Ancestry/Family Tree Thread

>>77114339
ooga booga you neandertal.

on a side note, mind posting the list of genes/variants you have from neandertals? i study genetics and only the useful genes ended up surviving because the irrelevant ones were washed away by how many humans there were (IE the genes that allows tibetans/andeans to have better oxygen capacity and breath in mountains better than everyone else is neandertal in origin)

>people are unironically proud of having Neanderthal ancestors.

Yet you use sub-human as a fucking insult.

>>77114429
american subhuman

i am grek. you will never be grek, greks have everything.

File: rs1877547.png (22KB, 545x147px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 545x147px

>>77114385
Height. A bit taller on average.

>>77114429
Americans are subhuman and boring

Just found out my grandad's related to this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_O%27Farrell

I am Greek.

File: Family Tree.png (205KB, 2444x1552px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 2444x1552px

>>77114339

File: Family Tree 2.png (449KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1600x960px

>>77114339
>>77114518

File: b7f26d665ee5be0df4384b009da6d951.jpg (98KB, 638x921px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 638x921px

>>77114460
yeah that allele controls all 0.1 inches taller. height is notoriously tricky because there's like 1000 genes involved and most are influenced by childhood/maternal nutrition.

what's your body build like? do you have a huge torso and wide/stout/thick body? that's the classical neandertal look since they were much more strongly built than us.

also share more i want to see.

>>77114385
this might be a dumb question but if i get my brother to take this test would he get the same results i would? or very similar?

>>77114460
just another random question. are you good at seeing at low-light conditions, and generally good at inquisitive/puzzle/logical stuff? supposedly they were better hunters and more specialized for hunting than we were so they developed a mind with similar traits as people with aspergers (logical, intuitive, good at processing information and deduction).

>>77114550
Why did we manage to defeat the Neanderthals? If they're built better than us?

Better brain capacity?

>>77114584
maybe some traits but then again probably not many.

example, both you parents have two different sets for every gene. when they mix up you have a random chance of inheriting two of these, either both from your mom, or both from your dad or one from either.

a good chance is that you share 2 similar genes and have 2 different genes from your brother for every kind of gene.

>>77114624
I might be wrong, but I thought you also had a change to inherit your grandparents genes?

File: Is this supposed to be interesting.png (450KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1600x960px

>>77114339
Wew.

Know only that my grandmas father was german but she never told me anything about him as he died when she was very young.

Also i have some swedish ancestors along the line.

>>77114595
they had smaller social groups, IE they maxed out 40 people and humans maxed out at 200. but they also ate 5000 calories a day and needed to hunt mammoths and big-game to survive while humans got by with 1500-2000 calories. this is because their bones were nearly 2-3x thicker than us since they tackled deer and shit.

i also doubt their population ever was the size of humans imo to begin with imo so the actual percentage of 98-2 might also reflect population size when they got absorbed.

>>77114639
yeah your mom or dad has one or two of their genes. 4 grandparents = 8 gene copies which means 1/8 chance though.

>>77114550
Fairly average/normal. Maybe a bit "sturdier looking".

>>77114591
>are you good at seeing at low-light conditions
Yes, but it's hard to say how I compare to the average...

>generally good at inquisitive/puzzle/logical stuff
Yes.

>supposedly they were better hunters and more specialized for hunting than we were so they developed a mind with similar traits as people with aspergers (logical, intuitive, good at processing information and deduction
Interesting.

>>77114651
Nice. Were they White or Red?

>>77114429

If you have no neanderthal ancestry you are literally a nigger

>>77114651
>filename
Kek

>>77114718
yeah neandertals had much bigger visuo-spatial brain areas than us because they hunted in low-light arctic conditions which is why its protruding backwards. inuit people have about 20% bigger brains in these areas imo since they had to survive in low-light conditions, and i suspect other people who's ancestors lived in the arctic are similar like finns and northern siberians.

File: 45894-skulls.jpg (129KB, 980x551px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 980x551px

>>77114841
forgot to attach. they had bigger brains, bigger skulls like pic related.

