New Leak: CWC=73% Yamna, modern North Euros=50% Yamna.

Aberdeen. I know it sounds simplistic to say 50% of north Euros blood derive from the ancient Pontic steppe, but it is most certainly the case.

Me and others have played out every admixture possibility after the Neolithic, including recent middle eastern and hunter gatherer admixture. We came up with the same conclusion as Reich, North euros are 50%(most are more) Yamna-like. Did you look at my links?

Doubt is not evidence. Nothing from modern Asia and pre-bronze age north, central, and west Europe can explain north Euros, you need 50% Yamna in there. One way or another it got there.
 
Aberdeen, R1b doesn't matter, autosomes matter. The Yamna-like(No one ever said it came directly from Yamna, just people who were similar!!) ancestry is in Irish(Over 50%), there's no debating this. How R1b got there is another debate, but we know for sure Yamna-like ancestry is very high there.
 
This is clearly a mess, they are fishing , they now ,...... to make the numbers work have eliminated the concept of a central european marker and made it part of north European. The recent hungarian samples are now northern samples because they found N1 , but what about the J2

Byt he way, watch for K8 to be replaced by K7 for this in the future
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Aberdeen, R1b doesn't matter, autosomes matter. The Yamna-like(No one ever said it came directly from Yamna, just people who were similar!!) ancestry is in Irish(Over 50%), there's no debating this. How R1b got there is another debate, but we know for sure Yamna-like ancestry is very high there.
Click to expand...

You seem to have totally missed the point of everything I said. Someone could have a mixture of WHG, EEF and ANE that appears to be consistent with 50% Yamnaya without in fact being 50% Yamnaya. There are lots of ways that could happen, especially if we don't know the whole story of ANE and northern Europe.

It definitely seems that Yamnaya DNA isn't distinct enough to say "this particular set of European DNA is 50% Yamnaya".
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Aberdeen. I know it sounds simplistic to say 50% of north Euros blood derive from the ancient Pontic steppe, but it is most certainly the case.

Me and others have played out every admixture possibility after the Neolithic, including recent middle eastern and hunter gatherer admixture. We came up with the same conclusion as Reich, North euros are 50%(most are more) Yamna-like. Did you look at my links?

Doubt is not evidence. Nothing from modern Asia and pre-bronze age north, central, and west Europe can explain north Euros, you need 50% Yamna in there. One way or another it got there.
Click to expand...

I did look at those links. Inaccurate assumptions in, false verification of inaccurate assumptions out.
 
Aberdeen said:
You seem to have totally missed the point of everything I said. Someone could have a mixture of WHG, EEF and ANE that appears to be consistent with 50% Yamnaya without in fact being 50% Yamnaya. There are lots of ways that could happen, especially if we don't know the whole story of ANE and northern Europe.

It definitely seems that Yamnaya DNA isn't distinct enough to say "this particular set of European DNA is 50% Yamnaya".
Click to expand...

Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.
 
Why are people still using ENF as a category? ENF are a "hybrid" population of near eastern farmers and SE hunter gatherers. There is already data out there that has separated the two different components of ENF.
 
Aberdeen said:
I did look at those links. Inaccurate assumptions in, false verification of inaccurate assumptions out.
Click to expand...

Acting like a critical snob, who doesn't believe anything is not how you win an argument. My "inaccurate assumptions" from weeks ago is what the academics with real genomes are saying today. You have no evidence just doubt and a horrible attitude. I can't believe you're British and German, because you have the attitude of a snobby-ass Frenchman. The shallow, dark, and inmoral way people like you see the world is sad.

Decades from now when this is in the history books, you'll look back and wished you listened more to what I'm saying.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.
Click to expand...

It was ENF + UHG
 
thank you for French people, Ô! Fire Haired - the ever doubting attitude is well known too among British people (less among Americans, I suppose) - all the way these puttings people of a country all in the same bag is risked I think - I believe as you Yamna horizon people have had some imput in some part of Europe but the absolute proofs will came someday, they are not already here - these general autosomes subdivisions are not sufficiant even if very interesting - well defined lignages are required to confirm it
 
Templar said:
Why are people still using ENF as a category? ENF are a "hybrid" population of near eastern farmers and SE hunter gatherers. There is already data out there that has separated the two different components of ENF.
Click to expand...

ENF does not mean what you think it means. And we were actually using EEF (early European farmers as a category - it's a mixture of hunter gatherers and ENF (early Near Eastern farmers). But there is no sample of ENF that I know of.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.
Click to expand...

