Makin a map of EEF, WHG and ANE admixtures in Europe. Please post your data.

[Luan]

Gedmatch is not working, so I cant get my k13 result.

[Angela]

I would second the idea that the population averages provided in Lazaridis et al should not be mixed with the data from the use of Eurogenes K=13 to create a unified map. The reasons, as was stated above, should be obvious. In addition, many of these figures are from people of mixed ancestry; while it may be fun to look at and compare such figures, their usefulness for telling us anything about the peopling of Europe is obviously very limited.

I don't agree with the criticism that maps indicating the prevalence of these three components by area are somehow not important because some minority ancestry isn't mapped. The point of this kind of analysis is to try to understand the peopling of Europe, and, so far, these are the major gene flows which have been identified as having given birth to modern Europeans.

I also think it might be a good idea if some caution was exercised in identifying the ANE figure as some indication of actual "Indo-European" ancestry, as we don't yet know (although we soon will) what percentage of the people in Samara were ANE at what period in time, and what percentage was in the people migrating into eastern Europe proper/the Balkans, Central Europe, Southern Europe etc. with their new language, if that is indeed what happened, as some of this ANE was already in Scandinavia, and certainly wasn't Indo-European, and we don't know if that contributed to the ANE in modern Scandinavians and perhaps Eastern Europeans and beyond. Also, as Le Brok mentioned, Hun, Magyar etc. invasions will also have contributed some ANE, and they weren't Indo-Europeans either. I think it has to be kept in mind that the people bringing the Indo-European languages to Europe and Asia Minor will have had varying degrees of the ANE component in them depending on the time period, along with unknown quantities of the other two components of the Lazaridis et al model.

Also, while I find even the provisional maps provided very interesting, I think we might want to keep in mind that this is a fast moving field because of the improved techniques for working with ancient dna and the development of new statistical models by some very talented people in the field. All of that means that there might be surprises in store. I personally am very interested in seeing what the autosomal results from Mesolithic, and, if we're lucky, Paleolithic samples from the Balkans will show; if we have another "native" European hunter-gatherer component, that will re-arrange all the calculations. I'm not saying that will happen, I'm just saying nothing would surprise me at this point.

Oh, there was a comment made upthread about EEF "sucking in all Middle Eastern" ancestry that isn't Neolithic in origin. I'm not aware of any major movement of "Near or Middle Eastern" people into Europe post the Neolithic, with the possible exception of some part of the Etruscans from Anatolia in the the first millennium BC, should that ever be proven. If the poster was thinking of any possible effect from the Muslim domination of the early Medieval period of parts of southern Europe, those people were mostly North Africans, and their effect, either because of a male dominance model, or because of subsequent expulsions, has been rather exaggerated, in my opinion.

I also think it should be clear by now that labeling EEF "Middle Eastern" or even "Near Eastern" is ludicrous if one means by that the modern people of that area, as it is based on an obviously incorrect proposition, i.e. that while Europe was subject to admixture from various sources, the Near East or Middle East remained static throughout its history. That's obviously not the case, as I've been saying for about five years now. It was nice to get some confirmation of that from the recent study on mtDNA in PPN samples, in addition to the studies showing increasing influence from the south in terms of yDNA, and the ANE data that has shown up per Lazaridis et al.

(In the case of the Etruscans, if they did come from Anatolia, given the late date it would seem to me that they would have probably brought some ANE as well. In that context, I would point out that the Tuscans have more ANE than either the northern Italians or the southern Italians. I would also point out that the EEF numbers for the Tuscans fit right within the Italian cline, indicating probably the slightly lesser effect of any Central European migrations on that area.)

[Fire Haired14]

Angela, Ashkenazi Jews have a high amount of non-Neolithic European middle eastern ancestry and scored over 90% EEF in Laz, so yes EEF can absorb other types middle eastern ancestry. I really don't have time to get into this but you need to know it is a horrible mistake to assume all middle eastern ancestry in Europe arrived with farming. A great and simple example of post-Neolithic middle eastern gene flow into Europe is Y DNA R1b1a2a-L23, which probably arrived in Europe from west Asia well after the first farmers did.

[LeBrok]

Gedmatch is not working, so I cant get my k13 result.

