Ancient DNA, admx. history and endogamy in the prehistoricAegean Skourtaniotietal2022

[Jovialis]

Yes, it's not fair, all opinions should be examined, using that poster's model.

Outgroup list:

right = c('Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG', 'Russia_Kostenki14.SG', 'Russia_MA1_HG.SG', 'Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1', 'Spain_ElMiron', 'Czech_Vestonice', 'Turkey_Epipaleolithic', 'Ethiopia_4500BP.SG','Iberomaurusian', 'EHG')

Sicilian results:

target   left                      weight     se     z
  <chr>    <chr>                      <dbl>  <dbl> <dbl>
1 Sicilian Greece_Minoan             0.566  0.0320 17.7 
2 Sicilian Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.213  0.0285  7.48
3 Sicilian Iran_N                    0.127  0.0387  3.27
4 Sicilian Natufian                  0.0945 0.0284  3.32
> results$popdrop
# A tibble: 15 × 15
   pat      wt   dof  chisq         p f4rank Greece_Minoan
   <chr> <dbl> <dbl>  <dbl>     <dbl>  <dbl>         <dbl>
 1 0000      0     6   10.4 1.10e-  1      3         0.566

56.6% Minoan + 21.3% Yamnaya + 12.7% Iran_N + 9.45% Natufian, all std. errors below 5%, p-value=0.110.


Italian_South:

target        left                      weight     se     z
  <chr>         <chr>                      <dbl>  <dbl> <dbl>
1 Italian_South Greece_Minoan             0.603  0.0425 14.2 
2 Italian_South Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.199  0.0353  5.64
3 Italian_South Iran_N                    0.140  0.0468  2.99
4 Italian_South Natufian                  0.0578 0.0365  1.59
> results$popdrop
# A tibble: 15 × 15
   pat      wt   dof   chisq         p f4rank Greece_Minoan
   <chr> <dbl> <dbl>   <dbl>     <dbl>  <dbl>         <dbl>
 1 0000      0     6    9.95 1.27e-  1      3         0.603

60.3% Minoan + 19.9% Yamnaya + 14% Iran_N + 5.78% Natufian, all std. errors below 5%, p-value 0.127.


PS. WHG on the left wrecks the model, so it is omitted.

Thanks, and bump.

Nice to see someone who actually knows what they're doing.

 

[Jovialis]

Bruh, that comment just proved how little you understand qpAdm outgroups. I used the paper's shitty outgroups for that model to show you how bad they are. Better outgroups can distinguish them. AHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You don't even understand how it works.

Yet every single paper I've seen uses Anatolian_N instead of AHG to model. I guess you know better than the entire displine. Hey guys don't follow academic papers, random pseudonymous inconsequential over here is the guiding light. Next up he's going to show how vaccines cause autism.

 

[Kuivamaa]

I doubt he was Greek:

Target: Greek_Dodecanese Distance: 2.8476% / 0.02847602
67.8	GRC_Marathon_Rom
32.2	GRC_Mycenaean

He works as a great proxy for a pure West Anatolian source as Dodecanese Islanders score roughly 1/3 Ancient Greek admixture without using any other distant source like Armenian which are necessary.

Or it could be that it is a low quality sample.

Or could be a Hellenistic Dodecanese islander or Cypriot? Or a mix? Definitely nothing too exotic in the Greek continuum.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Bruh, that comment just proved how little you understand qpAdm outgroups. I used the paper's shitty outgroups for that model to show you how bad they are. Better outgroups can distinguish them. AHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You don't even understand how it works.

you've said that you can't use both Talforat and Natufian in qpAdm, because it would lead to high STD errors, so you can't design a model on qpAdm which distinguishes scenarios of high natufian or low talforat in Cypriots or south Italians, but I am getting that you are not following your own train of thoughts and you are actually extremely confused. If I am wrong and you can use a qpAdm model which can distinguishes between the two scenarios, why haven't you done it earlier? you used G25 to estimate the levels of Natufians vs Talforat, but G25 is dubious.

 

[Dorian9]

Yet every single paper I've seen uses Anatolian_N instead of AHG to model. I guess you know better than the entire displine. Hey guys don't follow academic papers, random pseudonymous inconsequential over here is the guiding light. Next up he's going to show how vaccines cause autism.

you've said that you can't use both Talforat and Natufian in qpAdm, because it would lead to high STD errors, so you can't design a model on qpAdm which distinguishes scenarios of high natufian or low talforat in Cypriots or south Italians, but I am getting that you are not following your own train of thoughts and you are actually extremely confused. If I am wrong and you can use a qpAdm model which can distinguishes between the two scenarios, why haven't you done it earlier? you used G25 to estimate the levels of Natufians vs Talforat, but G25 is dubious.

I want to ask you ,let's suppose that tomorrow a paper is published with Lazaridis&Sarno and they use Levant_N for Greeks & Italians ,would you accept it?

