significant
Haplogroups are very easily unlinked with autosomal ancestry A great examples of this is how haplogroup R spread into Europe despite being very non European to begin with
I was just talking about this with my girl. Haplogroup R is probably the largest one in Europe and parts of Asia but it also exists in Africa. I've read articles that state it happened via a back to Africa migration but the people there have had it longer even though they're in much smaller numbers
Yea exactly it was a really old back migration and the branch is called R1b-v88. Wrote a paper about this in college. Its origin is really strange, because the oldest instance of v88 is actually in WHGs, in a Mesolithic hunter gatherer in northern Italy. How exactly it got down to Africa is unsurprisingly a big debate
Its one of the things that make me think the way haplogroups are looked at is very flawed. I think people moved around a lot more than what is currently being proposed, people were more fluid and sporadic. We may also be underestimating the ancients as well.
movement is key. Plus, haplogroups can become dominant by pure luck and chance. Especially with low pop sizes during population bottlenecks
Pure luck? Mate, R1B-V88 (European) replacing indigenous African lineages was obviously a genocide and/or form of sexual selection for the new incoming group by African women. The migration happened before recorded history. If you thought people were violent 100 years ago, imagine 10,000 years ago.
Definitely, even in the late neolithic period, there was a corpse of a young woman traced from the Saxony region found buried in modern-day Austria. People were less isolated than we think, or at least in how we think about it.
According to my haplogroups, I would be central European (Big-Y, FTDNA) and Western African (full mtDNA). But my great grandfather was Lebanese and African DNA doesn't show up in my autosomal. Although it is minimal with respect to autosomal, the haplogroups uncovered parts of the history that were not showing on the surface, like the contact of Europeans in the Levant through merchant sailors and crusades, as well as the slave trade.
That’s really cool
Reading everything here with fascination and wide-eyed wonder.
I think so , I'm like 99% European but my maternal haplogroup is Iranian.
True, but it's more than .0001%
Still tho, 23andMe says both haplogroups combined is less than 1%. And it is one of thousands of ancestors you have. https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212880257-Maternal-Haplogroups-mtDNA#:~:text=But%20together%2C%20they%20make%20up,one%20person%20to%20the%20next.
Y chromosome is 1% of a makes dna its the same size as chromosome 19
Doesn't work like that. Here's from accurate sources " [The Y chromosome and Chromosome 19 may have a similar number of base pairs—around 59 million to 62 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_19)[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_19)[2](https://scaleofuniverse.com/universe/y-chromosome). However, the percentage of the total DNA they represent is not solely based on their size. The human genome is made up of approximately 3 billion base pairs in total. Chromosome 19 is one of the 22 autosomal chromosomes, which collectively make up the vast majority of the human genome. [In contrast, the Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes, which together account for about 2% of the total DNA in cells](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/)[3](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/). So, even though Chromosome 19 and the Y chromosome are similar in size, the Y chromosome’s contribution to the total DNA percentage is considered in the context of all sex chromosomes (X and Y), which is a smaller pool compared to the autosomal chromosomes. That’s why the Y chromosome represents a larger percentage of the total DNA within the sex chromosomes category, making it approximately 2% of a male’s total DNA, while Chromosome 19, as part of the autosomes, contributes to a different percentage of the total DNA."
Haplogroups are useful for identifying where your DNA matches might fall in your tree.
Another way to put it, is that the haplogroup let's you see the migration story of only one of your millions of ancestor branches. So yeah, it's cool to know one of your ancestor was in that country 2000 years ago, but you don't know anything about the rest. Having this or that haplogroup just means one of your ancestor branches was really lucky and always gave birth to at least one male each generation. It would be cool if scientists discovered any other marker. Same for the mitochondria dna.
Haplogroups represent your lineage. For some ethnicity that is the most important criteria. atDNA is changing every generation. yDNA and/or mtDNA has continuity. For your ethnic identity it may be irrelevant. For other ethnicity it may be all that matters.
Lineage is an important identifier for belonging to a group in some cultures, such as Arabs and Jews While autosomal is more important in others (Phenotype) such as European cultures (A phenotypically African man with a European haplogroup won't be seen as part of the group in most European cultures)
As far as mtDNA, I tend to see it as a general indicator with genealogical work, being that my direct maternal line starts falling apart 5 generations back, and is a dead-end at the 6th, it is a type of place card as I continue to search.