That's a bummer.
Does anyone know if other websites run K13 calculator?

[Angela]

Angela, Ashkenazi Jews have a high amount of non-Neolithic European middle eastern ancestry and scored over 90% EEF in Laz, so yes EEF can absorb other types middle eastern ancestry. I really don't have time to get into this but you need to know it is a horrible mistake to assume all middle eastern ancestry in Europe arrived with farming. A great and simple example of post-Neolithic middle eastern gene flow into Europe is Y DNA R1b1a2a-L23, which probably arrived in Europe from west Asia well after the first farmers did.

It's very important when discussing these topics to be precise in one's language. EEF is not synonymous with Middle Eastern. The EEF population no longer exists in pure form in the Middle East because Middle Eastern people have experienced gene flows since the Neolithic just as have Europeans. Indeed, it may never have existed in the Middle East because it is possible these farmers who came from the Middle East 8-9,000 years ago may have picked up some hunter gatherer ancestry in the Balkans. Alternatively, we may discover that a component similar to EEF existed in the Balkans already in the Mesolithic. We don't yet know these things and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

In addition, the fact that some areas in Europe are higher in terms of their percentage of EEF than others can be very well explained by the fact that southern Europe, for instance, may have had a much smaller population of hunter gatherers when the farmers arrived, or the hunter gatherers may have fled to the north and particularly the north east in large numbers, where for a few thousand years the farmers could not follow them because the initial Neolithic package was not adapted to that terrain or climate. In addition, you have the Indo-European migrations, with their unknown amounts of ANE and WHE, which many seem to believe affected the northern and central areas of Europe more than the southern areas. We then have the gene flow correlated with the movements of the Germanic tribes south following the fall of Rome, which again falls into a north/south cline.

Most importantly, as I said, I know of NO documented movement of peoples from the Middle East into Europe in the Copper or Bronze Age or Iron Age. In the case of Italy, those movements for northern Italy were from central Europe, and some for the south were from Greece and the Balkans, with the possible exception of the Etruscans. As for the Muslim Kingdoms of Spain and Sicily and southern Italy, (and also a stretch of southern France) they were predominantly North African Berbers. We should know the difference.

There are far too many opinions expressed on these topics which have no factual or scientific support. It's not helpful.

In that regard, I am sure we'd all be thrilled to get some definitive proof as to the origin of R1b L-23 and as to the direction and timing of gene flow from that point. So far as I know, it doesn't exist.

Oh, and as for the Ashkenazim, I'm dubious about using such a unique population to make general points about the peopling of Europe. Regardless, they came to Europe with their EEF ancestry; it has nothing to do with any post Neolithic gene flows into Europe, so their data is irrelevant for that discussion.

[LeBrok]

It's very important when discussing these topics to be precise in one's language. EEF is not synonymous with Middle Eastern. The EEF population no longer exists in pure form in the Middle East because Middle Eastern people have experienced gene flows since the Neolithic just as have Europeans. Indeed, it may never have existed in the Middle East because it is possible these farmers who came from the Middle East 8-9,000 years ago may have picked up some hunter gatherer ancestry in the Balkans.

Exactly. Anyone looking to decipher his/her ancestry to the last decimal point is very mistaken that it will ever happen. Europe could have had 2 or 3 waves of farmers through Neolithic, all 3 distinctive genetically, and we don't know yet how fast they started mingling with locals. I'm more interested to put these maps together to see general trends, waves and population movements. I'm sure when we'll get enough regional data, better resolution, we can find interesting nuggets, and find or solve few mysteries.
Other than that it already amazes me how well mixed, uniform people are with admixtures in same region. Variations between people with these 3 admixtures are so minute that even one person per region (with sure local ancestry) will be identical to 90% of other locals, and good enough for the map. Preferably I would love to see 2-3 per region to be sure of data. It will depend how many people will participate and if we can get the k13 calculator working.

