The genetic affinities of Europeans to different sub-races and nationalities

[Tennyson]

According to several studies the genetic profiles of people of the same European nationality tend to cluster together as rather distinct groups regardless of the sub-racial diversity of the country.

Why aren't the genetic clusters matching the various European sub-races instead of nationalities?

Is "sub-race" a meaningful concept from a genetic standpoint?

Look at this genetic chart for example,
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7...clustrzbj7.jpg

Despite the fact that Italy is sub-racially diverse all Italians cluster together both as a nationality and as a part of the Mediterranean division of European Whites.

More impressively, the analyses all showed consistent clustering of the Italian and Spanish subject sets from the subject sets of other European ancestry including those of Western, Central, Eastern and Scandinavian European ancestry.

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/per...020143.eor.pdf

Could it be that the nationalities have traditionally represented relatively isolated gene pools and the "sub-racial differences" actually reflect random distribution of the few genes affecting appearance?

This conclusion would have some politically very appealing implications.
A Middle-Eastern individual of White phenotype would actually be more related to other, non-White Middle-Easterns which would rationalize their categorical exclusion as desirable immigrants. Also, genetic reality would not support various forms of sub-racial ethnic separatism (like Nordicism).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

According to several studies the genetic profiles of people of the same European nationality tend to cluster together as rather distinct groups regardless of the sub-racial diversity of the country.

Why aren't the genetic clusters matching the various European sub-races instead of nationalities?

I think that someone (Galaico?) mentioned before that anthropological division of sub-races, as identified by phenotypes, are of a much newer formation than genotypes.

Most of those phenotypical differences would then have been formed through environment adaptation and some degree or another of isolation.

Is "sub-race" a meaningful concept from a genetic standpoint?

I saw a thread on another forum where a long-time serving nordicist all of a sudden questioned --I'm quoting roughly, by heart here-- the validity of anthropological classification in terms of telling the whole story of one individual's heritage. Then I understood when I saw the picture of the supposed boyfriend..

I don't know what to say. Even genetics per se are of a questionable value in my book. Interesting, yes. But still of a questionable value. Generally speaking, as meaningful concepts I would take ethnicity and nationhood.

Despite the fact that Italy is sub-racially diverse all Italians cluster together both as a nationality and as a part of the Mediterranean division of European Whites.

I remain a bit sceptic about Europeans coming all from one single big group. I like to think of Europe as an area of convergence of some more or less different groups, where shared knowledge and skills have brought a particular evolutive history.

Could it be that the nationalities have traditionally represented relatively isolated gene pools and the "sub-racial differences" actually reflect random distribution of the few genes affecting appearance?

If the distribution was random at the the different groups, wouldn't randomness act the same for the different individuals within same groups?

This conclusion would have some politically very appealing implications.
A Middle-Eastern individual of White phenotype would actually be more related to other, non-White Middle-Easterns which would rationalize their categorical exclusion as desirable immigrants.

I would imagine that this could be explained by a group of genes shared at different percentages and then what you call randomnes which is probably what is similar or the same as gene dominance/recesiveness?

Also, genetic reality would not support various forms of sub-racial ethnic separatism (like Nordicism).

Not just genetic, but no reality supports subracial separatism. But then again, common sense does not support the opposite.

[Agrippa]

I dont want to deal with the rest but just point out what matters most:

Could it be that the nationalities have traditionally represented relatively isolated gene pools and the "sub-racial differences" actually reflect random distribution of the few genes affecting appearance?

NO, its not random, we deal with inheritable trait combination which are or at least were of adaptive importance and were or even still are regionally accumulated in a non-random distribution. This fact alone makes it valuable and defines racial types being of biological significance.

Otherwise compare:
East-Baltids and the alleged Lappoid/Mongoloid admixture

and
What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

[Polak]

Phenotypes are certainly directed by the genes we carry, and also by their expression.

However, these genes are not the Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers scientists and historians use to divide Europe into regions, and trace migration routes. Not only that, but these markers are usualy older than the phenotypes we know today.

If you want to figure out the phenotype of an individual, you just have to look at his genes. Problem is that we haven't really figured out which genes do what. And also the expression of the same genes can vary too, and that will make people look different.

You gotta stop thinking that one chromosome is gonna tell you everything. It doesn't carry the information, and is passed on independetly from the genes that do.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

NO, its not random, we deal with inheritable trait combination which are or at least were of adaptive importance and were or even still are regionally accumulated in a non-random distribution. This fact alone makes it valuable and defines racial types being of biological significance.

My argument is that an Europid sub-race, unlike nationality, isn't a viable basis for tribal loyalty.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

My argument is that an Europid sub-race, unlike nationality, isn't a viable basis for tribal loyalty.

Well, thats right. But, whats your ethnic or social unity after all? A population which is defined by a certain mixture and predominance of certain types. So even if saying you care for a national and ethnosocial unity more, should mean to at least consider racial types. And of course, if you want the best for your group, you should want the better elements (if its about the individuals and group's potential) to prevail in the population as well as the constitutive elements of a decent standard as such.

But it can't be the normal and usual standard for tribal loyalty in daily and political life, agreed.