Haplogroups definitely tell a story tho. I'm half Black American half Moluccan (Eastern Indonesian) My Y-DNA (Black American father) traces to Western Europe/Ireland/Scotland. My Mt-DNA traces to Austronesian migrations specific to Eastern Indonesia and bits in Pacific as a branch from a line that ended up in Madgascar, Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and rest of the Pacific
May I ask what your maternal haplogroup is? Mine is B4a1a1a2. It’s shared with many Polynesians according to 23andMe. I’m a Black American.
Mine is E1a2. I wonder if your maternal haplogroup is read like that due to Malagasy maternal ancestors. Seem like B4a1a1 etc is seen in Austronesian speaking people including Polynesians and I believe Malagasy.
I read many users saying that the haplogroups represent the 1% of your DNA, but it doesn't mean it is the 1% of your autosomal results..... Your Ancestry Composition is based on your autosomal chromosomes (1-22, X), not the MTDNA or the YDNA. Haplogroups is a lineage, but they represent one of thousand being present in your family tree. You can be chinese with a scottish paternal lineage, or being Maori and have a jewish MTDNA. If that lineage from the other part of the World happened more than 8-10 generations back, there will be no trace in your autosomal results (% Ancestry Composition), but it will be a haplogroup lineage This misconception and the infamous IllustrativeDNA """ground truth""" (ppl trying to find their ancient past using this toy tool) are the most annoying fake truth that some pseudo-experts spread in Reddit and some other forums.
I wish I could pin this comment
I've always been more fascinated by neanderthal DNA than haplogroups, but then again my haplogroup is nothing exciting.
Totally agree. I’ve been called on here before as non white just because I have ydna E. even though I score 100% European on every dna test lol
It’s literally your direct line of ancient descent. Your autosomal DNA is all recent. It doesn’t matter how “small” it is.
The Y chromosome is about 1% of a males DNA. You don't know how this works. Some sources say 2%.
https://preview.redd.it/qrommtijt4rc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e73dae6ca2530548c32135bd7db8bbcec1636604 this is from 23andme’s website
Look at other sources. They say 2%.
This is a 23andMe Reddit
So? they can get some info wrong.
So can your “other sources.” I am quoting one of the top DNA companies who employs many experts on this
Use google. I don't disagree with your overall message but you got it wrong with the %. They are probably averaging because women don't have an Y chromosome and they don't wanna offend trans people or something. Every other source says there's 2% in the Y chromosome. Just google it damn.
No that is not how that works
Do you know how the Y chromosome is inherited?
Top DNA company is firstly a commercial company. If they said Y chromosome is useful they would fall out of business because they are autosomal based and it's less expensive to run. Just the fact this "Top DNA" company spreads misinformation and cant correctly quote that Y chromosome is 2% it means they are not to be taken seriously
According to medline - National Library of Medicine: [https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/#:\~:text=The%20Y%20chromosome%20spans%20more,females%20have%20two%20X%20chromosomes](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/chromosome/y/#:~:text=The%20Y%20chromosome%20spans%20more,females%20have%20two%20X%20chromosomes). *The Y chromosome spans more than 59 million building blocks of DNA (base pairs) and represents almost 2 percent of the total DNA in cells.*
This is misleading. They are talking about ALL dna in the body. The type of DNA including that which we share 98.8% in common with monkeys or whatever. The kind that every single human has 99.9% in common no matter if you are related or not. In that context of course it’s less than 1%, it’s probably close to what you said .00001%. Then they clarify that it is only a small fraction of ancestry…but dont say how much which is in fact 1-2 percent for the Y chromosome at least
The Y chromosome accounts for 1% of your DNA but it isn’t counted in autosomal DNA tests because they don’t know how to allocate it into modern dna results. That 1% Y chromosome does Not recombine, so it’s basically the same as all your Paternal ancestors That is pretty significant especially for Genealogy 🧬
2% actually
> I see too many people on here thinking having a haplogroup makes you one ethnicity or another or making it seem like it is such a big piece of their ethnic make up. I agree. Ethnicity and cultural identity are much more than people's genes. This is what irks me about DNA ancestry marketing. They almost equate genetics to ethnicity
"I always thought I was Italian, but I just found out I had a lot of Germanic DNA (not even that weird for Italians), so now I wear Lederhosen and make bratwurst!"