[Fire Haired14]

It's very important when discussing these topics to be precise in one's language. EEF is not synonymous with Middle Eastern. The EEF population no longer exists in pure form in the Middle East because Middle Eastern people have experienced gene flows since the Neolithic just as have Europeans. Indeed, it may never have existed in the Middle East because it is possible these farmers who came from the Middle East 8-9,000 years ago may have picked up some hunter gatherer ancestry in the Balkans. Alternatively, we may discover that a component similar to EEF existed in the Balkans already in the Mesolithic. We don't yet know these things and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

In addition, the fact that some areas in Europe are higher in terms of their percentage of EEF than others can be very well explained by the fact that southern Europe, for instance, may have had a much smaller population of hunter gatherers when the farmers arrived, or the hunter gatherers may have fled to the north and particularly the north east in large numbers, where for a few thousand years the farmers could not follow them because the initial Neolithic package was not adapted to that terrain or climate. In addition, you have the Indo-European migrations, with their unknown amounts of ANE and WHE, which many seem to believe affected the northern and central areas of Europe more than the southern areas. We then have the gene flow correlated with the movements of the Germanic tribes south following the fall of Rome, which again falls into a north/south cline.

Most importantly, as I said, I know of NO documented movement of peoples from the Middle East into Europe in the Copper or Bronze Age or Iron Age. In the case of Italy, those movements for northern Italy were from central Europe, and some for the south were from Greece and the Balkans, with the possible exception of the Etruscans. As for the Muslim Kingdoms of Spain and Sicily and southern Italy, (and also a stretch of southern France) they were predominantly North African Berbers. We should know the difference.

There are far too many opinions expressed on these topics which have no factual or scientific support. It's not helpful.

We are talking about pre historic times(no written documents), so finding evidence for migrations is probably very difficult for the experts. Many inventions like Copper existed in Europe and west Asia so there was contact between the two regions. You can't ignore the possibilities of trade and admixing through the Mediterranean sea, it doesn't have to be giant cultures migrating from one place to another. Just because there is no archaeological evidence for it doesn't mean we should ignore the idea.

North Africans also mainly decend from the same middle eastern source as did early European farmers and modern west Asians, so north African ancestry in a European population will make them appear to be more west Asian. When I say middle east, I mean west Asia and north Africa.

In that regard, I am sure we'd all be thrilled to get some definitive proof as to the origin of R1b L-23 and as to the direction and timing of gene flow from that point. So far as I know, it doesn't exist.

Oh, and as for the Ashkenazim, I'm dubious about using such a unique population to make general points about the peopling of Europe. Regardless, they came to Europe with their EEF ancestry; it has nothing to do with any post Neolithic gene flows into Europe, so their data is irrelevant for that discussion.[/QUOTE]

Angela we are expressing the same view in differnt ways. I agree modern middle easterns are not the same as Stuttgart, but both descend mainly from the same source, which is why Ashkenazi Jews score so much in EEF. Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry and modern middle easterns can have ANE, Sub Saharan, east Asian, or south Asian ancestry.

In that regard, I am sure we'd all be thrilled to get some definitive proof as to the origin of R1b L-23 and as to the direction and timing of gene flow from that point. So far as I know, it doesn't exist.

Don't worry it is safe to assume R1b1a2a L23 came to Europe from west Asia. Evidence in autosomal DNA is the Gedorsia component of K12b which correlates with R1b in Europe.

In Europe about 100% of R1b is either R1b1a2a1a L11(estimated to 5,000 years old) or R1b1a2a L23*(L51-), so not very diverse. In west Asia the majority of R1b is R1b1a2a L23*(L51-), but you also have R1b*(P297-, V88-) in Iran, R1b1b M335 in Anatolia, R1b1a2 M269(L23-), and so on. There are also basal R lineages in west Asia; R1*(R1a-, R1b-), R*(R2-, R1-), R1a1-SRY10831.2*(R1a1a M198-). I am trying to show you that Y DNA R and it's descendant R1b have incredible diversity in west Asia, and that R1b probably originated in west Asia.

R1b1a2a L23 must have been the first R1b in Europe and the Germanic-Italo-Celtic branch R1b1a2a1a L11 was born only around 5,000 years ago and spread during the bronze age. It is impossible to accurately say when R1b1a2a L23 first arrived in Europe because there has not been much study on east European R1b. It is safe to assume the LBK and Cardiel farmers lacked R1b, but I guess some east European Neolithic farmers could have had some R1b. The west Asians who brought R1b1a2a L23 to Europe were probably pretty differnt from Stuttgart(largely because of their lack of WHG ancestry and ANE ancestry) and represent another type of middle eastern ancestry for Europeans.

