Is anthrogenica.com gone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to be a geneticist, especially one from a prestigious Ivy-league university. Even more so one who is the head of the research laboratory. The problem with "popular" forums is that it attracts people from all parts of the bell curve. It dilutes the quality of discussion. They can't help themselves, not to be cruel, but they are like dumb animals. They are completely oblivious to their own stupidity. Which is why they argue like we are talking about a sports rather than an inter-disciplinary subject like archeogenetics. Frankly, you need to at least have an IQ of 115 to gather and infer data properly. Which is about 14% of the population. The average doctor has an IQ of 120-130, so now we are in single digits. The fact that people who likely have lower-IQs than those they are raging against is outrageous, and also somewhat amusing, yet sad.
The problem with those individuals is that they are almost all 'characters' not peoples, theirs preconceived ideas and mental is acting like amyloid plaques' in Alzheimer disease. It makes theirs cognitive horizon to be 'concreted' forever. here you're right. On IQ stuff I tell you it's unreliable measurement because it contain undesirable factors. For example IQ is related, to some degree, with the physiological/organic perception of the brain-body relation, which is NOT scientific. I have a friend with a psychological/ physiological disorder to not be able focus his attention to details but with an incredible intelligence when searching to explain something scientific. And he is an academic with a mediocre IQ. IQ testing MUST radically be changed imho.
 
Are you sure this isn't the true sarcasm? Where did you get those from, clown college? There's no way in hell an academic would hold your views. Clearly you're a t-roll, first you have a Ph.D. then you have these other degrees after editing your post. You're not very smart at deception, are you? Correction, you are not very smart. Period. Disrespect for fellow members and moderation has gone on far enough. If you people are going to act like thugs, I am going to hit you with the ban hammer.
Fair enough.
 
Nothing about Anthrogenica, we are the veterans also of DNA Forums and the community of genetic genealogists lost a good part of the memory and debates there, the fora are part of our collective intelligence always shared as a group intelligence. I think the owners are responsible for the contents and they had the support of the members, I think they committed a kind of selfish Epistemological Suicide.
 
AG is back online and they already started to shoot dirt at Angela and Jovialis.
 
Finally it's back, I hope we can preserve our history there and here, always.
 
AG is back online and they already started to shoot dirt at Angela and Jovialis.

Of course they did. They don't want any of you new members to continue to post here or even lurk here, because then you'll just follow their party line.

What weasels, though. They clearly didn't have the guts to come here and say whatever is on their minds to my face. They say it only where they have the power to ban anyone who responds, or indeed deny access altogether. Reminds me of all the women on twitter who post incendiary or provocative remarks, but deny the ability to respond to all but a select few of their cronies. Not the first time I've noticed that the young men at anthrogenica are not like men used to be.

If they started out like that, whoever or whatever group bought it is probably worse than DMXX and the old moderators.

I honestly am glad that some of people's posts are now available to them. I would suggest saving your material to your own files. I wish I had done that with some posts from dna-forums.

On the other hand, I'm not happy that so much disinformation is now up and can pollute the minds of newbies.

I hope that if one good thing came out of this it's to let people know there is another site where they can get a different point of view, or express their point of view, no matter what it is, and not fear getting banned. (With the exception of hate speech and insults and foul language, of course)
 
Was back online today and now is not anymore. I got a screenshot I needed. And was able to make a post. Somehow people were making posts when it was offline.
 
"Eupedia.com was founded in December 2004 by Maciamo Hay.
Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide to countries of the European Union, with an emphasis on travel, history, cultural differences, maps, and interesting facts about Europe.
Since 2009, Eupedia also has a dedicated section for genetics focusing chiefly on European population genetics, historical genetics and genetic genealogy, as well as related fields such as prehistory, archaeology and anthropology."
18 years, thus far. May the site live on 100 more.

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.
 
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.

What a ridiculous and extreme statement.
I would say Anthrogenica is a cesspool of misinformation and Eurogenes gives ridiculous distances for Italians.
 
Last edited:
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.

Can you provide the citation to a paper published in for example Nature, Science Advances, Cell, etc, that documents G25 has been used to model the populations that were analyzed in those respective studies. G25 being designed based on SMARTPCA method (Nick Patterson) does not mean that Nick Patterson endorses or suggest he had a hand in developing it.

You are trying to justifying your support for G25 by what is referred to in the circles I run in as "name dropping".

G25, as with any other model developed by non academicians (we are talking about people with training in Mathematics, Statistics, computer science) in my view is only as good as how robust it is to the extant published research. If there are 5, then 10 published papers from various research teams in various leading academic journals that document A and then G25, or Dodecad, or MDLP document B, or C, etc. Then I will defacto question something regarding the non-Professional calculators.

Now to be fair, I think the G25 Eurogenes is much better than the Old Eurogenes K13/K15 models regarding Southern Europeans. Dodecad, from my perspective, has always produced results that are fairly consistent with what has been published. I would say G25 has in terms of "single distances" performed better for me versus Eurogenes K13/K15. I would add that the problem with the Eurogenes K13/K15 models might not be a problem with the models themselves, but rather, the samples used in those spreadsheets. Regarding G25 and modeling source populations, I have no clear opinion yet. I will note that I only have G25 simulated coordinates.

