The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


this is a must

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: this is a must

Postby Sotos » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:56 am

The DNA of each individual person is different than any other and if you average the results of one area in a country they will be different than the average of another area in the same country. The differences between Cyprus and any other part of Greece are way less than the differences between say Sardinia and any other part of Italy, between Corsica and Normandy in France or between different regions of Germany, Russia, China, USA etc. And if we go by DNA then the UK shouldn't be one but 17 different countries:

... the UK can be split into 17 distinct genetic groups ...

https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/8252 ... l-identity

Image

As far as TCs go, you don't need any DNA analysis to understand that they aren't trully Turkic. Real Turkic people have very obvious characteristics. Even the Turks of Turkey aren't truly Turkic.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10663
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:13 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:your comment
Did they present any DNA data for "Ottomans" ? NO. Utter nonsense of a statement.
is incorrect as yes they did:

One additional difference between GCy and TCy was the presence of moderate numbers of East Eurasian[/u] (primarily Central Asian) Y-haplogroups and small numbers of North African Y-haplogroups among TCy but not among GCy. The frequency of East Eurasian [(some of which of possible Ottoman origin)]haplogroups among TCy was C-M130 (0.5%), H-L901 (0.3%), N-M231 (2.4%), O-M175 (0.8%) and QM242 (1.3%), reaching a total of 5.6%, but only totalling 0.6% among GCy



Gotcha! Where is the ottoman DNA? Only in TCs according to the above. :lol:


But again you miss the point:
The frequency of East Eurasian [(some of which of possible Ottoman origin)]haplogroups among TCy was C-M130 (0.5%), H-L901 (0.3%), N-M231 (2.4%), O-M175 (0.8%) and QM242 (1.3%), reaching [u]a total of 5.6%[/u], but only totalling 0.6% among GCy


So there is (a) a measurable percentage, albeit small, of East Eurasian [(some of which of possible Ottoman origin)]haplogroups [b]among GCy and the primary conclusion, which despite your wriggleing you have not overthrown, is that
Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots
, or are you seeking to introduce some sort of racial purity law which is worse than that of the Nazis in excluding ALL T/C from being Cypriot when a small proportion (5.6%) have paternal ancestry likely from post Ottoman Invasion?

You otherwise really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one: cherry picking one statistic and trying to make something of it that suits your purpose, BUT THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU DO, SELECTIVELY QUOTE AND MISREPRESENT. SAME OLD, SAME OLD! :D :D :D

(next stage is to become abusive (again))

Anyway, so a straight forward question. Do you accept that this report states on the best evidence available that "Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots"? I am not asking you to agree with the findings of the report, only that we are in agreement with meaning of the words on the page (there is a difference. )

What otherwise is your analysis of what you think this report says about the paternal ancestry of Cypriots, or are you going to try to run a similar argument to the "Greece was not in serious deficiency" type argument when the EU Authorities plainly stated Greece was seriously deficient, or that (in terms of Ancestral origin, Cypriots (and that must now include most TCy) when "Comparing the entire set of Y-chromosome haplogroups with those from regional populations surrounding Cyprus revealed a high Anatolian influence (mY = 66 %), followed by the Levant (mY = 24 %) then the Balkan regions (mY = 13 %) " and where in consequence the TCy are even less "Turkish" in ancestral origin than any Cypriots are "Greek" in Ancestral origin.
Last edited by supporttheunderdog on Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:15 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:What otherwise is your analysis of what you think it says about the paternal ancestry of Cypriots?


Have you got your Cypriot passport yet, you wannabe Greek? Or are you applying as a Turk?

[As for the rest of your diatribe, I'm not interested in sorting out your inability to understand the sources you provide. Ten-fold higher values in TCs has gone right over your tiny head. :lol: And, heed what Sotos said if you want to improve your mental lot. :wink: ]
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:09 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:What otherwise is your analysis of what you think it says about the paternal ancestry of Cypriots?


Have you got your Cypriot passport yet, you wannabe Greek? Or are you applying as a Turk?