[Sile]

Angela we are expressing the same view in differnt ways. I agree modern middle easterns are not the same as Stuttgart, but both descend mainly from the same source, which is why Ashkenazi Jews score so much in EEF. Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry and modern middle easterns can have ANE, Sub Saharan, east Asian, or south Asian ancestry.



Don't worry it is safe to assume R1b1a2a L23 came to Europe from west Asia. Evidence in autosomal DNA is the Gedorsia component of K12b which correlates with R1b in Europe.

In Europe about 100% of R1b is either R1b1a2a1a L11(estimated to 5,000 years old) or R1b1a2a L23*(L51-), so not very diverse. In west Asia the majority of R1b is R1b1a2a L23*(L51-), but you also have R1b*(P297-, V88-) in Iran, R1b1b M335 in Anatolia, R1b1a2 M269(L23-), and so on. There are also basal R lineages in west Asia; R1*(R1a-, R1b-), R*(R2-, R1-), R1a1-SRY10831.2*(R1a1a M198-). I am trying to show you that Y DNA R and it's descendant R1b have incredible diversity in west Asia, and that R1b probably originated in west Asia.

R1b1a2a L23 must have been the first R1b in Europe and the Germanic-Italo-Celtic branch R1b1a2a1a L11 was born only around 5,000 years ago and spread during the bronze age. It is impossible to accurately say when R1b1a2a L23 first arrived in Europe because there has not been much study on east European R1b. It is safe to assume the LBK and Cardiel farmers lacked R1b, but I guess some east European Neolithic farmers could have had some R1b. The west Asians who brought R1b1a2a L23 to Europe were probably pretty differnt from Stuttgart(largely because of their lack of WHG ancestry and ANE ancestry) and represent another type of middle eastern ancestry for Europeans.

I do not know why you are preventing people from ............as the title states ....PLEASE POST YOUR DATA
clearly you can see its not about the ancients

[Alan]

Angela, Ashkenazi Jews have a high amount of non-Neolithic European middle eastern ancestry and scored over 90% EEF in Laz, so yes EEF can absorb other types middle eastern ancestry. I really don't have time to get into this but you need to know it is a horrible mistake to assume all middle eastern ancestry in Europe arrived with farming. A great and simple example of post-Neolithic middle eastern gene flow into Europe is Y DNA R1b1a2a-L23, which probably arrived in Europe from west Asia well after the first farmers did.

There is actually not much different "Middle Eastern ancestry" than a "Red Sea" component which is a synthesis of farmer with Sub Saharan African admixture, and therefore these get sucked in by EEF. Usually this component is between ~10-40% in most Semite and ~5% in non Semite Middle Easterners. "These other Middle Eastern ancestry" which you speak of is nothing more than Farmer + ANE which merged to "West Asian".

And considering that most Ashkenazi Jews have 16% North Euro and 22% Caucasus_Gedrosia, I highly doubt that there EEF could go beyond 90%

If you want to find out the real farmer ancestry in modern Middle Eastern or European people, simply remove a quarter from the total percentage of Red Sea and the more recent African genes from the total farmer numbers, there you have the real farmer percentage.

"farmer" - (RedSea/4 + Sub Saharan African)= Real farmer ancestry.

In case of Saudis this would be 90% - (35/4% + 0%) = 81% farmer

So Saudis are 81% farmer + 9% Sub Saharan African and 10% ANE

Here are the numbers for RedSea
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0VVZPR0E#gid=0


And here are the "farmer" percentages with additional SSA admixture.
Farmer ANE
Abhkasian 81.624 18.376
Adygei 77.277 22.723
Armenian 85.268 14.732
Assyrian 86.060 13.940
Azeri_Jewish 85.193 14.807
Balkar 76.829 23.171
Bedouin 88.518 11.482
Chechen 74.115 25.885
Cyprian 87.699 12.301
Egyptian 89.463 10.537
Georgian 81.341 18.659
Georgian_Jewish 85.408 14.592
Iranian 81.214 18.786
Jordanian 88.066 11.934
Kumyk 76.692 23.308
Kurdish 81.681 18.319
Leb_Christian 89.343 10.657
Leb_Druze 87.671 12.329
Leb_Muslim 87.091 12.909
Lezgin 73.664 26.336
North_Ossetian 76.558 23.442
Palestinian 88.460 11.540
Samaritan 89.480 10.520
Saudi 90.089 9.911
Syrian 87.186 12.814
Turkish 82.305 17.695
Yemenite_Jewish 90.991 9.009


