wombatofthenorth
03-29-2015, 11:00 PM
Some basics:
my mom's Geno 2.0 gave 2.1% Neanderthal and 3.0% Denisovan
(current avgs they list as 2.1% and 2.1%)
(Latvian heritage; thought to perhaps be considerably deep on grandfather's lines back (although the family trees is barely known at all on this side, not past his parents, but there was always talk for some reason of deep and long pure Latvian roots on his side); Latvian going back to nearly the late 1600s on one side of my grandmother's although the last name on that side doesn't sound pure Latvian but just and "s" added to surname almost surely leading back to Swedish, German or Dutch roots; probably quickly back to Germany on the other side of my grandmother; other than for the one trace way back the rest isn't really known past my great grandparents))
k1a4a1 haplotype mitochondrial DNA
The bizarre:
Very bizarre is that the autosomal Geno 2.0 test gave my mom 2% Oceania (the rest of the percentages match closest to their Dutch population sample (which might perhaps be similar to what one from Latvia would be too?) Dutch is: 53% Northern European/30%Mediterranean/16%Southwest Asian; hers is: 51% Northern European/29%Mediterranean/17%Southwest Asian/2%Oceanian)!
Not sure if the 2% component is supposed to imply some pretty wild tale where about 6 generations back a sailor on one of the early European explorations to say Tahiti (I could be wrong, but I believe that New Guineans had less favorable thoughts to outsiders at first and thus less likely early mixing???? whereas supposedly Tahitians were quite open??? so I mention Tahiti instead of New Guinea or other islands) married a pure Tahitian and then they both returned, or at the least, one of their children returned to Europe??
That sounds both pretty darn cool and also a bit hard to believe since in this case it would have had to have happened so early on and with a very quick return back to Europe. It might be a bit easier to believe if it could have occurred more recently (but that would seem to conflict with likely family history or % Oceanian).
I mean I believe something like that did happen a very, very few times early on, but only a very, very, very few times, basically to the vanishing point.
Napolean did invade the Baltic area and such I believe and I also believe some of his mean stayed behind and some of his soldiers might have been on South Pacific expeditions. The Dutch did hit up the New Guinea area very early on and one last name on the family tree could be Dutch (or German or Swedish). The English hit up Tahiti early on.
I don't know the whole thing sounds both really cool and maybe far-fetched.
Anyway that is all I could come up with at first, as wild as it sounded, a few days ago when I heard the results.
But I guess there is another other option:
Perhaps the Geno 2.0 signals they test for Oceania might not actually have ended up all being strictly what they thought. Perhaps not all signals they look for are ones that came up only after their isolation, but instead a few markers they use for Oceania might actually be markers for some very ancient component that got mixed away and lost for the most part but well retained in Oceania and, for one odd reason or another, also got also retained in certain Baltic/Finnish/(and other?) sub-populations where there was some very long and extremely insular line going way back?
Does anyone have any up to date thoughts? Is the latter theory considered likely now or something along it's lines?
Also I spotted on one of those ancient human tests using one of the public domain testing admix tools where they also also tested tons of others from many countries that it seemed like people of heritage from a decent number of countries actually registered a bit of Oceania using whatever components they used to signify Oceania. Other than for Malaysians and near Malaysians (and Oceanians themselves) it seemed like most of the components were likely super small maybe .5% and less, although it was hard to tell since no hard #s just pixel graphs, some looked like they could be 1%, not sure any looked like 1.5-2%, but it was really hard to tell, maybe?
Too bad we can't get results from grandparents, if the results popped up to 4-6% for one then I'd think that would imply the explorer theory! If it stayed 2% at most then I guess it would hint more at something along the latter explanations offered?
my mom's Geno 2.0 gave 2.1% Neanderthal and 3.0% Denisovan
(current avgs they list as 2.1% and 2.1%)
(Latvian heritage; thought to perhaps be considerably deep on grandfather's lines back (although the family trees is barely known at all on this side, not past his parents, but there was always talk for some reason of deep and long pure Latvian roots on his side); Latvian going back to nearly the late 1600s on one side of my grandmother's although the last name on that side doesn't sound pure Latvian but just and "s" added to surname almost surely leading back to Swedish, German or Dutch roots; probably quickly back to Germany on the other side of my grandmother; other than for the one trace way back the rest isn't really known past my great grandparents))
k1a4a1 haplotype mitochondrial DNA
The bizarre:
Very bizarre is that the autosomal Geno 2.0 test gave my mom 2% Oceania (the rest of the percentages match closest to their Dutch population sample (which might perhaps be similar to what one from Latvia would be too?) Dutch is: 53% Northern European/30%Mediterranean/16%Southwest Asian; hers is: 51% Northern European/29%Mediterranean/17%Southwest Asian/2%Oceanian)!
Not sure if the 2% component is supposed to imply some pretty wild tale where about 6 generations back a sailor on one of the early European explorations to say Tahiti (I could be wrong, but I believe that New Guineans had less favorable thoughts to outsiders at first and thus less likely early mixing???? whereas supposedly Tahitians were quite open??? so I mention Tahiti instead of New Guinea or other islands) married a pure Tahitian and then they both returned, or at the least, one of their children returned to Europe??
That sounds both pretty darn cool and also a bit hard to believe since in this case it would have had to have happened so early on and with a very quick return back to Europe. It might be a bit easier to believe if it could have occurred more recently (but that would seem to conflict with likely family history or % Oceanian).
I mean I believe something like that did happen a very, very few times early on, but only a very, very, very few times, basically to the vanishing point.
Napolean did invade the Baltic area and such I believe and I also believe some of his mean stayed behind and some of his soldiers might have been on South Pacific expeditions. The Dutch did hit up the New Guinea area very early on and one last name on the family tree could be Dutch (or German or Swedish). The English hit up Tahiti early on.
I don't know the whole thing sounds both really cool and maybe far-fetched.
Anyway that is all I could come up with at first, as wild as it sounded, a few days ago when I heard the results.
But I guess there is another other option:
Perhaps the Geno 2.0 signals they test for Oceania might not actually have ended up all being strictly what they thought. Perhaps not all signals they look for are ones that came up only after their isolation, but instead a few markers they use for Oceania might actually be markers for some very ancient component that got mixed away and lost for the most part but well retained in Oceania and, for one odd reason or another, also got also retained in certain Baltic/Finnish/(and other?) sub-populations where there was some very long and extremely insular line going way back?
Does anyone have any up to date thoughts? Is the latter theory considered likely now or something along it's lines?
Also I spotted on one of those ancient human tests using one of the public domain testing admix tools where they also also tested tons of others from many countries that it seemed like people of heritage from a decent number of countries actually registered a bit of Oceania using whatever components they used to signify Oceania. Other than for Malaysians and near Malaysians (and Oceanians themselves) it seemed like most of the components were likely super small maybe .5% and less, although it was hard to tell since no hard #s just pixel graphs, some looked like they could be 1%, not sure any looked like 1.5-2%, but it was really hard to tell, maybe?
Too bad we can't get results from grandparents, if the results popped up to 4-6% for one then I'd think that would imply the explorer theory! If it stayed 2% at most then I guess it would hint more at something along the latter explanations offered?