This site is a cesspool of misinformation. And G25 is actually a professional tool based on the SmartPCA method designed by Nick Patterson and others; it just happens to be used by amateurs. You don't like Eurogenes tools because you don't like what they say. Simple as that.
Well, Basil, I would say that a tool is only as good as the person who created it. G25 may be "based" on Nick Patterson's SmartPCA, but it wasn't created by Nick Patterson. I would also say that if a calculator can't get a reasonable distance for someone with a genealogy going back to the 1500s in a certain area, there's something wrong with the calculator. The same is true if it doesn't produce results consistent with those from multiple academic papers.
As for this site publishing disinformation I would point out that for years, even on dna forums, and then on anthrogenica, I read over and over again that the Yamnaya were master metallurgists who brought it to the west, that they rode on horseback into the west and conquered it with their bronze weapons. To continual and sometimes nasty rebuttal I insisted that the archaeology showed no such thing. Yamnaya metallurgy was initially a very poor copy of the metallurgy in "Old Europe" and Maykop. Corded Ware trundled along in carts, with barely any copper, much less bronze and few horses. The wrist guards they adopted from the farmers. The "conquest" was against a population depleted by famine and further decimated by a plague brought from the steppe. Much of the "story" was a case of the culture of steppe populations of the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and beyond being back projected into the period of the first movements out of the steppe. For goodness' sakes, we now have proof that the steppe admixed people didn't arrive in Greece until the Middle Bronze Age.
The evidence was all there, but it didn't fit the preferred narrative.
I would also point out that my view wasn't the only one published here, because we argue and disagree amongst ourselves. Some of what I posted was not the consensus here, and in fact was sometimes vigorously opposed, but I will always be grateful to Maciamo for providing a space where people can debate different views without being banned.
The same goes for the issue of the source of the Indo-European languages. We have had vigorous debates here on the matter, but no one gets banned for their opinions.
I'll just add that I haven't been wrong in any of my major predictions yet, and that includes about the Mycenaeans whom I predicted would be mostly "Minoan" like, the Etruscans, whom I thought were most probably autochthonous based on the archaeology and history of them, the fact that the amount of steppe Eurogenes was "modeling" for Northern Indians and even Afghans was absurd, the fact that Corded Ware would have people in it who were mostly EHG and would also show a resurgence of WHG, with quite a bit less of the CHG/Iran Neo of the Yamnaya, that the modern Spaniards would have admixture from the east and North Africa which would move them away from people like the French Basques, that Beaker would have two "versions", one based in Spain and one steppe admixed, and that the steppe admixed Beakers would have more EEF than Corded Ware, that Iran Neo probably entered the Central Mediterranean at least by the Bronze Age or even the Neolithic, that Albanians were not the descendants of Turks, that I2a was not "native" to the Balkans but was brought by Slavs, that Balkan people would have Slavic input, but just as much local EEF and Caucasus like ancestry, and on and on. I won't bore you with all of it.
How much of it did you predict correctly? How much regarding those issues did the people of anthrogenica get right, or Eurogenes, for that matter? That's a rhetorical question, because in almost all of those cases they were wrong and I was right. You can find the proof all over this site. I don't have the power to erase all the posts and threads where I was wrong, unlike people on other sites. Even if I could, I wouldn't do it, because it would be dishonest and dishonorable.
You are better able to see the best possibilities if you closely follow not only the ancient dna, but the archaeology, and where available, the history of the period, keeping in mind that the ancient "historians" were not historians in the modern understanding. It also helps to have common sense and to, as much as humanly possible, remove your own preferences and prejudices and look at it all as objectively as possible.
No honest person could possibly claim that Davidski and many of his supporters on eurogenes don't have an agenda.
Does any of this mean that I won't be proven wrong in some of my predictions? Of course not, but I analyze the papers as honestly and objectively as I can. In the case of the ethnogenesis of the Italian people, I add to that analysis decades of study of the history of the Classical Era. It is clear from the data we have so far that there was a change genetically in Italy from the Republican Era to the Empire and Late Antiquity. The disagreements are over the details. Nor, and I emphasize this, and admit my own preferences, do I find the idea that we absorbed during that time period additional Anatolian Neolithic, and Iran Neolithic, and Levantine Neolithic if that proves to be the case, at all unwelcome.
If I'm proven wrong about some of the details, so be it. I'll admit it. Have any of your friends at anthrogenica admitted they were wrong in any of their predictions?
Well, I'll give you props for one thing. At least you came here to state your case and didn't just say it from your fortress.