[As for the rest of your diatribe, I'm not interested in sorting out your inability to understand the sources you provide. Ten-fold higher values in TCs has gone right over your tiny head. :lol: And, heed what Sotos said if you want to improve your mental lot. :wink: ]


No I will be applying to be Cypriot, by citizenship, though I will always be "English", by ethnic origin, possibly mostly "Saxon" based on family name and likely geographical origin, where we have traced the apparent Paternal line to a named individual in 1430,but where, as even the study referenced by Sotos shows, probably under 40%, and where there is some Southern Irish on my paternal Grandfather's maternal side.

You however once again appear to misrepresent the meaning of the statistics, same old same old, and unable to deal with the facts that [quote]Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots[quote] as evidenced by the 95% similarity in Genetic origin (16 times greater than the difference you try to make hay from) you resort to straw men arguments and become abusive, same old, same old.

You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.

Face it, Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots. yes or no!

I would say up yours, but would not want to give you the pleasure.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:40 pm

Sotos wrote:The DNA of each individual person is different than any other and if you average the results of one area in a country they will be different than the average of another area in the same country. The differences between Cyprus and any other part of Greece are way less than the differences between say Sardinia and any other part of Italy, between Corsica and Normandy in France or between different regions of Germany, Russia, China, USA etc. And if we go by DNA then the UK shouldn't be one but 17 different countries:

... the UK can be split into 17 distinct genetic groups ...

https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/8252 ... l-identity

Image

As far as TCs go, you don't need any DNA analysis to understand that they aren't trully Turkic. Real Turkic people have very obvious characteristics. Even the Turks of Turkey aren't truly Turkic.


Thank you for drawing my attention to this interesting study. I will discuss it later.

As you will have seen "g"'IG has been showing her usual deep seated Psychological problem, an inability to face the Truth, when her world view related to the Origin of Cypriots is challenged, and where she grasps at Straws and Straw man arguments, by cherry-picking isolated numbers concerning just one small part of the genetic make up of a population and seeking to inflate that to suggest it shows something it does not.

We had her trying to argue about the study "Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements" that 87% of 13% shows a predominant Greek ancestry when the reality is that
Comparing the entire set of Y-chromosome haplogroups with those from regional populations surrounding Cyprus revealed a high Anatolian influence (mY = 66 %), followed by the Levant (mY = 24 %) then the Balkan regions (mY = 13 %, Table 2).


Then that 5.6% of east Eurasian genes founds in TCy somehow overturns the clear fact that "Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots"

Rather she seems from comments above to obn be able to talk about Cypriot Citizenship in Terms of being "Greek"or "Turk", effectively denying the existence of Cypriots.

Both Claims of (1) the alleged predominant Greek Origin of Greek Speaking Cypriots and (2) the alleged Ottoman Importation of the majority of Turkish Speaking Cypriots have been a part of the panoply of claims of extreme nationalists and both such claims seem to be incorrect on the basis of the two reports mentioned above.


As the the PoBI item, I would not rely to much on what The Verge says about it because I think they do not understand what they have written, let alone what they may have read. In particular the comment about
Britons share the most DNA with people from France and Germany — countries which were home to the Angles and Saxons that moved into the British Isles after Roman rule collapsed in the 4th century
, since France was not home to the Angles and Saxons, but rather

Briefly, the earliest migrations whose descendants survive to make a substantial contribution to the present population are best captured by three groups in our European analyses, GER6 (western Germany), BEL11 (Belgium), and FRA14 (north-­western France).

and more importantly
The Saxon migrations did not directly involve people from what is now France. There were movements of Germanic peoples, notably the Franks, into France around the time of the Saxon migration into England.
The Germanic ancestry these migrations brought to what is now France would have been Frankish rather than Saxon, and it would have been diluted through mixing with the already substantial local populations. It thus seems unlikely that ancestry in the UK arising from the Saxon migrations would be better captured by FRA17 than by people now living near the homeland of the Saxons (represented by GER3) – the contribution of FRA17 is about threefold that of GER3. Further, the geographic pattern of
FRA17 contributions differs from that of GER3 (which we see as very likely Saxon), in being relatively much higher in the Scottish and Orkney clusters. This is difficult to
reconcile with ancestry from both groups arriving as part of the same migration event, and the substantial contribution of FRA17 in Scotland and Orkney, relative to GER3,
is more likely to reflect an earlier influx into the UK, and increased time to spread geographically.
Also, FRA17 did not figure as one of the source populations for the admixture event in Cent./ S England estimated by the GLOBETROTTER analysis. We thus conclude that
the contribution to the UK clusters from FRA17 is unlikely to reflect the Saxon migrations.