Now Just extract the African from the total "farmer" and you will have the real ancient farmer component.
Going by this sheme the best proxy for ancient farmers in the Near East would be the Cyprians with 86%.

[Wilhelm]

You guys don't get it..the study of Lazaridis makes it very clear that Middle-Easterns or Jews/Maltese/Sicilians cannot be explained as a three-way admixture of EEF/WHG/ANE like the rest of Europeans do, because they have a 4th layer of admixture outside of the range of european variation... hence why their results should not be taken in account (90% of EEF in Jews is wrecked result, not real). If they were really 90% EEF woulnd't jews cluster close to Sardinians and/or have a similar genome ?? Well no, far from it.

[Angela]

There is actually not much different "Middle Eastern ancestry" than a "Red Sea" component which is a synthesis of farmer with Sub Saharan African admixture, and therefore these get sucked in by EEF. Usually this component is between ~10-40% in most Semite and ~5% in non Semite Middle Easterners. "These other Middle Eastern ancestry" which you speak of is nothing more than Farmer + ANE which merged to "West Asian".

And considering that most Ashkenazi Jews have 16% North Euro and 22% Caucasus_Gedrosia, I highly doubt that there EEF could go beyond 90%

If you want to find out the real farmer ancestry in modern Middle Eastern or European people, simply remove a quarter from the total percentage of Red Sea and the more recent African genes from the total farmer numbers, there you have the real farmer percentage.

"farmer" - (RedSea/4 + Sub Saharan African)= Real farmer ancestry.

In case of Saudis this would be 90% - (35/4% + 0%) = 81% farmer

So Saudis are 81% farmer + 9% Sub Saharan African and 10% ANE

Here are the numbers for RedSea
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0VVZPR0E#gid=0


And here are the "farmer" percentages with additional SSA admixture.
Farmer ANE
Abhkasian 81.624 18.376
Adygei 77.277 22.723
Armenian 85.268 14.732
Assyrian 86.060 13.940
Azeri_Jewish 85.193 14.807
Balkar 76.829 23.171
Bedouin 88.518 11.482
Chechen 74.115 25.885
Cyprian 87.699 12.301
Egyptian 89.463 10.537
Georgian 81.341 18.659
Georgian_Jewish 85.408 14.592
Iranian 81.214 18.786
Jordanian 88.066 11.934
Kumyk 76.692 23.308
Kurdish 81.681 18.319
Leb_Christian 89.343 10.657
Leb_Druze 87.671 12.329
Leb_Muslim 87.091 12.909
Lezgin 73.664 26.336
North_Ossetian 76.558 23.442
Palestinian 88.460 11.540
Samaritan 89.480 10.520
Saudi 90.089 9.911
Syrian 87.186 12.814
Turkish 82.305 17.695
Yemenite_Jewish 90.991 9.009


Now Just extract the African from the total "farmer" and you will have the real ancient farmer component.
Going by this sheme the best proxy for ancient farmers in the Near East would be the Cyprians with 86%.

Alan, I don't know how you square this with the comments in Lazaridis et al that Middle Easterners, Sicilians/Maltese and the Finns can't be modeled in this way.

Ed. Oh, or the Ashkenazim

[Alan]

You guys don't get it..the study of Lazaridis makes it very clear that Middle-Easterns or Jews/Maltese/Sicilians cannot be explained as a three-way admixture of EEF/WHG/ANE like the rest of Europeans do, because they have a 4th layer of admixture outside of the range of european variation... hence why their results should not be taken in account (90% of EEF in Jews is wrecked result, not real). If they were really 90% EEF woulnd't jews cluster close to Sardinians and/or have a similar genome ?? Well no, far from it.

Read my post above .

