Eurogenes CHG_K8: New ADMIXTURE test

Have we another sock puppet here?
 
Nope it's just that I don't bother discussing with "no logic people".

yDNA J(J2a) in total among Anatolian farmers ~6%. Average CHG in Anatolian Farmers. There are some Anatolian farmer samples with 0 and other with ~5% CHG. going by this figures we don't even need to assume that there was an all male migration because 6% is low enough that selection for or against this component coult have appeared. But even without selection the few individuals with ~5% are enough to prove your claim that there is "no CHG in Anatolian farmers" wrong. What did you expect with 6% of J, that they end up as 30% CHG?

Why am I even discussing with this kid.
 
Maybe we're all looking at different data?

I just went to the link Fire-Haired posted in the OP. I see 21 Anatolian Neolithic samples. Five show some CHG: .01, .03, .04, .04, .04, and the rest are at 0. So, some CHG was filtering in, but not very much.

Someone refresh my recollection...these are only the earliest ANF samples? So, is that late Barcin sample included in this calculator?

More ancient samples will sort this out, and we haven't even seen the Lazaridis analysis of the Anatolian Neolithic (I even wonder if they'll wow us with some older, more southern samples as it's taking so long, or provide us with a comparison with Caucasus samples).

But, while waiting for that I think it would be interesting to have some other samples run through this calculator.

How about that Greek sample from 4000 BC which was said to be EEF like.

If it's true that there was no change in Greece in the Bronze Age, and the change was from the early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic, when exactly did things change and from where did the migrants come, and also what language did they speak? 4,000 BC seems pretty late to me, so it's important to be sure about the level of CHG in that sample. If there really is none, then did it arrive very shortly after that?

How about the J2 samples in Hungary? Have they been run through the calculator?

DaneLaw: Y-dna haplogroup J was already present in Anatolian Neolitich farmers who had no CHG. Most of the Caucasus stuff most likely was spread by females in the late neolitich-early copper age.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, a few of them did, as I just pointed out. Also, if you're going to claim it was all or "mostly" spread by women from the Caucasus, to which specific mtDna subclades are you referring, and how did these women get to Europe? Did copper workers from the Caucasus bring them? If so, what yDna would they have carried? Or perhaps men from the Balkans also went all the way to the Caucasus to steal wives? What on earth were these Caucasus women like? :)

Danelaw: In Italy there is about 30% of non Steppe derived CHG, in North Europe is 15-20%. Oetzi had 6% of CHG, so the total post neolitich non steppe derived CHG in Italy is 25%, which is not far from Hungarian levels (20%).
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this data? The link provided shows 35% Total CHG for Northern Italy, and 40% for Tuscany. (It's true that the Northern Italian percentage is almost exactly the same as that of Slovenia, and there are Central European and English samples with 34 and 36%. Heck, everybody in Europe gets at least 30%. The Greeks have even more, with 45%. The Albanians, Bulgarians, Bosnians, and a lot of the Romanians get 40% and higher.) There are no percentages for southern Italians.

How do you know how much of that is non-steppe? What is your source? It would be helpful if you would provide details on how you computed the percentages for both North Italians and Central Italians, and what the percentage of non-steppe CHG would be for the rest of Europe.

Originally Posted by Alan didn't just recently a paper appear which said that proto Latin scripts were found in Crete? All I can say that also fits with with Maciamos R1b root of Indo Europeans theory. That some of the Indo Europeans moved via Anatolia. I suspect that most of the Latin and Greek Indo European ancstors came via the Anatolian root. Explains also why most of the post Neolithic samples of Italy which were thought to present the first Indo European introduction into the region turned out predominantly EF. The first Latin speakers might indeed have been more heavily EF and CHG. Would also explain while everyhwere were there are Roman traces Haplogroup R1b and J2a are strong.
Click to expand...

