| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Supllementary figures:
https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf (good definition).
As example, S8 and S7 (screenshots Low definition):
Originally Posted by Cato
I would not swear to the accuracy of Iran_N's percentages in this paper. One has to see what reference ancient samples she exactly used.
I've checked in the supp info. For example as reference samples to represent Steppe she did not use the usual Yamanya Samara only, but threw in as reference samples also individuals from Potapovka, Afanasievo etc...
Unfortunately, in the analyzes there are none of the southern European populations genetically close to the Italians, so we cannot have any comparison.
More WHG in Sardinians is not strange, it has always been so. What is strange is Iran_N being inflated everywhere.It is strange
That acording to this paper
Sardinians have more whg component 12.2% than north italians 7.9%
Is there explanation to it ?
Ok...
I didn't knew the averge sardinian share more allells with the whg reference than averge north italian do
Sefhardi, aschenazi, bulgarian
die Überlebenden
https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y62418/
https://yfull.com/mtree/H3ap/
k12b ancient
Closest:
3.30708331 R136_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
The Sardinians, particularly the HGDP sample, has long been modelled as 85% EEF and 15% WHG. When no one in northern Italy, as I remember, has ever reached 15+% WHG. Now how Sardinians can reach 15% of Iran_N is quite strange.Ok...
I didn't knew the averge sardinian share more allells with the whg reference than averge north italian do
Last edited by Pax Augusta; 06-02-21 at 03:10.
Fernandes et al 2020 seems to model Sardinians similarly to the paper, however. In fact, Sardinians seem to have more Iran_N in the Fernandes paper.:
Interesting
How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
Also significant like sardinian ?
I am not certain of the percentage, but Spaniards have a relatively large amount of WHG. Portuguese and many Spaniards were also modeled to have respectable amounts of Anatolian_BA, as well, in Raveane et al. 2018. So I would imagine, they would have respectable amounts of Iran_N.Interesting
How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
Also significant like sardinian ?
Fernandes et al 2020 seems to model Sardinians similarly to the paper, however. In fact, Sardinians seem to have more Iran_N in the Fernandes paper.
In fact also the Fernandes 2020 models on modern samples are not very credible. Fernandes is the same who models Sicilians as 46.9% North African using Moroccan Late Neolithic (he literally says that modern Sicilians show a predominant component of North African ancestry). Really? A meaningless model, since Moroccan Late Neolithic are samples that show a strong gene flow from Iberia to Morocco, they cannot be representative samples of the modern populations of North Africa.
Not to mention yet another confusion made by geneticists. In the table at the top in the Sarno paper it says IRAN_N but in the caption it says CHG/IRAN_N. So, in 2021 the geneticists are still not having a clear idea of what is CHG and what is IRAN_N. Can we really take them seriously?
In the old models, percentages similar to those of Sardinians up to 20% and more (in the Basques). Now who knows, given the latest trend among geneticists, I imagine they will be at 20% Iran_N (I'm joking).Interesting
How much whg % do spaniards( non basque) have ?
Also significant like sardinian ?
The mixture in G25.
