Actually it's the other way around: it is tiresome to engage in discussions with some Italian posters for precisely this reason. What is there to be concerned about? Well you tell me. All those things you try to argue against some Spanish posters actually apply to such Italian posters, ironically. You want to accept any claim said in dubious/junky/agenda-driven genetic papers about Spain, but not those about Italy.
The study was written by Italian geneticists themselves, and 52 Aims autosomal is still a better and more informative genetic quantifier than any haplogroup, which is only a small part of the DNA, yet you want to give preference to the latter simply because it seems to support your wishes that Spain should be more "African" than Italy.
Moorjani et al. 2011 did not "realize" anything, as far as I know. They still stick to their results and their claims, even though some of them are indeed faulty (their autosomal results are not entirely in agreement with haplogroup results of previous studies, as they wished to pretend they were.)
You mean like that recent pigmentation study that showed Portuguese as lighter than Italians and that your pal Nobody1 has been trying to "spin" since day 1, as he usually does with anything that goes "against" Italy in these topics?
Please don't lay all the blame on the Italian academics for that junk paper...there were Spaniards involved too
Also, I would totally agree that there are Italian posters on "anthrofora" who also don't know what they're talking about. There's a reason I don't frequent those sites. Furthermore, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
Did I ever say that y dna or mt dna is very informative about total genetic similarity? I think I'm on record all over this site saying the opposite.
Junk is junk no matter who does it...52 AIMS is ridiculous and totally outdated in terms of autosomal analysis. You are aware that autosomal studies today from internationally recognized universities use at least 500,000 autosomal snps, yes?
As for Patterson et al, and Lipson et al, it's the SAME exact people...the same group from Harvard and M.I.T. that produced Moorjani et al 2011. Honestly, I don't know how to make this any clearer...look at the authors of the Patterson et al paper (2012)...Moorjani is one of the authors of that and the subsequent Lipson et al.(2013) Moorjani et al 2011 was off because they didn't take into account the North Eurasian admixture which is higher in northern Europeans.
Moorjani et al 2011 was first. Dienekes explained why the methodology was wrong here...they used a two population model when they should have used a three population model (i.e. they didn't take into account the north east Asian shift in northern Europeans.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html
Then, lo and behold, Patterson et al comes out, and then Lipson et al, which do use a three population model.
Patterson et al
http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.full.pdf
Lipson et al:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf
Lipson et al is discussed here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/efficient-moment-based-inference-of.html
It's very clear.
I don't see what the huge issue is...Look at Globe 13 dodecad analysis...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=2
All the Spanish populations are analyzed, as are the Italian populations.
The highest number for combined West African, Paleo African and East African for any Spanish population is 2.3, I think, in Galicians. Catalans seem to have about .3 West African. What's so terrible about that? As someone mentioned, for these alleles to be retained, perhaps they confer some sort of selective advantage in these environments.
By the way, the Sicilians have 1.7, the southern Italians have 1.2. In this particular analysis the Tuscans don't show any, but I've seen analyses, older ones, that show .5 or something. I'm sort of half Tuscan... should I get bent out of shape over this?
I truly regret bringing up the pigmentation study as it's so completely off topic...but no, I don't mean any comparison of people's skin tones...I mean actual snps for pigmentation.
The table I was thinking of is actually in the Lucotte et al 2011 study here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JEBR/PDF/pdf2011/March/Lucotte and Yuasa pdf.pdf
The most recent study is Norton et al:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long
This is the pigmentation table from that study, which examines all five snps involved, but it's only of the HapMap populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.pdf
This is a graphic for all the populations:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/F3.expansion.html
You can click on each map to see a larger version.
Of course, the only scientific purpose for this kind of study is to show that this trait is subject to selection based on the solar radiation of the location. There's no absolute value attached to having less pigmentation. You really shouldn't assume that everyone thinks there is...I, for one, quite prefer Mediterranean phenotypes.
(And, by the way, you're not understanding the importance of the lower "K" levels.)
And now, I'm out of this discussion. For one thing, all of this has been off-topic, and I apologize for my share in it. For another, there's no point in discussion if it's not going to be rational.