As for modeling Southern Italians, Central and Northern as well, It is my view that the Dodecad 12B K8 model that Jovialis produced is the most accurate for me personally, and other individuals that are Americans of Italian ancestry with all of their ancestry from 1 of the 20 political regions of modern Italy as well as those Italians here whose ancestors are ethnically Italian with long standing histories in 1 of those same 20 political regions of Modern Italy. The Jovialis K8 model also matches up with several recent academic papers related to Italian genetics.
 
Last edited:
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.

Do you have any info on that southern arc paper? They're really exaggerating at this point.
 
Can you provide the citation to a paper published in for example Nature, Science Advances, Cell, etc, that documents G25 has been used to model the populations that were analyzed in those respective studies. G25 being designed based on SMARTPCA method (Nick Patterson) does not mean that Nick Patterson endorses or suggest he had a hand in developing it.

You are trying to justifying your support for G25 by what is referred to in the circles I run in as "name dropping".

G25, as with any other model developed by non academicians (we are talking about people with training in Mathematics, Statistics, computer science) in my view is only as good as how robust it is to the extant published research. If there are 5, then 10 published papers from various research teams in various leading academic journals that document A and then G25, or Dodecad, or MDLP document B, or C, etc. Then I will defacto question something regarding the non-Professional calculators.

Now to be fair, I think the G25 Eurogenes is much better than the Old Eurogenes K13/K15 models regarding Southern Europeans. Dodecad, from my perspective, has always produced results that are fairly consistent with what has been published. I would say G25 has in terms of "single distances" performed better for me versus Eurogenes K13/K15. I would add that the problem with the Eurogenes K13/K15 models might not be a problem with the models themselves, but rather, the samples used in those spreadsheets. Regarding G25 and modeling source populations, I have no clear opinion yet. I will note that I only have G25 simulated coordinates.

As for modeling Southern Italians, Central and Northern as well, It is my view that the Dodecad 12B K8 model that Jovialis produced is the most accurate for me personally, and other individuals that are Americans of Italian ancestry with all of their ancestry from 1 of the 20 political regions of modern Italy as well as those Italians here whose ancestors are ethnically Italian with long standing histories in 1 of those same 20 political regions of Modern Italy. The Jovialis K8 model also matches up with several recent academic papers related to Italian genetics.

When it comes to ancient DNA, G25 is IMO better. It is something I have observed:
1.) Iron Age Greek samples (the 2 samples from Iberia) in K12b are closer to LBA Sicilians than to Modern Sicilians which is not the case with G25.
2.) Daunians plot more in tact in G25 with academic paper than in K12b.
 
When it comes to ancient DNA, G25 is IMO better. It is something I have observed:
1.) Iron Age Greek samples (the 2 samples from Iberia) in K12b are closer to LBA Sicilians than to Modern Sicilians which is not the case with G25.
2.) Daunians plot more in tact in G25 with academic paper than in K12b.

ihype02: Ok, for the Daunians I appreciate that information. I wasn't aware of that fact. I am open to that fact for ancient DNA it might be better but I still need more evidence other than the Daunian results you mentioned. One thing might be that the creator of G25 is still active and better updates his spreadsheets as new samples are publicly available (Creater of K12b is no longer active). I think for Dodecad12B, the spreadsheets are only updated when some of the talented Eupedia members here make time to do so (Salento, Jovialis, Pax Augusta, Duarte, Maciamo, etc). Still, I would like to see a what we use to call back in my graduate school days a statistical horse race. Take K12B and G25 and ensure the data spreadsheets have the same ancient samples and then run the models for both and compare to the published paper. If G25 consistently produces results more in line with the published papers relative to K12b, then I would acknowledge that point.
 
Can you provide the citation to a paper published in for example Nature, Science Advances, Cell, etc, that documents G25 has been used to model the populations that were analyzed in those respective studies. G25 being designed based on SMARTPCA method (Nick Patterson) does not mean that Nick Patterson endorses or suggest he had a hand in developing it.

You are trying to justifying your support for G25 by what is referred to in the circles I run in as "name dropping".

G25, as with any other model developed by non academicians (we are talking about people with training in Mathematics, Statistics, computer science) in my view is only as good as how robust it is to the extant published research. If there are 5, then 10 published papers from various research teams in various leading academic journals that document A and then G25, or Dodecad, or MDLP document B, or C, etc. Then I will defacto question something regarding the non-Professional calculators.

Now to be fair, I think the G25 Eurogenes is much better than the Old Eurogenes K13/K15 models regarding Southern Europeans. Dodecad, from my perspective, has always produced results that are fairly consistent with what has been published. I would say G25 has in terms of "single distances" performed better for me versus Eurogenes K13/K15. I would add that the problem with the Eurogenes K13/K15 models might not be a problem with the models themselves, but rather, the samples used in those spreadsheets. Regarding G25 and modeling source populations, I have no clear opinion yet. I will note that I only have G25 simulated coordinates.