(Scaled)
Target Distance IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara Sardinian:HGDP00665 0.04041752 0 85.2 14.8 0 Sardinian:HGDP00671 0.0469156 0 82.8 17.2 0 Sardinian:HGDP00672 0.04612349 0 86.4 13.6 0 Sardinian:HGDP00674 0.0660315 0 83 17 0 Sardinian:HGDP01063 0.04658002 0 84.3 14.6 1.1 Sardinian:HGDP01066 0.06251437 0 84.6 15.4 0 Sardinian:HGDP01067 0.04357858 0 84.7 15.3 0 Sardinian:HGDP01073 0.05871846 0 85.2 14.8 0 Sardinian:HGDP01075 0.05328043 0 85.6 14.4 0 Sardinian:HGDP01078 0.04876746 0 81.9 15.8 2.3 Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2 0.04848495 0 82.2 16.3 1.5 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147 0.03288339 0 58.6 9.2 32.2 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151 0.04753794 0 62.7 12.9 24.4 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152 0.0323124 0 61.6 8.1 30.3 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153 0.02962768 0 62.9 9 28.1 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155 0.02969563 0 64.1 7.6 28.3 Italian_Calabria:ALP582 0.01828343 9.6 70.9 1.3 18.2 Italian_Calabria:ALP596 0.01664765 7.2 70.7 1.1 21 Italian_Calabria:BEL57 0.02364372 4 70.5 0 25.5 Average 0.04168654 1.1 76.2 11.5 11.2
If we use Barcin:
Target Distance IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N TUR_Barcin_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara Sardinian:HGDP00665 0.02401309 1.7 82.4 12.1 3.8 Sardinian:HGDP00671 0.02931803 0 80.4 14.1 5.5 Sardinian:HGDP00672 0.02533139 0.1 81.6 11 7.3 Sardinian:HGDP00674 0.03675824 0 79.7 14.7 5.6 Sardinian:HGDP01063 0.02482242 0 81.8 10.8 7.4 Sardinian:HGDP01066 0.0378662 0 83.9 13.6 2.5 Sardinian:HGDP01067 0.0280658 2.8 79.8 14.4 3 Sardinian:HGDP01073 0.03821215 0.5 83.4 13.4 2.7 Sardinian:HGDP01075 0.02786165 0 83.6 11.3 5.1 Sardinian:HGDP01078 0.03350293 0 79.3 12.2 8.5 Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2 0.03436949 0 80.1 12.8 7.1 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147 0.01798027 0 55.9 6.7 37.4 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151 0.02826248 0 59.1 9.8 31.1 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152 0.02391725 0 59.1 5 35.9 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153 0.01511783 0 60.1 6.3 33.6 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155 0.01692948 0 60 5.3 34.7 Italian_Calabria:ALP582 0.01904166 15.9 64.1 1.5 18.5 Italian_Calabria:ALP596 0.02090649 13.8 64.1 0 22.1 Italian_Calabria:BEL57 0.02692222 12.9 62.1 0 25 Average 0.02679995 2.5 72.7 9.2 15.6
Both:
Target Distance IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N TUR_Barcin_N TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara Sardinian:HGDP00665 0.02401309 1.7 82.4 0 12.1 3.8 Sardinian:HGDP00671 0.02931803 0 80.4 0 14.1 5.5 Sardinian:HGDP00672 0.02533139 0.1 81.6 0 11 7.3 Sardinian:HGDP00674 0.03675824 0 79.7 0 14.7 5.6 Sardinian:HGDP01063 0.02482193 0 81.8 0 10.9 7.3 Sardinian:HGDP01066 0.0378662 0 83.9 0 13.6 2.5 Sardinian:HGDP01067 0.02804244 2.6 77 3.3 14.5 2.6 Sardinian:HGDP01073 0.03821215 0.5 83.4 0 13.4 2.7 Sardinian:HGDP01075 0.02786165 0 83.6 0 11.3 5.1 Sardinian:HGDP01078 0.03350268 0 79.3 0 12.1 8.6 Sardinian:S_Sardinian-2 0.03436949 0 80.1 0 12.8 7.1 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01147 0.01798027 0 55.9 0 6.7 37.4 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01151 0.02826248 0 59.1 0 9.8 31.1 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152 0.02380149 0 53.8 5.9 5.4 34.9 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01153 0.01506149 0 57.1 3.2 6.5 33.2 Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01155 0.01692948 0 60 0 5.3 34.7 Italian_Calabria:ALP582 0.01402107 12 29.1 40.1 0.8 18 Italian_Calabria:ALP596 0.01453407 10 27.4 40.9 0.6 21.1 Italian_Calabria:BEL57 0.02247109 7.9 23 43.9 0 25.2 Average 0.02595572 1.8 66.2 7.2 9.2 15.5
By all means let's take the findings of a program created by a skinhead instead of results from academics. Makes perfect sense to me.
I'm sure the amount of Levantine is huge in southern Italians according to that.
What else would you expect from a virulent anti-Semite who posted Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Does anyone have to hand a file showing the breakdown based on ancient samples for Northern Italy from Fernandez et al, Raveane et al, and Antonio et al (the Moots paper), for comparison?
Even using program made by others, Sardinians never reach 15% of Iran_N. This of inflating Iran_N is only a recent trend in academic studies. As we have seen so many times in the past, geneticists are anything but infallible, and they are often wrong especially with these very speculative models.