No, I won't be "connived" or convinced unless the paper can produce detailed subclade information proving that certain modern DNA lineages could only have come from Yamnaya. What you have to understand is that Yamnaya isn't a genetically unique group - they seem to have been a mixture of EEF, WHG and ANE. But Neolithic Europe was already a mixture of EEF and WHG. And I'm not convinced that all ANE in Europe comes from Yamnaya because ANE levels in northern Europe seem to be partly dependent on levels of WHG.

Please learn the difference between EEF and ENF.
 
MOESAN said:
thank you for French people, Ô! Fire Haired - the ever doubting attitude is well known too among British people (less among Americans, I suppose) - all the way these puttings people of a country all in the same bag is risked I think - I believe as you Yamna horizon people have had some imput in some part of Europe but the absolute proofs will came someday, they are not already here - these general autosomes subdivisions are not sufficiant even if very interesting - well defined lignages are required to confirm it
Click to expand...

I knew I could count on a Frenchman to be the voice of reason and logic. LOL.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Acting like a critical snob, who doesn't believe anything is not how you win an argument. My "inaccurate assumptions" from weeks ago is what the academics with real genomes are saying today. You have no evidence just doubt and a horrible attitude. I can't believe you're British and German, because you have the attitude of a snobby-ass Frenchman. The shallow, dark, and inmoral way people like you see the world is sad.

Decades from now when this is in the history books, you'll look back and wished you listened more to what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Given that I'm finding this conversation amusing and you seem to be getting upset about it, maybe you should ask yourself which one of us has a problem.

Perhaps I could have stated the issue a trifle more diplomatically but the reality is this - if you perform a calculation based on a flawed premise, the results will be flawed.

And, FYI, real English people are often far snobbier and far more sarcastic than I'll ever be, so perhaps you should avoid England.
 
Last edited:
Aberdeen said:
ENF does not mean what you think it means. And we were actually using EEF (early European farmers as a category - it's a mixture of hunter gatherers and ENF (early Near Eastern farmers). But there is no sample of ENF that I know of.
Click to expand...

Ah okay, I got ENF and EEF confused. The sample for ENF is Stuttgart I think. Haven't really been keeping up with these new autosomal categories as of late. What is the sample population for EEF?
 
Templar said:
Ah okay, I got ENF and EEF confused. The sample for ENF is Stuttgart I think. Haven't really been keeping up with these new autosomal categories as of late. What is the sample population for EEF?
Click to expand...

Actually, Stuttgart had a small amount of hunter gatherer ancestry. You can read about Europe being a mixture of three groups (WHG, EEF and ANE) here, although a lot of people think the reality is a bit more complicated than that.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
 
Aberdeen said:
No, I won't be "connived" or convinced unless the paper can produce detailed subclade information proving that certain modern DNA lineages could only have come from Yamnaya. What you have to understand is that Yamnaya isn't a genetically unique group - they seem to have been a mixture of EEF, WHG and ANE. But Neolithic Europe was already a mixture of EEF and WHG. And I'm not convinced that all ANE in Europe comes from Yamnaya because ANE levels in northern Europe seem to be partly dependent on levels of WHG.

Please learn the difference between EEF and ENF.
Click to expand...

No one ever said Yamna-type ancestry in Europe is from Yamna. It is statistically impossible for Mesolithic HGs like Motala12 and anyone in west Asia to have given Europeans any substantial ANE. The next place to look is east Europe, and ~5k ones fit very nicely as the main source. No one besides Yamna or a close relative could have done this.
 
Aberdeen said:
Given that I'm finding this conversation amusing and you seem to be getting upset about it, maybe you should ask yourself which one of us has a problem.

Perhaps I could have stated the issue a trifle more diplomatically but the reality is this - if you perform a calculation based on a flawed premise, the results will be flawed.

And, FYI, real English people are often far snobbier and far more sarcastic than I'll ever be, so perhaps you should avoid England.
Click to expand...

The calculation wasn't far off because I came to the same conclusion as Reich.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
No one ever said Yamna-type ancestry in Europe is from Yamna. It is statistically impossible for Mesolithic HGs like Motala12 and anyone in west Asia to have given Europeans any substantial ANE. The next place to look is east Europe, and ~5k ones fit very nicely as the main source. No one besides Yamna or a close relative could have done this.
Click to expand...

What do you think about Finnic people bringing ANE to the baltic?
 
Templar said:
What do you think about Finnic people bringing ANE to the baltic?
Click to expand...

They probably brought alot. Finno-Urgics come from the same area as Yamna, so they could have been similar genetically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 43356 times.

Back
Top