I mentioned nothing about haplogroups being mentioned in scientific papers. I said *some people in this forum* like to get "creative" with haplogroups.
Since no one is discussing them and the thread is about autosomal results, and, in addition, we've mentioned in passing that any likely "steppe" haplogroups are rare in Greece, that was just a gratuitous shot at the forum and perhaps Maciamo, and I didn't appreciate it.
That Greeks are the most indigenous population is *my* assessment, not anyone else's.
Your clear implication seemed to me to be that I or other members posting on this thread are implying that Greeks are the most "indigenous" population in Europe, which is absolutely not true. We are neither saying it nor is it an objective fact, so your perception is incorrect. What seems increasingly obvious, however, is that in Europe as elsewhere the rule is population stasis for long periods of time punctuated by occasional mass migrations if we are talking about massive changes in the genome, and that for many European countries, MUCH, but by no means ALL of the genetic variation was already in place by the end of the Bronze Age. This is true even in the case of England, I think, where the Anglo-Saxon invasions, for example, are responsible for about 30% as a maximum of the genome in certain areas. Not, I hasten to add, that this is more "virtuous" or to be celebrated. It just is....
73% similarity is not total similarity because *a lot* has happened between Mycenaeans and Slavs. Most of the the remaining percentage can easily be deduced and is quite obvious. (Good) anthropologists figured this out almost a hundred years ago, and the DNA evidence is merely (albeit slowly, bit by bit) recapitulating what they said.
Again, this is a straw man argument. It has been specifically said over and over again in this thread by me and others that 73% similarity is not TOTAL similarity. How many times does it have to be repeated? I would argue also that a lot of anthropologists thought that the ancient Greek physiognomy was "Nordic", which is a crock, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking genetics.
And I'm not being racist. East Asian/African are Facts that I see all over 23andMe, Gedmatch, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. Modern Greeks have to have one or the other (or even both) for these dilution theories to make any sense. They have neither, at least in relation to the peoples discussed, and hence, they must be the most indigenous.
I share with a lot of southern Italians and some Iberians at 23andme. What I see on 23andme is .8, .6, occasionally 1%, sometimes no SSA. Some of the Iberian scores are around the same, some a bit higher depending on the area, but in the same general ball park. On gedmatch the combination for West African and East African, the latter of which may be very old, is around 1.5% for southern Italy/Sicily. This strikes you as significant enough to bring up, does it? Also, I see no reason for mainland Greece to ever have had it. It seems pretty clear to me that most of it in southern Italy and Iberia is the result of the Moorish invasions, which didn't at all impact mainland Greece.
So, sorry, but your comments still seem like "sour grapes" to me.