>>77114789
Nice.

What's the best memedna test?

>>77114957
23andMe is probably the best. Most features.

>>77114957
Apparently LivingDNA is good.

>>77115080
>>77115102
Which one won't make clones of me?

>>77115219
Both might t b h.

>>77115219
this is the important question

>>77115219
From a /pol/ perspective LivingDNA is better (I don't think it's owned by Jews like 23andme is) but I think it also comes down to what you want out of the test. Like the Swede said, 23andme has the most features and is the right choice if you want info on Neanderthal percentage, chance of developing certain health conditions, things like that. LivingDNA on the other hand is better if you're interested in haplogroups. As for actual ancestry, no test can really be perfect and variation between tests can be quite significant from what I have heard, so it's probably worth doing more research on this area if it is your main focus.

>>77115450
>LivingDNA
Looks very interesting.

https://www.livingdna.com/en-eu

>>77115450
Not sure if I want to know anything about my health
So livingdna is better if I want to know where I actually come from?

>>77114957
i haven't done any testing but when you get your genes tested you can plug in the info to any random number of sites to get cool info about it. 23 and me is probably the better known imo and its useful and used in science journals to discover shit like which genes cause a disease and so-on.

>>77115450
>23 and me is a jewish conspiracy

don't get how /pol/ can pretend to be experts in genetics when they are easily the most ignorant group.

>>77115578
Well in terms of paternal ancestry, apparently it's better. But for the typical ancestry breakdown by region, I can't really comment. There are arguments for and against each one, so I'd say just do more research if this is your main interest.

>>77115578
they should be the exact same going from the websites. 23and me is compatible with a bunch of random analytic programs and seems very reputable.

example
https://www.quora.com/Which-tools-can-be-used-to-analyze-23andMe-raw-data

>>77115652
I never said that it was a Jewish conspiracy, hence why I started off with "From a /pol/ perspective".

>>77115652
It was founded by Anne Wojcicki, sister of Susan, who owns Youtube. Both are Jews. ...Oh, and Anne was also married to Google co-founder (((Sergey Brin))).

>>77115578
actually for your specific goal I think ancestry site might be better. scroll all the way to the bottom, it might provide a more thorough sequencing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

>>77115714
honestly wiking her right now although whether or not she's jewish imo is irrelevant.

first, do you understand the difference between a CEO and an owner? an owner owns stock and appoints CEO...

second, wiki tells me her dad is polish non-jew, and her parents were typical academia and not part of the rothschild group so this is irrelevant as fuck.

>>77115714
so youre saying jews shouldnt network with each others and wealthy jews shouldnt marry other wealthy jews. sounds reasonable and not mentally ill at all.

>>77115750
What should I see there?
(Mobileposting)

>>77115854
scroll all the way down, i think 23andme compares ancestry to the last 300 years whereas ancestry covers 1000s of years and more thorough because of that. IE they will tell you your 50-great grandpa and where he was from.

its also half the price apparently as 23andme.

>>77115854
yeah i can confirm 23andme is good medically and for personal use which is why i'm more familiar with it.

ancestryDNA is good for family history/geneology http://www.businessinsider.com/best-dna-test-23andme-vs-ancestry-2016-11

>>77115895
>>77115921
Thanks, will consider ancestry
So what does livingdna tell you then?

>>77115921
Not sure why you're dismissing LivingDNA so quickly. It's consistently rated highly among ancestry kit reviewers, especially in terms of paternal ancestry and value for money.

>>77115967
>>77115954

not dismissing it, i'm just googling it to see what kinda tests they perform and so-on.

no idea whats going on with livingdna since i can't really find their site.

>>77116042
https://www.livingdna.com/en-ca

>>77115954
yeah they sound essentially the same.

http://www.nanalyze.com/2017/05/ancestrydna-23andme-livingdna-familytreedna/

>>77116022
>>77116022
>>77116022
---

File: im.png (449KB, 1602x876px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1602x876px

>>77114339
yes hello

>>77116119
Might take the livingdna then, because it seems ancestry requires some sort of subscription to access their database