DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:White Americans

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

THis part NEEDS to be removed. Peddling lies and misinfo, disgusting! Shriver and Goncalves studies are darn lies.

[edit]

Older studies have also been performed. DNA analysis on White Americans by geneticist Mark D. Shriver showed an average of 0.7% sub-Saharan African admixture and 3.2% Native American admixture. The same author, in another study, claimed that about 30% of all White Americans, approximately 66 million people, have a median of 2.3% of Black African admixture. Shriver discovered his ancestry is 10 percent African, and Shriver's partner in DNA Print Genomics, J.T. Frudacas, contradicted him two years later stating "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry." In a 2007 study, Gonçalves et al. reported sub-Saharan and Amerindian mtDNA lineages at a frequency of 3.1% (respectively 0.9% and 2.2%) in a sample of 1387 American Caucasians as compared to 62% in white Brazilians (respectively 29% and 33%), 98% for white Colombians (respectively 8% and 90%) and 96% for white Costa Ricans (respectively 7% and 89%). A 2003 study on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA found African admixture in European Americans to be "below the limits of detection". 98.150.89.19 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeated the text that you apparently think is wrong but have given only your opinion on why it should be removed. Please give reliable sources that impugn or supersede these studies. Erp (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what they were getting at is that this article has failed to present the results from Bryc, et al. (2015), a much higher quality study that reported much higher Amerindian DNA in White Americans.
This makes this section feel biased in favor of low-quality research that makes White Americans look "less admixed", while being biased against much higher quality studies (like Bryc, et al. (2015)) that found a significantly higher rate of haplogroup ancestry. That's something I strongly agree with. Amaebi-uni (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

[edit]

In the admixture section, there are a few studies which list the sex haplogroups of White Americans. These studies all estimate less than 5% Native American ancestry.

However, preceding these studies is a much larger study by Bryc, et al. (2015), which gave a substantially higher estimate. But for whatever reason, this article deniea that info to the Wikipedia reader.

On page 23, Bryc, et al. (2015) give Native American mtDNA haplogroup frequencies for White Americans with 0.01-0.02+ Native American population ancestry.

Cohort Prop N. Am. ancestry N. Am. haplogroups Total N Rate

European Americans 0.01–0.02 96 1,278 7.5%

European Americans > 0.02 774 2,697 28.7%

African Americans 0.01–0.02 16 838 1.9%

African Americans > 0.02 34 305 11.1%

4GP Europeans all countries 21 15,651 0.13%

4GP Europeans excl. Spain 7 15,021 0.047%

This is big. Note that the average White American in Bryc's study had approximately 0.18% Native American ancestry (see Figure 1 in the main article). Yet, they have shown that even samples with Amerindian admixture that is substantially below the White American average of 0.18% (0.01-0.02%) had a rate of 7.5% Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups.

The sample with >0.02% admixture had nearly 30% Native American mtDNA haplogroups. Note that this is much higher than the figure for African Americans, who had just 11%.

It's pretty clear that these authors report a much higher rate of indigenous haplogroups among White Americans. It's remarkable that this study's samples had Amerindian haplogroup frequencies only somewhat lower than Latin American countries like Brazil, which have much higher rates of total population admixture.

Bryc, et al. (2015) note that, among people in Europe, less than 0.05% have a Native American haplogroup (with the exception of Hispanic Europeans, who have historical links to the Americas, and a lot more Amerindian admixture):

Excluding Spain, Native-American-specific haplogroups are detected in fewer than 0.05% of individuals with four grandparents from Europe and can be explained by survey errors in reporting all four grandparents’ birth places.

Only 0.047% of non-Spanish Europeans had an Amerindian haplogroup. So in the lower bound, White Americans are ~150 times more likely to have a direct Native American ancestor than White people in Europe. At the upper bound, they are ~500 times more likely!

If this section only describes results that make White Americans look "white as possible", while failing to mention results that point in the other direction, we've deceived the reader in to believing there was only a little admixture between Whites and Native Americans in this country's history. But in Bryc's study, perhaps 1 in 5 White Americans are directly descended from a Native American woman. We've gotta add this to the article. It's the largest US admixture study to date and it's already referenced multiple times.

Amaebi-uni (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"30% Native American mtDNA haplogroups" Native American populations had a higher than expected genetic impact on the wider population, and more living descendants than previously thought? Interesting. Have there been any sources commenting on the results of the Bryc study in the decade since its publication? Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to access the article, apparently paywalled/not open access.Can you give more details about the article, as it's possibly accessible via the WP library. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]