Latin is very close to Celtic. I would surmise that the speakers of the two languages originated in the same area. Later, Italo-Cetlic either split, or the groups were in proximity and the two language branches developed separated from a common root. Greek is on a different branch, and came with another migration, I think. I'm not sure about anything at this stage, but I think it's possible that some Indo-European speakers, perhaps CHG heavy and EHG light, entered Europe through Anatolia. That's the old "Greeks from the East" scenario. It's equally possible or perhaps more probable that Anthony is correct and that they came from the steppe and then down into the Balkans. If the latter is the case that leaves us with two scenarios? The CHG came before the "Greek Indo-European" speakers arrived, and the latter had little demographic impact, which might fit in with the paper that didn't see much change in the Bronze Age, or somehow the Greek Indo-European speakers came from an area on the steppe that was more CHG heavy or passed through some CHG heavy area.

Ed. Of course, this could just be a terrible calculator, which is pulling some EEF into CHG, inflating those levels, and pulling some EHG into the WHG cluster.
 
Danelaw said:
Are you kidding me? Average score of CHG for Anatolian farmers (21 samples) is 0%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...37QLnvrpe8yTbmN_Jo/edit#gid=20013436&vpid=A10

Moreover the frequency of J2a1 among Barcin farmers was 7-8%. That's enough (with some founder effects) to explain the 10-15% of J2 in Italy.

http://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/7735/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/016477-1.xlsx
Click to expand...

is not this spreadsheet an Eurogene product? I find it strange: the three principal components of Europe seem very level with little variation between countries; I 've some doubt about this calculations...
 
Looking at the spredsheet again. I get the sense that because EF and CHG are relatively close, some of the EF is getting eaten up by CHG. The same thing happens with some of the CHG that gets eaten up as EHG and some of the "WHG" ancestry in EHG gets eaten up by the WHG component. This might be the reason why the spredsheet has some flaws and this might be also the reason Satsurbila is not included. Something tells me if some CHG samples are included they will turn up again just as in "Kurds" calculator with ~20% EHG. The reason for that again could be that Eneolithic_Samara samples are taken as refference for EHG.
 
Angela said:
Ed. Of course, this could just be a terrible calculator, which is pulling some EEF into CHG, inflating those levels, and pulling some EHG into the WHG cluster.
Click to expand...


The calculator is not "terrible" but it has it's flaws.

And this is exactly what happens. Some of the EF is eaten up by CHG and some of the CHG is eaten up by EHG which imo causes this "extra WHG" effect in every of the ancient samples, which was never there in the original paper.

This is also why Sardinians end up with ~30% CHG ancestry in this calculator. At least ~20% of it is EF eaten up by CHG.

I expect that every West Eurasian population has at least ~40% more as their total EF is shown and 20% less CHG as their total numbers of this component.

Croatians taken as example they would have ~45/30/15/10 instead of 30/36/14/20 EF/CHG/EHG/WHG

I simply can't think of that most Europeans have more CHG than EF, never seen or heard that.

So that might be the reason why we have "extra WHG" popping up in Yamna which is actually simply EHG and some of the EHG is actually (~25%) CHG.

Yamna is like ~40% CHG and ~50% EHG in this calculator let's assume he took the Eneolithic_Samara samples with 25% CHG ancestry as refference.

So ~25% of the EHG wanders to CHG. makes ~ 12,5% extra CHG. Thats ~52.5% CHG. And since the "extra WHG" is basically EHG, that makes a total of ~47,5% EHG.

This are exactly the figures proposed by the peer reviewed paper (50/50).

So once again summarized.

-The EF figures are too low I assume every population to have more EF than shown here.

- This is because some EF is getting eaten up by CHG which is too high for most modern populations who should score on average ~25% less of this component.

-In return some of the CHG is getting eaten up by EHG which causes the effect that a WHG like portion of EHG ends up seperately shown as "extra WHG". I don't think that there is so much pre Indo European WHG left in Europe as shown here.
 
Last edited:
Sardinians have 20% CHG, not 40. They have both more post neolitich basal eurasian and whg compared to Barcin farmer, and the software is using the CHG to compensate their souther pull.Satsurbila is too much low coverage to be used.
 
Has anyone seen the spreadsheet of population averages? Without it there's no way of completely analyzing whether it's any good or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 18866 times.

Back
Top