That 50/50 Tajik/Russian thing is probably from an unreliable ADMIXTURE test based on modern populations.
Of course it is based on modern populations aren't we talking about modern population anyways. Your statement was that Scythians are so "European Steppe" therefore what Kurds (and Iranic tribes in general ) speak doesn't define them. So of course to prove you wrong I am going to present oracle results
so whats your point? And how do you know how the old Persians and Medes were genetically anyways? So anything that doesn't suit your agenda is unreliable? What makes Davids test more reliable than the runs of other amateur bloggers especially if you know 1/3 of all Davids threads are about Indo_Iranic tribes anyways and he has no agenda on it? All bloggers have an agenda. I have yet to see one without.
Also the main problem with you is that you threw things into the room which are either incorrect or you couldn't know anything about yet.
I don't buy it at all. Unlike anyone, I do David Wesoliski has done tests on the Sycthian, and I do trust him the Sycthian has no signs of SC Asian ancestry. You got to remember shared CHG, causes Steppe to score a lot in Caucasus/Gedoris components. Yamnaya fits as a Caucasus and Volga-Ural mixture, even though that's not what Yamnaya was.
You don't buy it cause you don't like the results. I always knew the reason why you trust David so much isn't because you are so naive but because
you want to trust him. The Scythian samples have 35% of South_Central Asian(most likely Gedrosia showing up) like admixture in older runs and some Caucasus (20%) too, but as I said Oracle runs show these Scythians as ~50-58% modern Tajik/Pashtun and 42-50% East European.
If it were true we would know. Allentoft would not have ignored that. As much as David Wesolski gloats about Steppe warriors and what not, he's not very biased at all.
You know him only for 3 years now, don't tell me if he is not biased or not. I know him far longer.
Forget Allentoft, all per reviewed papers presented slightly different results than Davids. Sintashta has been modeled in the scientific papers as 40% EEF.
I understand the work he does, and trust me it isn't biased. He does more tests than anyone, which is why I follow his blog. If you want the most recent and best info, you got to read his blog.
You follow only his blog because what he presents you is what you want to see.
I follow his blog too, but not only his opinion. I take his opinion into account and compare it to my and other bloggers andpeoples opinions than I make up my mind.
I will give you just one example. David insists that the 35% ANE like ancestry in CHG is not only shared ancestry but real admixture. YET claims CHG is all J and did not paternally contribute to Yamna.
Now just think about this statement and see the contradiction in it.