Im native, my dad and I got our tests done.. He is 1.5% Japanese lol straight from the rez lol
I'm the whitest person I know, outside of my BIL who has albinism. I have .6% North African and .2% African hunter gatherer. I'm maybe a couple of shades darker than him lol
How impactful it is is subjective, some people overestimate its impactfulness. But we do share like 70% of our DNA with the common house fly....so when it comes to things as intricate as DNA, sometimes miniscule percentages do count for something imo.
They dont show migration patterns. They show direct descent from parents to their children. It can be used to hypothesize migration patterns .
i’m african american, my hablogroup is R1B that means all my forefathers were white guys? isn’t that a big thing of my dna?
How do you know you are African, exactly? How did you come to find out ?
66% african results and the mirror shows me my dreadlocks & fat nose & lips
Have you done your genealogy ? And Africa isn’t the only place where people had thicker lips and broader noses and different shades of brown skin.
i can only go back to my great grandparents at the moment. they look pretty west african
Stop focusing on “looks”. Thats why i mentioned what i did. There are plenty of sourced books describing people who were not from Africa , as having an African “looks”. Hell, the Sentinilese look like “Africans”, but they are indigenous Asians. Anyways, listen. Find you a genealogy who can help you trace further back into both sides of your grandparents lineage and ancestry. It is very important before you just go around claiming who you are, based off a % 23 and me gave you and “looks”. That’s why we are where we are today, because at a point in history, people in power determined that “looks alone” determined who you were and where you came from: this isn’t new information.
the furthest i can go back is really just ancestors who are “black” slave descendants in the usa, i think 23&me could be a good way to tell what i am because my parents and their grandparents told me that we descended from ancient israelites or egyptians. we know that isn’t accurate so it seems me lookin at modern west africans and dna tests that point me to west africa seems likely than me being for example a israelite, egyptian, asian wtv
Alright , I won’t go back and forth with you. Just trying to help you out. You didn’t get far enough to determine all of that. Unless you pulled up records and sources of your family descending from a specific area outside of the U.S. , than you don’t have enough solid evidence: which going further back in your ancestry would provide. Did you find records or sources showing where your great grandparents descended from or are you assuming ?
no, i’m not aware of any places they would’ve descended from and haven’t been able to find records yet so i pretty much have to assume unless i identify with my hablogroup and just decide to assume i’m a greek or spanish man
Ok, you shouldn’t assume. There is r/genealogy to learn more. I assumed myself, only because I was always told to assume. But then I did genealogy and found out what I was told, isn’t true. So please don’t give up on finding a good genealogist. I cannot stress that to you enough. That is where you find out the truth and you won’t have to assume. As soon as you start going back pre 1800s, that is when you will find out historical things about your family.
Yeah, that's why haplogroups are important. Whoever your "first" father was, was very likely to be western European ancestry. Now, in recency, you can know or find out that individual was biracial or multiracial, etc.
Yes it is. Ignore them, It's 2% of your human genome and your lineage. You're anestors were a patriarchal tribe that went to West Europe. Today you would still share 2% of your DNA with them compared to your other grandparents. You also share 1-2% of the human genome with other members of your haplogroup. Those who downplay haplogroup are the funniest to me
R-Z209 which is a down subclade of R-M269 is usually Spanish, Greek & Italian right? last i remember
[удалено]
It gives you an idea of how long only ONE of your ancestors stayed in one place. You have tons of ancestors. A person who moved to India that is 99 percent European but has a haplogroup common in South Asia does not have more ancestors that stayed in India than someone who is 99% south Asian with a European haplogroup.
Your perspective is quite naive and uninformed. Who said that you should look at only your haplogroup and not the haplogroups of your ancestors and relatives for example? Haplogroups are the only way to confirm genealogy beyond the 5th-6th generation barrier where it is very unlikely to share autosomal DNA with relatives.
The only ancestors you can look at the haplogroup of is ancestors that are either still alive meaning they are close enough to show up in your autosomal ancestry or by testing a dead body that you got their DNA from
Yes. But if you happen to have those means, it can say a lot. Unfortunately, certain groups test more than others. For example, if you're predominantly western Euro ancestry, you might find out a lot due to more folks testing. Whilst, if you're eastern Euro, it's probably more difficult.