1. Sardinians are the "best" what you could get in closeness to European farmers.
2. Sardinians are at least around 30% WHG admixed. While Levantines are between 5-10% Sub Saharan African admixed.
3. We were talking about the original Farmer component which would have been something between Sardinians and Levantines. Less WHG admixed than Sardinians and less SSA admixed than Levantines.

[Alan]

Alan, I don't know how you square this with the comments in Lazaridis et al that Middle Easterners, Sicilians/Maltese and the Finns can't be modeled in this way.

Ed. Oh, or the Ashkenazim

True I was mostly fixated on Middle Easterners and South Europeans since the argument was that some of the non farmer Middle Eastern genes get sucked in by "farmer". So I wanted to shows that in the Near East if any of the genes which could get sucked in exist, than it would be the additional Sub Saharan African admixture in some modern Near Eastern populations.

And obviously my idea was not to find out the EEF in Near Easterners but the proto farmer component. And in that case it looks like Cyprians match best. And if I am not wrong wasn't there just recently a study which said that farmers spread through Cyprus?

[Fire Haired14]

You guys don't get it..the study of Lazaridis makes it very clear that Middle-Easterns or Jews/Maltese/Sicilians cannot be explained as a three-way admixture of EEF/WHG/ANE like the rest of Europeans do, because they have a 4th layer of admixture outside of the range of european variation... hence why their results should not be taken in account (90% of EEF in Jews is wrecked result, not real). If they were really 90% EEF woulnd't jews cluster close to Sardinians and/or have a similar genome ?? Well no, far from it.

Greeks and Italians are not over 70% EEF, some of it is post-Neolithic middle eastern ancestry. Just because Greeks live in "Europe" does not mean all of their middle eastern ancestry is of the same source as middle eastern ancestry for the first farmers in Germany(LBK culture).

[Salbrox]

Should be easy enough, just looks at the affinities of WHG, ANE and EEF from their respective introductionary papers (Raghavan 2013, Lazaridis 2014 updates)

Stuttgart is pure EEF and Loschbour is pure WHG. EEF peaks in Sardinia and WHG peaks in Northeast Europe. Stuttgart joins all Sardinian individuals in cluster A and Loschbour joins a cluster B that encompasses all Belarusian, Ukrainian, Mordovian, Russian, Estonian, Finnish, and Lithuanian individuals. These results confirm Sardinia as a refuge area where ancestry related to Early European Farmers has been best preserved, and also the greater persistence of WHG-related ancestry in present-day Eastern European populations. (Lazaridis 2014)

I think adding Northern and Eastern Poland to this is OK. They are not in Lazaridis paper, but are not very different from Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Northeast Europeans are also the least Stuttgart-shifted in comparison to Loschbour and MA-1, so they have lowest EEF ancestry. Also in Lazaridis paper.

MA-1 is pure ANE. European ANE peaks in countries with population most similar to MA-1, these would be Baltic countries, Finland and Northern Russia (Raghavan 2013).

After Sardinians EEF is highest in wherever is shown the most Middle Eastern/Mediterranean. West and Central Europeans are intermediate in all three.

[Angela]

Greeks and Italians are not over 70% EEF, some of it is post-Neolithic middle eastern ancestry. Just because Greeks live in "Europe" does not mean all of their middle eastern ancestry is of the same source as middle eastern ancestry for the first farmers in Germany(LBK culture).

Once again, the data from the updated Lazaridis et al paper as per Nobody One's post:

EEF/WHG/ANE-Also known as Stuttgart/Loschbour/Mal'ta

Bergamo 71.5/17.7/10.8
Toscana 74.6/13.6/11.8
Sicilia 90.3/0/9.7

N.Spain: 71.3/12.5/16.3
Spain: 80.9/5.8/12.3

Greek mainland: 79.2/5.8/15.1
Bulgaria: 71.2/14.7/14.1

[Luan]

Gedmatch is working now.

Albanian from Kosova.

EEF	74.94463
WHG	15.44501
ANE	9.610351

[polako]

That's a bummer.
Does anyone know if other websites run K13 calculator?

Why don't you just use the K13 population averages by turning them into WHG/ANE/EEF ratios?