I've posted it just for comparison. I also wanted to compare Barcin vs. Tepecik, but I have no idea on how to use other tools such qpAdm. :)
These would be the amounts of Levantine suggested for Southern Italians by the tool (naturally they may vary depending on the references chosen):
Target Distance IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N Levant_PPNB MAR_EN TUR_Barcin_N TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara Sardinian 0.0268524 0 0 0 81.8 0 12.2 6 Italian_Abruzzo 0.00768384 7.3 6.7 0 42.9 13.5 0.6 29 Italian_Molise 0.00761903 6.5 4.3 0 44.8 13.5 0.5 30.4 Italian_Campania 0.00787971 9.4 8.4 0 35.8 21.1 0 25.3 Italian_Apulia 0.00818471 7.2 3.2 0.2 33.5 29.2 0.2 26.5 Italian_Basilicata 0.0073524 7.9 4.8 0.1 36.3 24.2 0 26.7 Italian_Calabria 0.00959004 9.8 2 1.5 33.8 30.2 0 22.7 Sicilian_East 0.00960535 7.2 7 1.3 27.6 31.1 1.8 24 Sicilian_West 0.01100361 8.4 6.5 2.6 35.6 19.5 4.4 23 Average 0.01064123 7.1 4.8 0.6 41.3 20.3 2.2 23.7
No offense, but G25, and all of the various armature tools used by enthusiasts, really should be taken more seriously than professionals adept in using more sophisticated tools like qpAdm.
You trust laymen more?
There are not only these options. Generally speaking, I trust archaeologists far more than any academic or amateur geneticist.
Professionals adept are not exempt from agendas and mistakes. qpAdm can be used by anyone.
It would be better to use Levant Natufian rather than Levant_PPNB that has a lot of EEF. Levant_PPNB can be modelled as almost 50% Natufian and 50% Anatolia_Barcin_N
Than maybe people should use that instead of inferior programs like G25.
What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?
Yes but G25 is not a program, G25 is only a set of datasheets based on modern and ancient samples, with scaled or unscaled values. The G25 is used with nMonte which is not so different from qpAdm, often gives very similar results when starting from similar models and values, just much easier to use. With nMonte you can use as many datasheets as you want, not just G25.
Pardon me, than I misspoke. Btw, I know how it works, I made many data sheets myself, if you haven't noticed.
But again, what agenda are you talking about? I edited my post above after you answered.
What agenda are you talking about? You think Harvard, the Max Planck Institute, and various other institutions have an agenda to inflate CHG/Iran_N? Why?
I'll ask you a question. So according to you Fernandes is right, Sicilians are half North African? As in his models you showed me earlier to make your point.
I never said I place total trust in geneticists, sometimes there are studies that I may disagree with. As for the Sicilian modeling, I am on record here, in the dedicated thread taking exception to it. As you said, Morrocan_LN has a lot of Iberian in it. So if you think of it in that way, you understand how it would choose that. Does that mean they are literally that component, of course not. Just like the modeling of Anatolian farmers, and WHG, or Steppe, doesn't mean it was literally from those exact source, but rather carried by intermediary populations.
So we agree, we can't place total trust in geneticists. In some cases the errors they make (see Morocco_LN for the Sicilians) are easier to spot, other times they are harder to discover. We'll talk about the rest tomorrow because now I absolutely have to go to sleep, it's 4 a.m. in Italy.
I found this old post, which shows the Phoenician sample, which is largely "Morocco_LN" in that modeling. But if you see the alternative modeling, the Morocco_LN is largely replaced by what appears to be Anatolian_N.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post571065
In regards to not totally placing blind trust in every single genetic study, and the case of Morrocco_LN modeling, we do indeed agree. But as for the Iran_N being present, in Sardinia, and Northern Italy, I don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility. The pulse of CHG/IN in the BA, is largely being accepted by the leading geneticists. The fact that the Mycenaeans had it, that the Anatolian in the BA had it, and the discovery of it in the Western Mediterranean, to me, is too compelling to dismiss, in my opinion. It has been found even in central Italy since the Neolithic. The Etruscans, and Latini had it at comparable levels to Steppe, which distinguished them from their contemporaries to the north. I think that was something that was neglected to be mentioned in the Antonio paper, which seemed more focused on putting the spotlight on inconsequential imperial era immigrants that didn't leave a lasting impact. Nevertheless, the hard data, which it provided, was more valuable, than the narrative it was trying to spin.
Last edited by Jovialis; 06-02-21 at 16:13.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
