Early Levantine adventurers

Now I've heard everything: a sample missing a good chunk of the necessary alleles is just as reliable as a very high coverage one.:rolleyes:
Now I've heard everything: some alleles are necessary, and some unnecessary.
Perhaps we could ask Mr Reich to provide a list of which are the necessary alleles, so that we can ignore any data about the unnecessary ones?
 
i only know of 3 x T-PH110 samples...germany, armenia and bhutan

the only levantine sample I have seen which is T is T-Pages0011 from T1a1 branch

It's veering off the point a bit, but how reliable is PH110 as an indicator of T(xT1)? FTDNA has the Iraqi 534029 as PH110+ and T1-L206+

What data do we have on the Bhutan sample, and how do we know it is not T1+ like 534029?

As far as I can see, we only have 3 T(xT1) confirmed modern samples (in Armenia, Georgia and Germany) that all branch away from each other at a similar 2,000 BC date, setting their MRCA's most likely 2,000 BC origin point in the Western Caucasus. The only other confirmed T(xT1) is the Varna king 4,500 BC with its Natufian autosomals.

Based on the very limited data that we have, T(xT1) looks most likely West Asian to me, as you would expect of a haplogroup whose other basal branch also coalesces to West Asia.
 
It's veering off the point a bit, but how reliable is PH110 as an indicator of T(xT1)? FTDNA has the Iraqi 534029 as PH110+ and T1-L206+
What data do we have on the Bhutan sample, and how do we know it is not T1+ like 534029?
As far as I can see, we only have 3 T(xT1) confirmed modern samples (in Armenia, Georgia and Germany) that all branch away from each other at a similar 2,000 BC date, setting their MRCA's most likely 2,000 BC origin point in the Western Caucasus. The only other confirmed T(xT1) is the Varna king 4,500 BC with its Natufian autosomals.
Based on the very limited data that we have, T(xT1) looks most likely West Asian to me, as you would expect of a haplogroup whose other basal branch also coalesces to West Asia.
3 x neolithic in karsdorf germany
2 x neolitihc in malek bulgaria
I do not see where you say only 3 ...........when the above are all in the 5000BC period...........there is no T origin south of the zargos mountain range, ...its cousin L is also north
i am afraid to say there are another 10 you missed out which are older than 2000BC
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map/haplogroup-t-m184-ancient-samples-adna_300741#4/58.15/29.00
all confirmed M184 or one of the 239 SNP which is equivalent to M184
.
.
BTW, what are you trying to prove ....?.......that all ancient samples are missing SNP of "origin"
 
I'm almost certain these were Upper Mesopotamians of some sort rather than Levantines, but I'm short on time so I'll come back to it later.
 
3 x neolithic in karsdorf germany
2 x neolitihc in malek bulgaria
I do not see where you say only 3 ...........when the above are all in the 5000BC period...........there is no T origin south of the zargos mountain range, ...its cousin L is also north
i am afraid to say there are another 10 you missed out which are older than 2000BC
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/map/haplogroup-t-m184-ancient-samples-adna_300741#4/58.15/29.00
all confirmed M184 or one of the 239 SNP which is equivalent to M184
.
.
BTW, what are you trying to prove ....?.......that all ancient samples are missing SNP of "origin"
I'm not trying to prove anything particularly - I don't have an agenda.
The older samples here are all T1, not T(xT1).
When I looked at T a while ago, the greatest phylogenic range and diversity of samples was clearly in West Asia. Bearers of T look to have been amongst the people who moved up into Europe during the Neolithic.
 
Now I've heard everything: some alleles are necessary, and some unnecessary.
Perhaps we could ask Mr Reich to provide a list of which are the necessary alleles, so that we can ignore any data about the unnecessary ones?

Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.
 
Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.

There are different degrees of coverage on all ancient samples; none are perfect. That doesn't mean to say we should ignore all of them. The parts of the data that are retrievable can be relied upon. That is why academics publish low coverage data, instead of binning it.

When the police find a partial fingerprint at a crime scene, they don't throw it out. It can be used as evidence. Indeed, most fingerprints found at crime scenes are partial. Perhaps ask someone in forensics and you'll find out how it works.
 
Are you being deliberately clueless?

Admixture is based on what they call junk dna, or non-coding dna. It's divided into "clusters" by the algorithm, which can then be traced back to groups where that "cluster" is dominant. If only part of the data is retrievable, how can we rely on the results? We don't know what dna is in the missing sections or where the best match could be found. Did we have it, it might support your hypothesis, or it might negate it. WE JUST CAN'T KNOW.

It's like having a partial fingerprint at a crime scene.

This is the case for any sub-standard sample no matter the topic.

If you don't understand how admixure works you really shouldn't be posting on these matters. You are just confusing newbies.
If you are concerned about newbies, you might like to consider whether calling posters 'clueless' is really a good way of encouraging newbies to participate in this forum.
 

This thread has been viewed 22164 times.

Back
Top