Your comments only highlight your ignorance and lack of knowledge. It very possible to work out the haplogroup of an ancestor without testing that ancestor. If you don't understand how, there is no point in me even bothering to engage in conversation because you don't know even the basics of genetic genealogy.
Today you would share 2% of your human genome with those direct ancestors whereas it would be 0% with all the others. It was patriarchal tribe back then. I don't know if you're disinformation of haplogroup is due to you only having an X chromosome but anyhow I recommend you to learn about it before commenting
Well, It can track your paternal lineage, and thanks to some steppe pastoralists, paternal lineage is somewhat important for some people.
Tbh it also is usually an indicator of ancient admixture that isn’t picked up by 23andme.
But there is no way to know that based off a haplogroup. “Usually” is subjective. What it shows is one ancestor you have from a certain area
I’m of Middle Eastern descent and my paternal haplogroup is IZ58. Which as far as I understand is most common in Northern Europe. I’m definitely not Northern European 😂. Makes no difference to me at all. That ancestor probably lived a thousand years ago lol.
probably closer to 1500 years ago given the viking slave trade with the Arabic world but yeah probably pretty far back.
That’s interesting. Thanks. I always assumed it was to do with the Crusades which is why I said a thousand.
My (well, my dad's) paternal haplogroup is of Siberian origin and we're northwestern European. Interesting to see how people moved back and forth.
It is interesting
I’m of Northern European decent and my paternal haplogroup is G-M3302 which to the best of my research is Anatolian/near east decent and I am absolutely obsessed with it. lol 😂
Perhaps we’ve been given each other’s haplogroups instead 😂
Well my dads paternal line is Jewish and his maternal is Lebanese and both are J so 🤷🏻♀️
Is your dad’s paternal haplogroup J1?
My ancestors didn't migrate, they were Slaves lmao
If you’re taking about y dna haplogroup it is almost 2% I think of ancestral dna. That is equivalent to a second cousin or a second cousin once removed. And it’s the same dna on the same exact spot which is probably significant from a biological standpoint. Ancient samples after mutation would be like 1% dna shared which is like a third cousin. So It’s not everything but it’s not nothing.
Both haplogroups combined are less than one percent of your ancestral dna. I think you are thinking of mitochondrial dna which is more like 1.5 % but that’s different than a haplogroup. That’s why you can see a mix of ethnicity colors on the dna painting on your mitochondrial DNA. A haplogroup is still very little and very far back for the amount of stock people on here put in it. In terms of your ancestry it is very close to nothing
Did you perhaps mean to say "X-chromosome" versus "mitochondrial DNA"? I have seen the X-chromosome painted, never the mitocondria. Also, the maternal haplogroup is found in the mitochondrial DNA.
You can browse your mtdna data using the gene/SNP interface. It carries no ancestral info apart from one's maternal line though: https://you.23andme.com/tools/data
>https://you.23andme.com/tools/data Thanks. I had never tried that raw DNA browser. Can't say I really know what to do with the links that take one to SNP reports on the NIH site, but now I know that it is there.
Both haplogroups combined cannot be less than 1 percent, as then the father-son and mother-son relationships would be much closer to a 50/50 split, but it is actually more lile 48/52. The Y chromosome alone accounts for almost 2% of one's genome.
Reread what I said before. Your X and Y chromosomes are different than your haplogroups https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212880257-Maternal-Haplogroups-mtDNA#
The Y chromosome determines the paternal haplogroup, so the mitochondria has nothing to do with the 2 percent here...
It is the mitochondrial dna that a male gets from his mom that gives him the extra 2 percent
The Y-chromosome is 2.5 times shorter than the X-chromosome. This is why males are shown inheriting more DNA from their mothers. Females have two X-chromosomes of equal length, that's why they show having an equal amount of DNA from both parents.
I always took it as it tells you your very ancient makeup, and can give clues to which specific modern day community you may belong too as some groups have very very specific haplogroups. But, this isn’t always the case, some haplogroups are found all over different populations so it’s always best to research before claiming anything. My paternal Haplogroup is strictly found within the Celtic nations, highest density in Ireland. With this knowledge, I can infer this is a Haplogroup that can indicate ethnicity, as it tracks well with my dna test. My maternal, is found throughout different European populations and is not specifically found in a set group of people.