A method to detect recent drift inspired by the same method as G25 has been used in the Danubian limes preprint, with a clear shout-out to Eurogenes in the supplement.

G25 has proven to be a fantastic tool, which makes sense since it's based on Smart PCA. You would have to believe that evil Davidski deliberately engineered G25 to to be extremely accurate for all other populations but not East Mediterranean ones. He put on his devil's horns and screwed with the 1s and 0s so that pesky Near Eastern ancestry would pop up where it wasn't supposed to. But somehow the calculator works for everybody else perfectly. Yeah right.
 
ihype02: Ok, for the Daunians I appreciate that information. I wasn't aware of that fact. I am open to that fact for ancient DNA it might be better but I still need more evidence other than the Daunian results you mentioned. One thing might be that the creator of G25 is still active and better updates his spreadsheets as new samples are publicly available (Creater of K12b is no longer active). I think for Dodecad12B, the spreadsheets are only updated when some of the talented Eupedia members here make time to do so (Salento, Jovialis, Pax Augusta, Duarte, Maciamo, etc). Still, I would like to see a what we use to call back in my graduate school days a statistical horse race. Take K12B and G25 and ensure the data spreadsheets have the same ancient samples and then run the models for both and compare to the published paper. If G25 consistently produces results more in line with the published papers relative to K12b, then I would acknowledge that point.

Also in academic papers modern Sicilians are closer to Ancient Greeks than LBA Sicilians are. So take in consideration as well point number 1.
 
A method to detect recent drift inspired by the same method as G25 has been used in the Danubian limes preprint, with a clear shout-out to Eurogenes in the supplement.

G25 has proven to be a fantastic tool, which makes sense since it's based on Smart PCA. You would have to believe that evil Davidski deliberately engineered G25 to to be extremely accurate for all other populations but not East Mediterranean ones. He put on his devil's horns and screwed with the 1s and 0s so that pesky Near Eastern ancestry would pop up where it wasn't supposed to. But somehow the calculator works for everybody else perfectly. Yeah right.

You seem to not be able to make your points without accusations. I never said anything regarding whether Davidski is evil or not. I don't know him nor have I ever interacted with him. I have not in the past ever posted at anthrogenica. I made a few posts on the Eurogenes blog back in 2019 when the Antonio et al 2019 paper came out, but none were specifically directed at the blog site owner (Davidski).

Your statements I responded to strongly suggested that G25 was endorsed by Nick Patterson and your statement may be true. However, I have never seen a public statement by Nick Patterson regarding G25 one way or another. If you can provide a citation to a journal or a blog where he made such a statement, please provide the cite and I will check it out. I am aware that Prof Reich in his book "How we got here (2018).." stated/strongly suggested that he followed Razib Kahn's Gene Expression blog and Davidski's Eurogenes blog. Now whether he still does today, I have no way of knowing.

My point regarding Me, myself and I and nothing more is that the Dodecad 12b K8 model that Jovialis used models me in line with what at least 3 recent papers on modern Italian genetics indicate. I also said that all of the Eupedia members here that have 100% of their ancestors from 1 of the 20 political regions and the Italians here that have a long standing family history in 1 of the 20 regions in modern Italy. Again I am talking about modern Italians and those Italian descendant individuals in the Italian Diaspora (which includes me). The Raveane et al 2019 paper, the Aneli et al 2022 paper and the Raveane et al 2022 paper provide results that the Jovialis's Dodecad12b model results are in-line with.

So you come here and have a posting history of a few posts and just because "you" endorse G25 as superior to all other non-academic calculators does not mean I have to agree with you. As I also noted, I only have my G25 simulated coordinates and I stated that with respect to "single distances" it performs very well for me, much better than the original K13/K15. I also said that the problems with the original K13/K15 might have nothing to do with the statistical methodology of the model, but perhaps the samples that were put in to the spreadsheet perhaps were not representative of the populations that the model was trying to estimate the ancestry components, etc.

Why don't you make a case for G25 by providing models for different populations and provide a comparison of how it performs relative to published papers. Make your case by providing evidence, not just your personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
.......

I hope that if one good thing came out of this it's to let people know there is another site where they can get a different point of view, or express their point of view, no matter what it is, and not fear getting banned. (With the exception of hate speech and insults and foul language, of course)


Exactly. It's a good opportunity for Eupedia to shine. A platform that allows freedom of thought and expression, a platform where anyone with a different perspective or take on genetic papers doesn't get attacked or belittled, is always a better alternative. On AG it seems that there is no room for originality, freedom of expression, etc. since a user can't disagree with or challenge VIP members or the Mods without risking getting banned.
 
Exactly. It's a good opportunity for Eupedia to shine. A platform that allows freedom of thought and expression, a platform where anyone with a different perspective or take on genetic papers doesn't get attacked or belittled, is always a better alternative. On AG it seems that there is no room for originality, freedom of expression, etc. since a user can't disagree with or challenge VIP members or the Mods without risking getting banned.

I’m not sure, in my experience I’ve seen plenty of people disagree with certain status quo and not get banned on AG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 106625 times.

Back
Top