Leaked Uniparental Marker Data

Olympus Mons said:
Some crazy guy has an hypothesis that merimde beni salama in delta Nile 4000bc were M269+

Crazy crazy world.
Click to expand...

Reality can be stranger than fiction, statistically speaking.
 
bicicleur said:
we have to await the publication of the actual study to know the actual places, dates and context in which these samples are found
but check YFull for all 3 subclades, and you'll notice, at least YFull doesn't have any Iberian individuals alive in them
Click to expand...
FTDNA has some Iberian I-Y3749, but the SNP overall currently looks British.
It has plenty of Iberian I-L1228 - either Y34539 or a close relative.
 
Pip said:
There's a U106 from Malawi 6,000 BC that's from petrous bone - looks odd.
Click to expand...

Good spot, that study though just seems off altogether. They got high quality data (you can see how many autosome SNPs hit), so I think the only conclusion is time-travelling Nazis

As evidence, check this out: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-sub-saharan-africa/

A blonde!

Just kidding obviously, but yeah that's very surprising given it's from the petrous bone.
 
Pip said:
If only named persons were always accurate in making calls. It's surprising how often calls in academic studies need subsequent correction, even when they are rather vague.

I find the most reliable and precise calls are usually from corporations (FTDNA, yfull etc.), where the actual tester is not identified.
Click to expand...
e

So, does yfull or FTDNA have calls for these two Canaanite samples? If not, then on what are the calls based? I read the paper. I see nothing there. Did I miss it? Was the data for these two samples made available somewhere?
 
Angela said:
e

So, does yfull or FTDNA have calls for these two Canaanite samples? If not, then on what are the calls based? I read the paper. I see nothing there. Did I miss it? Was the data for these two samples made available somewhere?
Click to expand...

This is the only place the data is available - the paper said the data would be made available at another date, but that hasn't come about yet (and that was 2017)
 
As I suspected.
 
Hmm, let's see, Tianyuan is O2a2b2, a subclade estimated by YFull to be less than 15 000 years old. Oase1 is N1c1a. A Jomon sample belongs to a recent Indian H1 subclade. Ancient hunter-gatherers from Malawi are R1b-M269; one, 8000 years old, is specifically a 4000 year old subclade of R1b-U106.

It looks like a legitimate collection of ancient samples, almost all published already, a few not. Unfortunately I don't see any reason that we should trust the new sample calls.
 
Megalophias said:
Hmm, let's see, Tianyuan is O2a2b2, a subclade estimated by YFull to be less than 15 000 years old. Oase1 is N1c1a. A Jomon sample belongs to a recent Indian H1 subclade. Ancient hunter-gatherers from Malawi are R1b-M269; one, 8000 years old, is specifically a 4000 year old subclade of R1b-U106.

It looks like a legitimate collection of ancient samples, almost all published already, a few not. Unfortunately I don't see any reason that we should trust the new sample calls.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should trust these over the already published calls, obviously... I'm just saying not all of these have been published. It's such a shame Genetiker is gone (almost certainly banned from posting online about this by the German police as I believe he was part of a neo-Nazi group, all of which are monitored), whatever people thought of him (and yeah he was 100% a White supremacist), I don't know of anybody else on these online forums who knows how to do everything he did (though I'm sure they exist). In terms of these unpublished samples, it's obviously no difference as we have no raw data, but it would be nice to verify if e.g. the call for M269 on Iron Gates SC2 was correct or not.
 
The file has the Mathieson 2018 data, IIRC their own excel had weird Y DNA assignments, I think they used a kind of new program which obviously is not made by intelligent programmers... by the way their data seems what would appear after being messed up unconsciously by a bored slave-student.
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
It would be nice to verify if e.g. the call for M269 on Iron Gates SC2 was correct or not.
Click to expand...
Also Blatterhohle - firstly vaguely identified in the paper as M269, then apparently corrected elsewhere to V88, now appearing on this database as DF27. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
 
Too much of this field of study seems to be influenced by personal biases, competition and peer pressure between academics, sloppy research and political correctness. In my opinion, the most trustworthy data is mass modern samples provided for a different purpose (e.g. personal ancestry research). I also have some degree of trust in Genetiker, as he doesn't appear to withhold data, and publishes it en masse, even when it seems to contradict his own stated opinions.
 
Could be whoever produced the new calls used the same program as in the Narasimhan et al preprint, which was awful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 15948 times.

Back
Top