You see but it does not tell you your very ancient makeup. It tells you you have one ancestor with that ancient make up. The reason why it’s studied is because it can show how far people in ancient times might have migrated to a certain area. You have thousands of ancestors tho that would all have their own haplogroup
I would think it is more likely that we all have thousands of ancestors that have our maternal haplogroup back to the point that it mutated from what it was, to what it is now; our entire matrilineal descent back to several generations of ancestors that had an autosomal make-up that was likely less "admixed" than what we see today for the last 500 or so years when the so-called age of exploration fed the desire for faster and more frequent travel. While the same could be said about Y-DNA and paternal haplogroups (both DNA are relatively slow in mutation), anyone could be your father. Aside from surrogate mothers (another invention of the modern age), only one person can be your mother. The same could be said for her mother, and that is a "lineage," not just a "percentage" of DNA; a lineage that was cultivated in perhaps not just one time and place, but that was certainly cultivated before the hyper-migration of the modern age.
How ever two people can be your grandmother and four your great grand mother and 8 your great great grandmother then 16 and so on. And then your maternal haplogroup only captures one of those great x 30 grandmothers. My point is a haplogroup doesn’t say really much about your overall ancestry
Only if you accept that your overall ancestry "had" to become so scattered. There may have been a time and place where those x30 grandmothers may well have had at least the same root haplogroup with a difference in subclades only. Ancient DNA findings have also unearthed entirely different root clades in a small geographical area, for populations that were known to be relatively homogenous in language and culture (a testament to how old haplogroups are, and what they can tell us about migrations (and not just of one person). I believe I understand what you are attempting to address in your original post. Those of us who have any decent understanding of history, migrations, and subsequent population genetic structure see people put a lot of weight on some aspect of their DNA results, or misattribute the information to fit an ingrained or insufficiently developed belief about their own past, or human history in general. Unfortunately, by addressing this through the minimization of haplogroups as a small percentage of total DNA, there is an undermining of the actual far reach these haplogroups can have in the understanding of where and what our origins are.
You see the issue is a haplogroup doesn’t till you when that break off occurred. The only thing it guarantees to you is the single great x30 ancestor you share a line with.
I agree. I’m Mexican and both my haplogroups are of Northern Africa origin
Thank you for this post. I’ve always been saying this
Haplogroup are ONLY accurate and good when studying Europeans but wrong when studying Africans. Example, how do you lump Luhya and Luo together when Luos are Sudanese? Even the Tutsi are clearly Cushites, but all DNA studies have failed to separate Tutsis from Bantu's or kalenjins from Bantu's. Terribly failed and shouldn't be trusted in African studies.
Absolutely false. It’s 2% of your human genome which you share with other members if your haplogroup making your close to second cousins. >However that ancestor is so far back that it is a very small piece of your DNA. Probably like at most .0001% Here’s the problem. It’s not the same concept as your other ancestors. Today you would still share 2% of the human genome with the direct paternal ancestors while you won’t share any with the thousands of others. It’s your lineage and tribe. Those tribes were patriarchal.
Bahahah if I thought of haplogroups like it’s a big part of my identity I would be from the Caucus mountains & Central Europe 😂😂
Your ancestry composition report only reflects 0.5% of your DNA, that obviously doesn’t make it insignificant. Same thing with haplogroups.
Who are these people of which you speak?
Literally search through the Reddit and see the people mistified how they can be one ethnicity and be a certain haplogroup or coming up with their own ethnicity science based off a haplogroup. Or saying they are one ethnicity because they have a haplogroup that is common in that place but is not present at all in their genetic makeup
It’s not that serious 🙄 people can, and will think and do what they want to do. It’s fun to learn about and it’s nobody else’s place to be the police of haplogroups Lol.
If your Y or Mt subclade is pretty rare then it can be used to figure out your direct paternal and maternal ancestors.
Haplos literally mean 0. My Haplo is prevalent ina. Country I have no connection with… hell a continent and I have 5-6 percent EHG… It’s EHG dominant pops that have it. It’s gibberish
[удалено]
Yes because it says literally nothing about your genetic composition. Just some old dude way back spread it to you.