Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "The Genetics of Prehistory." video.

@georgefloydsfake20dollarbi28 While the clovis culture is a very strong influence and something he referenced, they have found some issues with this where there's no idea why certain DNA strands are found there and apparently there were some people there before the clovis culture. They have come to dominate a lot of the gene pool, however there's a lot more mixing that has come into play like he said. I happened to do a little digging myself out of pure curiosity recently. Native Americans are very difficult to nail down for a variety of reasons but one of them is the fact that the tribes didn't really share all of the same genetics and why you can find absolutely none of that ancestry but the other person did.
2
@perthdude21 I mean... nature and nurture. It's the genetic inclination. It seems that it's probably true enough but clearly isn't the end-all-be-all. I mean the Indo-Aryan group should theoretically carry in it the same amounts but for cultural reasons went on very different tracts. Nurture determines which genes manifest in a lot of ways. Also he did say "some tribes" so it could easily be the Comanches or Caribe compared to like the Taino people.
2
@urphakeandgey6308 I've actually happened to read an article on that. Your results would probably put you as a fair bit of Polynesian, slight Ainu, and slight Korean or possibly just a variant of Japanese. I Happen to have clicked on an article about the origins of the Japanese people and in there are the other local groups of the Manchus, Ainu, Koreans, Mongols, Taiwan aborigines, Han Chinese, and Ryukyuans. Japanese is split into 3 groups and the thing that largely differentiates the Japanese from the surrounding ethnicities is a gene pulled from the Ainu (called haplogroup D1b) adding into the Manchu gene pool in a fair amount (Koreans seem to created from the slight Japanese reintroduction of the gene). The primary differences between the Japanese from North to South seems to be the amount of this gene which is possessed and thus the amount of the other genes which are present by comparison from the original (or at least from what I can get from the pie graphs original) Manchu gene pool. The Ryukuans also have a less than 1% of some other haplogroups which aren't represented on this graph and aren't present in the rest of the Japanese (or at least in enough to be relevant) likely having a higher ratio of Manchu to Ainu DNA. The only thing which could potentially throw a wrench into how I'm understanding this is that the gene the Ainu share with the rest of the East Asians (one called hablopgroup C2a) is LESS present in the Japanese even though it's present in the rest of the East Asians and Ainu more with the exception of the Taiwan Aborigines in which have none (Mongols are dominated by this gene much like the Japanese are dominated by the D1b). The article says this gene likely came from Siberia and so the people who had it maybe simply stopped going farther south. The whole article is fairly interesting and I'll drop the link to the site. https://wa-pedia.com/history/origins_japanese_people.shtml
1
@georgefloydsfake20dollarbi28 Funny enough Siberians aren't actually very related to the Native Americans and I believe said relation only really extendeds to a select few north American artic peoples and even then the Siberians which are related are actually a minory in Siberia (I'm using the term "Siberian" a bit loosely here because while they're from the same place they have their own name but I can't actively remember it right now).
1