 

[Jovialis]

I want to ask you ,let's suppose that tomorrow a paper is published with Lazaridis&Sarno and they use Levant_N for Greeks & Italians ,would you accept it?

They probably would if they used the model from the last paper that even show steppe_emba with 2%. But they wouldn't single out just Greeks and Italians with it. I already said I have reservations about the model, which is to voucher for the southern arc, which they even admit they can't necessarily prove.

If steppe has 2% levantine, and Norway has the highest steppe. Doesn't that make Norway the most levantine (and CHG) in Northern Europe? Funny how it only matters in discussion of South Italians and Greeks.

 

[Jovialis]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. All of the nordicists and fellow travelers seem to dislike this model particularly. But it's okay when it comes to southern Europeans. Well you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

I want to ask you ,let's suppose that tomorrow a paper is published with Lazaridis&Sarno and they use Levant_N for Greeks & Italians ,would you accept it?

Questions as these betray a lack of understanding of a very important fact: it is not as if I am so adamant just because people X have said Y and thus Y is the gospel (which seems a really crude strawman of my positions), but the totality of the evidence points strongly to a particular picture.
So, to answer your question, if they tomorrow published a paper that is also supported by Y haplogroup, many tests, new archaeological evidence, etc... I should change my mind accordingly, but for the time being it seems that only extreme ignoramuses who understand nothing about genetics and know even less about history believe in the ridiculous theory of 20% Levant_BA admixture in south Italians and Greeks (and to be thorough, I've never barred the possibility of low, single digit, contribution from the Levant, but it must be so low that it is easy to see why it hasn't been detected yet, whereas a 20-25% input not yet detected by dozens of genetists because of a general negligence is such a ludicrous claim that deserves to be met with ridicule).

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Yet every single paper I've seen uses Anatolian_N instead of AHG to model. I guess you know better than the entire displine. Hey guys don't follow academic papers, random pseudonymous inconsequential over here is the guiding light. Next up he's going to show how vaccines cause autism.

This comment proves that you shouldn't even have an opinion on qpAdm models because you dont know anything about it. I said AHG should be used as an outgroup/right pop, i didnt say that AHG should be used as a proxy/left pop. It seems that you have no idea what i meant by that.

The paper we were talking about used Anatolia_N as a left pop/proxy but did not use Anatolian_HG and Taforalt as right pop/outgroup to help qpAdm distinguish Anatolia_N from the Levant_N or Natufian.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Thanks, and bump.
Nice to see someone who actually knows what they're doing.

The model still shows 10% Natufian in Sicilians when using Minoans as a proxy. Weren't you denying any Natufian in Sicily and South Italy?

 

[Jovialis]

The model still shows 10% Natufian in Sicilians when using Minoans as a proxy. Weren't you denying any Natufian in Sicily and South Italy?

No, obviously there's some due to the moors and Saracens. But he used your dubious model, which is what I asked you to do. The outputs you used may be flawed within and of itself. I doubt the academics fail to make the realization, if there's some nuances to using it we aren't aware of.

 

[Jovialis]

This comment proves that you shouldn't even have an opinion on qpAdm models because you dont know anything about it. I said AHG should be used as an outgroup/right pop, i didnt say that AHG should be used as a proxy/left pop. It seems that you have no idea what i meant by that.

The paper we were talking about used Anatolia_N as a left pop/proxy but did not use Anatolian_HG and Taforalt as right pop/outgroup to help qpAdm distinguish Anatolia_N from the Levant_N or Natufian.

I know what you meant genius. But show me another paper that goes to this length to make the distinction.

 

[torzio]

there will always be errors if you present a mixed AD data with BC data

there will always be errors when you mix republican romans with imperial romans


why do people present this erred mix

 

[Jovialis]

@Idontknowwhatimdoing
Let me guess, it's they don't know what they're doing, but you do. How small are you?

 

[Jovialis]

If I recall, there's a paper that states modern middle eastern people must be modeled with Levant_BA. For some reason the model fails with more ancient sample. There must be a nuances as to why AHG and those other outgroups are not used.

 

[Jovialis]

The Max Planck couldn't determine if the east med immigrants were levantine or Anatolian, but this guy can find it I guess. Wow! The hubris is comical.

Lazaridis determined they were Anatolian.

 

[Jovialis]

Why didn't they just apply the right out groups, you mental midget?

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Why didn't they just apply the right out groups, you mental midget?

Maybe because they wanted to model Italians with 0% Levantine?

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

The model still shows 10% Natufian in Sicilians when using Minoans as a proxy. Weren't you denying any Natufian in Sicily and South Italy?

As you said the lack of talforat or north african proxies forces the model to inflate greatly the Natufian.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Maybe because they wanted to model Italians with 0% Levantine?

I hope you can provide evidence that somehow there is a conspiracy to hide the Levantine origins of south Italians, because you are clutching at straws.