The genomic history of southeastern Europe-Mathiesen et al

OK. What is it then? You have shares in Iran?




But you don'y explain, but CLAIM it is unreliable. You don't explain a thing, actually

It's amateur work and not peer-reviewed. Period.
 
That's not what they base their interpretation on. In section 12 of the extended data their findings are treated at length.

Marko, what I did was swap the Iraqi_Jew in the D-stat they actually present in that very section 11 - that is the proper section - for Natufians and Iranians in order to see how much of it remains if old samples - that weren't available back then - are used.
 
Marko, what I did was swap the Iraqi_Jew in the D-stat they actually present in that very section 12 for Natufians and Iranians in order to see how much of it remains if old samples - that weren't available back then - are used.

What does that have to do with the affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster they convincingly demonstrate?
 
Let's spell it out again.

Their findings:

The Satsurblia Cluster individuals from the Caucasus dating to
~13,000–10,000 years ago2
share more alleles with the Villabruna
Cluster individuals than they do with earlier Europeans, indicating that
they are related to the population that contributed new alleles to people
in the Villabruna Cluster, although they cannot be the direct source of
the gene flow. One reason for this is that the Satsurblia Cluster carries
large amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster indi-
viduals do not2
(Supplementary Information section 12; Extended Data
Fig. 4). One possible explanation for the sudden drawing together of
the ancestry of Europe and the Near East at this time is long-distance
migrations from the Near East into Europe. However, a plausible alter-
native is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe har-
boured multiple groups that differed in their relationship to the Near
East, with the balance shifting among groups as a result of demographic
changes after the Glacial Maximum.

And hence their interpretation:

One scenario that could
explain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern
European or west Asian refugia after the Glacial Maximum, drawing
together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East.
 
@Angela,

Let's say you're right David posted racist stuff at site like Stormfront. That doesn't mean the DNA analysis he posts is unreliable. He uses the same tools as any other genome blogger. He can't fabricate the results those tools give him. He can only give bogus interpretations.
 
@Epoch,
What a pity; you're definitely a two or a three. The discussion is over.
 
D-stats? Comment?
I see you're avoiding Fu's thesis again, which is elevated affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster starting with Villabruna. Since you don't address this issue at all and since there's always some degree of uncertainty with ancient DNA, I think it's time you provided some evidence to support your alternative hypothesis of Aurignacian differentation and subsequent backmigration.

I think those statistics-d models are completely expected, but unless you offer some evidence I have to assume that your intent is malicious and won't get into another pointless and lengthy debate.
 
"We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis. I think this is one of the most important point. In milleniums, influx or reflux of an admix-like population can go in different geographic area.
 
I don't know why even a white supremacist would care that Villabruna has an elevated affinity for CHG compared to older paleo european populations. It boggles my mind.

Villabruan, El Miron, Goyet, and Kostenki were soooooooooo long ago. Everything was different. Europe would have barely been recognizable to people today, from the landscape and Fauna to the people.

The "Northern European Phenotype" is something that developed in around 2000BC.
 
One of the R1b-Z2103 males was a carrier for blonde hair, and I believe one of the older papers had a BB male positive for a red haired SNP. Both were reported in the actual paper, so this isn't a third party character running low quality data. Just a FYI, not that anyone asked. I believe a R1b-U152 Roman age Briton was also a blonde too.
 
Something I don't get is the vast majority of Sardinians wouldn't pass as white. But the vast majority of Basque could pass as British or German or whatever. Basque have a high frequency of rs16891982(90%+) which could mean that SNP is what makes the difference.

You've been on this site for years. You know we have an anthropology section. You know we're supposed to limit such discussions, if people really feel compelled to even have a discussion about who looks "whiter" to that section. You further know we're supposed to stay on topic in threads. You want to explain to me why you started such a discussion here on a thread discussing a paper like this?

If you want to continue this discussion, start a thread in the appropriate section and everybody can copy and paste their comments there if they want to preserve them. I am no longer going to go through this and do all this clean up work for you people when you should all know better.

After an appropriate amount of time, these off topic posts will all be deleted.

For the record, people who have never traveled, never seen different groups of people "in the flesh" to think they're qualified to make judgments about what different groups look like is ridiculous. That's over and above what it says about people that they sit around thinking about who looks "whiter". Or, for that matter, who thinks that "whiteness" in America is still defined by how Germanic someone looks.
 
I see you're avoiding Fu's thesis again, which is elevated affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster starting with Villabruna. Since you don't address this issue at all and since there's always some degree of uncertainty with ancient DNA, I think it's time you provided some evidence to support your alternative hypothesis of Aurignacian differentation and subsequent backmigration.

I do address it. With D-stats. Back when Fu et al came out Satsurblia was about the only old enough sample for comparison. We have more now. That is why I posted the D-stats, which swap Satsurblia with ancient Middle-Easterners. It shows that whatever affinity there is, it is with Natufians, not Neolithic Iranians. The Chalcolithic Iranians do show it however, which is understandable because they have some of the Natufian admixture. See Lazaridis 2016.

Lazaridis 2016 modeled Satsurblia as a small amount of WHG + EHG (Itself a mixture of Mal'ta and WHG) + Iran neolithic.

But even more surpising is that the D-stats with Natufians don't differ all that much from those with Iraqi_jews, who certainly don't have a straight unadmixted decent from Natufians. So whatever admixture it is, it must be very old.


I think those statistics-d models are completely expected, but unless you offer some evidence I have to assume that your intent is malicious and won't get into another pointless and lengthy debate.

My intent is malicious? How on earth can one be malicious in proposing a theory for a paleolithic admixture?
 
Any extended discussion of paleolithic admixture is better taken to the appropriate thread gentlemen.
 
Some nuggets:

Globular Amphora is 75% farmer and 25% HG, like Iberian Neolithic...no steppe.

I find this part very interesting. Before this study was released i thought that GAC, but also Eastern TRB, were already "Yamna-like", obviously they were not...so the Steppe invasion did actually took place (at least in the north), i must admit i was very skeptical
 

This thread has been viewed 184327 times.

Back
Top