"That means about one in 20 so-called white Americans have African genes."

I would hardly be surprised if the ratio was higher. Figure, say, 3/5ths of the white population are of Protestant descent. Among them, the average arrival time of their ancestors might be 1750, or 12 generations ago. They would have four thousand (not necessarily unique) ancestors twelve generations ago, and four thousand since. That provides a lot of opportunity for miscegenation in the average Protestant's family tree.

Steve

also, detectable level is important for the one-dropists. 1 out of 20 might seem like the tip of a scary iceberg to many of them....

Some comments:

1. Why is it that White nationalists who are really separatists are called "supremacists", while Black supremacists are called "separatists?"

2. I have no doubt that Frudakis gets "hate mail" from Nordicists, but I assume that is more about the East Asian admixture than the Negro.

3. The "one drop" issue is a moronic straw man argument about race. A few % points of centuries/millenia old admixture should not determine racial classification, particularly since these tests, on the individual level, have "confidence intervals" of several % points of the MLE estimates. But, the data is important. What needs be done is to first determine the presence and extent of different types of admixtures in various ethnies (and note that when the sample size increases, the error bars shrink down to very low), so then we can determine the implications for racial identity of said admixture. In other words, first we need to get lots of folks ABD-tested, and then, once we see the data, we can make conclusions. We cannot determine, before the fact, what levels mean what. I, for example, would consider Charles Kerchner a Euro-American, despite his MLE, but the presence of this EA admixture is a question that needs to be examined. In other words, I withhold final judgement until I know what autosomal structures really exist in Euro-ethnies.

4. Wayne Joseph. The fellow does have a phenotype that is somewhat mulatto-like, but the 2.0 test, other than the East Asian/Amerindian sometimes-overlap is fairly dependable. Could his phenotype be that of a mestizo? One thing I do remember reading (not sure where) is that for very heavily admixed people (like Joseph) small amounts of African ancestry may be harder to detect. The newer 2.5 test (out when? who knows?) should be able to detect this admixture in Joseph if it exists. He should be re-tested.
However, I think that a more likely explanation can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/mikenassau/what.htm
A LE "creole" like Joseph may derive some ancestry from "Melungeon" sources.
The even more new 3.0 test (who knows when???) reportedly can distinguish different "Indo-European" ancestries. Middle-Eastern? South Asian? A tiny trace of African as well? Those combined with substantial Amerindian ancestry could result in Joseph.
The more information the better.
I do think it is clear Joseph does _not_ have signficant levels of African ancestry, at least he is lower than Shriver.

SS: " That provides a lot of opportunity for miscegenation in the average Protestant's family tree. "

I expect the amerindian admixture to be much higher than the african admixture. Is there a reliable study on the level of amerindian admixture in american "whites"?

when i worked for the census in college, i think something like 1/10 to 1/5 of the people with protestant wasp names claimed amerindian ancestry (though they would often misspell the tribe!)

Steve Sailer wrote: I would hardly be surprised if the ratio was higher.

Do you have any evidence that "the ratio is higher"? Do you have any evidence, period?

Among them, the average arrival time of their ancestors might be 1750, or 12 generations ago. They would have four thousand (not necessarily unique) ancestors twelve generations ago, and four thousand since.

Similar fallacious reasoning has been used to "prove" "that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius". Naturally, mathematics can prove nothing about what are purely empirical questions in human genealogy.

I have no doubt that Frudakis gets "hate mail" from Nordicists

Where did Frudakis say he gets hate mail from "Nordicists"?

I, for example, would consider Charles Kerchner a Euro-American, despite his MLE

Mighty big of you.

Personally, I consider "Euro-Americans" to be those who descend from the colonial population and compatible, fully-assimilated immigrants. I consider you to be unwanted detritus whose unassimilable ancestors were imported as cheap labor by the greedy and short-sighted types who are now importing mestizos.