On the suggestion that there should be17 nations -
Consistent with earlier studies of the UK, population structure within the PoBI collection is very limited. The average of the pairwise FST estimates between each of the 30 sample collection districts is 0.0007, with a maximum of 0.003


it is only by applying a novel method, finescale analysis that differences become discernible
Against this background of very limited structure within the UK, we applied a recently developed method for detecting fine-­‐scale population structure, fineSTRUCTURE15, to the PoBI samples, to look for more subtle effects. See Methods (also Extended Data Figs 1, 2) for an informal description, details, interpretation under both discrete and isolation-­‐by-­‐distance models, assessment of convergence, and enhancements to the algorithm as applied in this study.
In contrast to commonly used approaches such as principal components or ADMIXTURE16, fineSTRUCTURE explicitly models the correlation between nearby SNPs, and uses extended multi-­‐marker haplotypes throughout the genome. This substantially increases its power to detect subtle levels of genetic differentiation.


I think what is the the Original study with SOME supporting documents can be found here http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1467470/: It runs to 39 pages with a 21 page supplementary notes and 54 MB of other bits.

As it is, while the study discuses Haplogroups, any reference to any specific Haplotype (or haplogroup) which go to form any particular group or cluster asused inntheir geographic labeling is messing and this background information about how the groups/cluster are made up is seemingly not readily available.

That contrasts with the above studies on Cypriot origins which in my view are rather more transparent.

Significantly they are also missing Dutch samples when the Frisian area of the Netherlands is a possible prime site for migration to the UK: the Frisian Language is seemingly closest to current English to the extent I understand there is more chance of an English person understanding it than a person from Southern Netherlands.

The dating of the alleged Saxon input likewise appears suspect and I am not convinced that for the Saxon Immigration there was a single Pulse that took 250 to 350 years to show up.

Indeed the nomeclature they use is similar to the nomenclature used in the Video posted at the start of this thread about which both "g"IG and I had had some concerns.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:55 pm

Here is a link to an interesting article that casts doubt on some aspects of the PoBI study:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/calendar/articles/2016-17-news/20161201
Research involving the Institute's Jane Kershaw draws into question the findings of a recent study regarding the extent of Viking settlement in Britain.

Last year, the People of the British Isles (PoBI) project claimed to reveal the extent of first millennium AD human migrations into Britain. Combining large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis, the project generated a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail.

One of the most popularly-cited results was the striking claim that the Danish Vikings, in contrast to the Anglo-Saxons, made only a modest demographic impact on modern British genetic diversity. This key finding appeared to settle one of the longest-standing questions in early medieval archaeology: the extent of Viking settlement in Britain.

In a debate paper, published in the current issue of Antiquity (December 2016), Jane and co-author Ellen C. Royrvik highlight issues with two aspects of the study which seriously undermine its key findings:

the failure to recognise that the Danes and Anglo-Saxons originated from the same geographic area, and are thus impossible to distinguish genetically, and
the fact that the study’s estimated date of Anglo-Saxon ‘admixture’ (interbreeding with the native population) post-dates the Anglo-Saxon migrations by 400 years, and sits squarely within the period of Viking activity in Britain.
The authors offer alternative interpretations, to suggest that the genetic legacy of Danish Vikings in Britain might well be substantial. Drawing on new artefactual and linguistic evidence they argue for a significant Danish Viking presence in England, comprising not just warriors, but entire family groups.