If it gets too tiresome just quit;
And obviously you seriously think that the "data" you and your expert Blog create are on par with data from academic sources and proper institutions; funny or sad;

You seem extremely butthurt about something, so any discussion based on logic is pointless.

But yes, the Eurogenes EEF/WHG/ANE scores do make more sense than those from the paper in some ways, like the fact that they show lower ANE among Basques. This actually agrees better with the modelling in the paper, where Basques are one of the few European populations that can be modelled as a two way mixture of EEF and WHG, with 0% ANE.

How did you not notice this? Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.

[Nobody1]

You seem extremely butthurt about something, so any discussion based on logic is pointless.

But yes, the Eurogenes EEF/WHG/ANE scores do make more sense than those from the paper in some ways, like the fact that they show lower ANE among Basques. This actually agrees better with the modelling in the paper, where Basques are one of the few European populations that can be modelled as a two way mixture of EEF and WHG, with 0% ANE.

How did you not notice this? Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question.

Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;

[Wilhelm]

Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;

There is plenty of bullshit studies out there also...I wouldn't understimate those genetic blogs, they produce better stuff than many studies.

[John Doe]

Ethnicity: Ashkenazi Jewish
K13:
Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 33.95
2 North_Atlantic 21.11
3 West_Med 19.23
4 West_Asian 13.53
5 Baltic 5.45
6 Red_Sea 4.46
7 Northeast_African 0.86
8 East_Asian 0.86
9 Oceanian 0.33
10 Sub-Saharan 0.22

Closest K13 DNA match:

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:


# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 55.1% Lebanese_Druze + 44.9% Spanish_Valencia @ 2.25


EEF-WHG-ANE results (rounded to full numbers):

EEF 88
WHG 5
ANE 7




Any interpretation will be welcomed.

[Fire Haired14]

Well it is not about what makes more sense to you and whatever iffy data your blog than creates; It is about what is more credible i.e. data from academic studies/institutions or data from issy hobby blogs (like Eurogense); Thats all;

But i dont even actually mind the data you produce at your Hobby Blog for it is as harmless as it is worthless im just reminding you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge a little bit of reality i.e. the diff. between academic and hobby blog and if you dont get that difference....sad, funny, pathetic you pick the attribute;

PS: if one usually disagrees with academic data one usually just voices their opinion and refer to other academic studies; One does not go off and create an own blog and produce ones own "fitting" data; and worst of all trying to pass that iss of as on par with academia; But your obviously special in that regard;

Polako is more legit than you think, and how is anyone on this forum at the level to judge his blogs credibility.

[Nobody1]

Polako is more legit than you think, and how is anyone on this forum at the level to judge his blogs credibility.

Absolutely; For he is a real expert and a very special mind;

But ultimately one only knows what a BS academic study is by reading other academic studies and not by smothering in whatever a blogger and his expert blog squeezes out; But to each his own FireHaired;

PS: everyone is on the level to judge the credibility (or lack of) amateur hobby blogs even you;

[Angela]

I don't want to get in the middle of another fight, but just on general principles, I don't personally place much faith in any results where the exact samples and the precise methodology used to generate the results are not provided in precise detail. That's why papers have such a long methodology section, even if most hobbyists either skip it or don't understand the math or the programs used. It's there so that people with the necessary skills can run the analysis themselves to see if the stated results can be verified, or if they have been "tweeked" to reflect the biases of the authors.

This is the case whether the analysis is by a "blogger" or an academic. That's over and above any specific, personal knowledge one might have of questionable practices engaged in not only by bloggers but by academic authors occasionally as well.

[Fire Haired14]

Absolutely; For he is a real expert and a very special mind;

But ultimately one only knows what a BS academic study is by reading other academic studies and not by smothering in whatever a blogger and his expert blog squeezes out; But to each his own FireHaired;

PS: everyone is on the level to judge the credibility (or lack of) amateur hobby blogs even you;

Many theories which today are mainstream Polako believed in when they were not backed up by academic papers. He is looking at real modern and ancient people's DNA, making real tests, has experience, etc. He doesn't claim to be the hurting yourself because papers about a single subject don't come out oftenly, and they are restricted from coming up with new ideas. A blog like Polako's allows constant exchange of ideas, constant experimentation, and is less restricted than the academic world but probably isn't much less equipped.