I do think it is clear Joseph does _not_ have signficant levels of African ancestry, at least he is lower than Shriver.

Yes, of course. The test has "DNA" in its name, so it must be infallible.

http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_2001/Sept27/Images/RESEARCH_Shriver.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/media/Nightline/images/abc_wayne_joseph_031121_nh.jpg

DNAprint is not a reliable source. Shriver initially claimed 30% of white Americans had detectable black ancestry. Later he claimed 10%. Now his boss says 5%. Apart from the test being demonstrably worthless in accurately determining minor admixture in individuals, no one can argue with the fact that public statements by DNAprint employees on the racial makeup of Americans as a population are wildly inconsistent. It's obvious that anyone who continues to cite these guesses by DNAprint employees as some sort of scientific fact is either ignorant or severely lacking in integrity.

>> Shriver initially claimed 30% of white Americans had detectable black ancestry. Later he claimed 10%. Now his boss says 5%.

I believe that the 30% figure is the approximate percentage of a sample of European-Americans who had more than 10% of non-European admixture, which includes both Amerindian and Sub-Saharan. The Amerindian component was more important in that particular sample.

I expect the amerindian admixture to be much higher than the african admixture. Is there a reliable study on the level of amerindian admixture in american "whites"?

A study of self-identified whites in a heavily hispanic area of Colorado reported a maternal Amerindian contribution of about .97% (Merriwether et al. 1997). For comparison, one study found that "Iberians" have 2.27% Amerindian (or northern Mongoloid) mtDNA.

As for Negroid ancestry, using Y-chromosome STRs and mtDNA, Kayser et al. (2003) detected NO Negroid ancestry in white Americans. An analysis of Y-chromosome SNPs likewise revealed NO Negroid or Amerindians male lineages in American whites. I believe Dienekes is aware of all the studies I linked to above. He is also aware of the problems with "ABD". The fact that he continues to push stories like this only demonstrate his hostility towards the country in which he is a guest.

I believe that the 30% figure is the approximate percentage of a sample of European-Americans who had more than 10% of non-European admixture, which includes both Amerindian and Sub-Saharan.

Incorrect

May 8, 2002 : "It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128."

October 1, 2002 : ". . . European-American population, about 10 percent of whom have some African ancestry, Dr. Shriver said."

A recent study found a sizeable number of outliers that were more than 20% derived from a non-European (Amerindian) source:

000436.html

Sub-Saharan African admixture is probably less, yet existent:

http://locus.umdnj.edu/nigms/products/pdr.html

PS: Of course discussing the population structure of Americans is not a sign of disrespect towards Americans although I would certainly understand why "a white American who thinks that only whites of Northern European/British Isles heritage are real Americans and the discovery of non-white ancestry is an 'insult'" would think this way.

Incidentally, the SNP study certainly does not prove the absence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in European Americans. Many Black males have European Y chromosomes due to the hybridization of African females with European males. Unions between such Black males and White Females are not detectible with uniparentally transmitted markers. Indeed, it's these lighter-colored Blacks that had improved chances of making their transition into White society.

"these lighter-colored Blacks that had improved chances of making their transition into White society"

And of course more beautiful and intelligent too...

But the barriers for even mixed blacks were always much higher than f.e. Indians.

Anon: "For comparison, one study found that "Iberians" have 2.27% Amerindian (or northern Mongoloid) mtDNA. "

I followed the link but the table I found there didn´t seem relevant to this discussion.
I have yet to find evidence of 2.27 % Mongoloid mtDNA in Spain or Portugal.

Anon: "For comparison, one study found that "Iberians" have 2.27% Amerindian (or northern Mongoloid) mtDNA. "

In my opinion such a high percentage of Amerindians in Spain/Portugal is just absurd!

pontikos: A recent study found a sizeable number of outliers that were more than 20% derived from a non-European (Amerindian) source

What a fucking moron. It is established that ABD-style tests are unreliable in predicting minor admixture, so you decide to post a link to another study using such tests?