They have also employed a new quantitative approach to illustrate absolute numbers of migrants using two different starting points (population proportion and Viking metalwork items). This is, to their knowledge, the first time that total numbers of Viking settlers in England have been scientifically estimated.


I cannot find the full article, only the abstract
The recently concluded ‘People of the British Isles’ project (hereafter PoBI) combined large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis to generate a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail; the results were presented by Leslie and colleagues in 2015. Comparing clusters of genetic variation within Britain with DNA samples from Continental Europe, the study elucidated past immigration events via the identification and dating of historic admixture episodes (the interbreeding of two or more different population groups). Among its results, the study found “no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles”, therefore positing “a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings”, with ‘Danish Vikings’ defined in the study, and thus in this article, as peoples migrating from Denmark to eastern England in the late ninth and early tenth centuries (Leslie et al.2015: 313). Here, we consider the details of certain assumptions that were made in the study, and offer an alternative interpretation to the above conclusion. We also comment on the substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence for a large-scale Danish Viking presence in England.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/people-of-the-british-isles-project-and-viking-settlement-in-england/54E19CAFF9AC2BEB39EAEC826BEDBC63

Now this could have some interesting implications on the Saxon immigration event.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:53 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?

supporttheunderdog wrote:I cannot find the full article

P.S. We don't care whether you're an ankle or a sock, an anglo or a saxon. But don't try and corrupt the science.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:45 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?


Shows you cannot read or have not read the report because it is all in there

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) at a moderate frequency (~5.5%) in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2% (S8 Table).


Now are youbgoing to answer the question I asked, or as above duck the issue?


supporttheunderdog wrote:I cannot find the full article

P.S. We don't care whether you're an ankle or a sock, an anglo or a saxon. But don't try and corrupt the science.


Another question..(where i expect the answer will be abuse) is in what respect does this selective quote show am I trying to corrupt the science? ...you are the one who normally tries to do that by selectivley quoting one statistic them seeking to argue it means something when it plainly does not, and where if the statistic you have isolated is put in full context, it so often proves the point you are arguing against.

You tried it connection with the comparative analysis of TURKISH DNA in the above study seeking to show that it meant Turkish Cypriots were not principally related to Greek Cypriots, overlloking that in this report, the authors clrearly distinguish between Greek, as being from the area within the modern Greek republic, Turk, frrom within the area of the modern day Turkish Erdogan caliphate, TCy as being Cypriots who speak Turkish and GCy who are Greek Speaking.

Now that either shows you are stupid and do not understand what you are reading, possibly influenced by your preconceived notions that Turkish Speaking Cypriots are Turks, who came from mainland Turkey following the Ottoman invasion, that or you are wilfully corrupting the science to make it fit your world view, and argue against the clear findings of the report, as summarised in the title.

And in any event how does Your selective quoting of my regret that I can only find a commentary on and abstract of of report, but not the full report, show I am trying to corrupt the science, where one my concerns about one finding of the PoBI study, the timing of the Saxon Pulse, is seemingly supported by science...?

It really shows you are clutching at straws.

You BTW still owe a very big apology to the Cypriots I live and work with for calling them Turks.I doubt any if them speak Turkish, their household language being the Cypriot dialect of Greek. And BTW the Greeks from the modern day Hellenic Republic I work with do not consider the Cypriots as Greek but as Cypriot...
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:57 am

supporttheunderdog wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?


Shows you cannot read or have not read the report because it is all in there

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) at a moderate frequency (~5.5%) in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2% (S8 Table).



Once again, where is the data for Ottoman DNA? - I see references to Empires and eras but no 'Ottoman DNA' to underpin your support.

However, yet again, even this bit of data (underlined in the quote) would suggest TCs are Turks. Period!
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:00 pm

:lol:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?


Shows you cannot read or have not read the report because it is all in there

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) at a moderate frequency (~5.5%) in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2% (S8 Table).



Once again, where is the data for Ottoman DNA? - I see references to Empires and eras but no 'Ottoman DNA' to underpin your support.

However, yet again, even this bit of data (underlined in the quote) would suggest TCs are Turks. Period!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8190
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests