The 0.9% figure for Iraqis seems low -- just watching the newscasts it looks like at least 1 out of 100 Iraqis is close to fully black.

I'm disappointed this hasn't been done on white Americans. It would be interesting to see if there is more black or American Indian background.

I’m not exactly sure what the purpose of this is. First of all, the most recent study to list typically Sub-Saharan lineages( Luis et al,AJHG 2004,74: 532-544) also described E3b* as recent Sub-Saharan lineage as it’s distribution clearly suggests. Of course it’s paraphyletic, so it’s a possible an odd lineage or two will turn up not to be.
Second, there isn’t any clear split on the Y. For example you are listing only the most obviously restricted lineages (which defeats the purpose). According to Hammer( personal communication) these present day “North African Lineages”( which came from Sub-Saharan Africa) were brought by a population carrying maternal L sequences. Are all L sequences still “Sub-Saharan”? It’s arbitrary. Also, some of the older, least derived E(xE3b) lineages found in NW Africa today (again with L sequences on the maternal side) were in Northwest Africa BEFORE the lineages you are now interpreting as non Sub-Saharan( Underhill personal communication). The various L sequences are more phylogenetically removed from “Sub-Saharan” Africa than the paternal sequences are.
Ultimately, it’s only useful for phylogeography. I’m sure you aware that if you use the same logic with the Lapps, they become remarkably “Caucasoid”. It’s interesting to note you didn’t post the recent study which came out on your blog, considering I am certain you examined it.

If you are so interested in the idea of “racial” composition; why not look at the autosomal data?

I'm disappointed this hasn't been done on white Americans.

It has.

It would be interesting to see if there is more black or American Indian background.

Neither is present at appreciable levels on the paternal side. Minor (

When are you going to do a retraction of your Mark Shriver story?

>> First of all, the most recent study to list typically Sub-Saharan lineages( Luis et al,AJHG 2004,74: 532-544) also described E3b* as recent Sub-Saharan lineage as it’s distribution clearly suggests.

Care to give an exact quote?

There is a citation to (Kayser et al. 2003) but no reference re: American Y chromosomes, in the posted link.

also, Steve: White Americans are very poorly studied , mainly because most studies are interested in inferring prehistoric events in Eurasia. The amount of non-Caucasoid admixture in White Americans will vary depending on US location, time of arrival in the US and place of origin.

There is a citation to (Kayser et al. 2003) but no reference re: American Y chromosomes, in the posted link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12671003

Kayser 2003 is a study of 9 STRs and does not even deal with the issue of African or Native American introgression into the European American gene pool.

Kayser 2003 is a study of 9 STRs and does not even deal with the issue of African or Native American introgression into the European American gene pool.

Are you lliterate?

"The latter result indicates that the African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods." (As concerns both Y and mtDNA haplotypes.)

For SNP haplogroups in Americans, you are well-aware of this paper, and it's linked to on the page above:

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/pub_pres/ValloneISFG2003.pdf

>> Are you lliterate?

>> "The latter result indicates that the African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods." (As concerns both Y and mtDNA haplotypes.)

No, but you certainly seem to be. with these methods means that you can't detect it with 9 STRs. When they try doing a detailed study, e.g., like Semino (2004) with 36 binary polymorphisms (for just two haplogroups!) then we can say what exactly the level of non-White admixture in White Americans is.

>> For SNP haplogroups in Americans, you are well-aware of this paper, and it's linked to on the page above:

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/pub_pres/ValloneISFG2003.pdf

This study found E3* and E* haplogroups in American Caucasians. European Caucasoids according to Cruciani et al. (2004) are nearly all in the E3b clade with the exception of some Portuguese/Sardinians.

No, but you certainly seem to be. with these methods means that you can't detect it with 9 STRs.

Okay, let's try this again: are you an idiot? Nine STR loci is sufficient to estimate the proportion of Caucasoid Y chromosomes among AAs. If there were a meaningful black contribution to the white American gene pool, it would likewise be detectable.

This study found E3* and E* haplogroups in American Caucasians. European Caucasoids according to Cruciani et al. (2004) are nearly all in the E3b clade with the exception of some Portuguese/Sardinians.

Sub-saharan Y-chromosomes among black Americans are nearly all E3a. There is no genetic evidence of gene flow from black Americans to white Americans, period. There is, however, plenty of evidence of gene flow from Ethiopians to Greeks.

>> Okay, let's try this again: are you an idiot? Nine STR loci is sufficient to estimate the proportion of Caucasoid Y chromosomes among AAs.

First of all, lose the attitude. Second, the authors felt the need to qualify their statement with "with these methods", indicating of course that more detailed methods (more markers, finer phylogenetic detail) may produce different results.

>> Sub-saharan Y-chromosomes among black Americans are nearly all E3a. There is no genetic evidence of gene flow from black Americans to white Americans, period. There is, however, plenty of evidence of gene flow from Ethiopians to Greeks.

That is irrelevant, E3* and E* are still evidence of non-Caucasoid (Negro) admixture and are lacking completely in whites (Europeans). Of course there is no gene flow from Ethiopians to Greeks, but rather from prehistoric East Africans to the Near East and to Europe. Indeed, haplogroup E is regularly treated as a signature of Ancient Greek population movements, e.g., by Semino et al. (2004) to quantify the degree of Greek admixture in Italian populations and by (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 70:1107-1124, 2002) to quantify the degree of Greek admixture in populations of the Indian subcontinent.

the authors felt the need to qualify their statement

They would need to qualify it regardless of what method they were using.

That is irrelevant, E3* and E* are still evidence of non-Caucasoid (Negro) admixture and are lacking completely in whites (Europeans).

It's all that's relevant in this particular discussion. Medophiles fantasize about gene flow from black slaves to white Americans. There is no genetic evidence for this, period. If the E3* and E* results are accurate, they may suggest that Southern Europeans or Middle Easterners have been included in the sample of "Caucasian" Americans. But they certainly don't support gene flow from blacks to whites in America.

>> They would need to qualify it regardless of what method they were using.

Some methods are better than others. Using 9 STRs is about as basic as you can get when it comes to Y chromosome studies.

>> If the E3* and E* results are accurate, they may suggest that Southern Europeans or Middle Easterners have been included in the sample of "Caucasian" Americans.

Southern Europeans (with the exception of a few Portuguese/Sardinians) lack completely E(xE3b) Y chromosomes.

dose this mean that only these percentages of the country's population have this admixture, or dose it mean that each person from these countries have this small percentage of admixture?

From Alyssa age 13.