Of course discussing the population structure of Americans is not a sign of disrespect towards Americans

You are clearly not interested in "the population structure of Americans". You are exclusively interested in trying to show white Americans have high-levels of non-white admixture because you've had your feelings hurt by white people who don't consider Turks white. In your quest, you rely exclusively on results from dubious, ABD-related tests, even though you're aware of the problems with such tests (you were made aware of the discussions of ABD on the GENEALOGY-DNA list long ago, and you clearly still read the list, as evidenced by your post on Y-SNPs in the US -- do you somehow miss posts like these).

eufrenio: I followed the link but the table I found there didn´t seem relevant to this discussion.
I have yet to find evidence of 2.27 % Mongoloid mtDNA in Spain or Portugal.

Hint: mtDNA haplogroups A-D are common in Amerindians and northern Mongoloids.

BTW, are you the dumb guinea who attempts to help pappamikail with genetics on his site, or is that a different guinea I'm thinking of? Regardless, if you're really that ignorant, you should stay out of discussions like this.

chris: In my opinion such a high percentage of Amerindians in Spain/Portugal is just absurd!

Other studies have found lower levels of Mongoloid/Amerindian ancestry in Iberians. It depends on the sample. But the high frequency in this large sample does demonstrate that Iberians have Mongoloid and/or Amerindian ancestry.

An even more recent published study in a refereed journal indicates that 58% of a large sample of European Americans has significant (>4%) Amerindian admixture. Statistical significance means that some times the null hypothesis (no Amerindian admixture) will be true.

000469.html

Of course in the case of the individuals with more than 20% Amerindian admixture (as in the study I cited previously) the probability of no admixture will be infinitestimal.

Anon: "BTW, are you the dumb guinea who attempts to help pappamikail with genetics on his site, or is that a different guinea I'm thinking of? Regardless, if you're really that ignorant, you should stay out of discussions like this. "

I´d try to figure out what you´re talking about, if you´d just keep the discussion civil.
I do not claim to have a specialist knowledge of genetics: my field is philology and linguistics, and I read Dienekes because I find a lot of interesting material here.

If a person looks white they are white! It is not important if their DNA profile has some negro or other non white markers. People are classed by phenotype not genotype. Obviously those non white markers do not code for skin colour, nose shape, hair type or any physical distinguishing features.
I am not a Yank or a Greek so the presence of non white elements don't mean a thing to me, but my opinion is that Greeks are as white as any other European group and their features are definately more pleasing than those of Russians, Finns, Poles and a lot of Swedes. No offence. As for the Yanks it seems very likely that a minority of whites do have non white ancestors mostly Amerindian, but negro to a lesser extent. It stands to reason that light skinned mestees would pass into the white community and disappear into it. If I was a light skinned mestee I would go down that route.
Also with DNA it should be remembered that a lot of markers are junk DNA which are mostly non human, bits of DNA from viruses that spliced themselves into the host DNA centuries and millenia ago. mDNA comes from mitochondria which are bacteria with prokaryotic DNA. Human cells are eukaryotic with different cell membranes, a nucleus, double stranded DNA and other features not found in bacteria or mitochondria. So why all the fuss over what was originally a parasite and a protist? Personally I would rather concentrate on my Eukaryotic DNA and not what links me with viruses or bacteria.

I think a lot of Anon's assertions are refuted here:
http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/who_rrm.html
http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/
As for Wayne Joseph, he was found to have both Native American, Indo-European and East Asian ancestry. Anyone who has traveled to Asia will know that there are plenty of Asians with features similar to his and in fact darker than him. A fact not well known is that Spanish slavers also brought slaves from the Philippines like the Agta, among other places. These people are genetically closer to other Asians, but have similar phenotypes to that we assume as of Africans. The same can be said of Indo-Europeans from India and Sri-Lanka which were introduced to the West Indies.