Ancient DNA, admx. history and endogamy in the prehistoricAegean Skourtaniotietal2022

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Your mistake is to assume that what applies to Cyprus must apply to south Italy as well: for Cyprus zero Levantine ancestry is a priori implausible, but for south Italy 20% Levantine ancestry is a priori implausible since it is separated by 1000+ km from the Levant and there is no historical event which might explain such an admixture. On the other hand, low levels of north african input in south Italy are plausible and confirmed, which are what causes the ridiculously inflated levels of natufian in qpAdm, but you refuse to use just talforat to see what happens and you are appealing to ignorance to what the true levels of north african are according to qpAdm to claim that there are both, which is a logical gap.

Lol nice coping mechanism. According to your logic Cypriots should have no steppe because the Steppes are far away. According to your coping mechanisms the Mycenaeans did not settle coastal Iberia because its even further away than the Levant is to Italy. But in reality there are actual Mycenaean samples in ancient Iberia and Levantine samples in ancient Italy. So obviously it was not that far away for people that had SHIPS and were known to SAIL far away.

You do realize that Italy is connected to the Levant through a very busy sea that also belonged to the the Roman Empire?

I explained you 100 times that i used Taforalt as a proxy but it gave high std errors, too many proxies on qpAdm will give high STANDARD ERRORS. Do you even know what that is?

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Assuming an impulse from the levant, southern Italy should show an excess both of Iran_N and of Levant_N almost in equal proportions (since both levantine and Anatolian populations of Bronze and Iron Age were roughly an equal mix of the two ) while it almost exclusively only shows an excess of the latter in your model (15% Levant_N and roughly 8% Iran_N).
Something seems strange, to say the least.

The Bronze Age and Iron Age levant had much more Levant_N admix than Iran_N.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Lol nice coping mechanism. According to your logic Cypriots should have no steppe because the Steppes are far away. According to your coping mechanisms the Mycenaeans did not settle coastal Iberia because its even further away than the Levant is to Italy.

You do realize that Italy is connected to the Levant through a very busy sea that also belonged to the the Roman Empire?

I explained you 100 times that i used Taforalt as a proxy but it gave high std errors, too many proxies on qpAdm will give high STANDARD ERRORS. Do you even know what that is?

Your coping mechanism is to claim that most papers are wrong and most archaeogenetists are inexperienced, and "muh very busy sea" is actually a genetic barrier: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320811111, but we have already seen that you dismiss most of the genetic literature as wrong.

I told you to use Talforat and not Natufian to see how much comes up in south Italians, but you keep understanding that I am telling you to use both Natufian and Talforat.

You see, there is no evidence to believe there is an excess of Natufian in south Italy compared to Anatolia_N (whereas in Cypriots it is obvious, and easy to see why), whereas there are reasons to think there is some Talforat.

I accuse your bunch of having cut any contact with reality, and what do you say to prove me wrong?

"Professional" geneticists does not hold much value here. being paid to produce research for universities doesn't make you an expert. They make mistakes and are often very outdated

Which is like saying that "being paid to work in a hospital and to cure patients doesn't make you an expert", or "being paid to build houses doesn't make you an expert", and all such moronic statements. Of course it is possible that an incompetent person is hired to work in a hospital but being hired to work in a hospital as a doctor is a pretty strong hint that the hired person is an expert at being a doctor, unless you're saying you'd rather be operated by a random person taken from the streets than a surgeon.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

2) Just use talforat instead of Natufian.

Now you wanna force unrealistic models to fit your narrative. Especially when using Jordan_PPNB as an outgroup which partially descends from Taforalt related pops. According to that model Italians just have 1% Taforalt and no Natufian and Cypriots have 0% Natufian/Taforalt. Obviously the paper's outgroups are simply BAD because they didnt add Anatolian_HG and Taforalt as outgroups.

The point is to check if Natufian is inflated because of the lack of the Taforalt proxy, you cant do that on qpAdm unless you find very good outgroups that give both good p value and low Standard Errors.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Your coping mechanism is to claim that most papers are wrong and most archaeogenetists are inexperienced, and "muh very busy sea" is actually a genetic barrier: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320811111, but we have already seen that you dismiss most of the genetic literature as wrong.

I told you to use Talforat and not Natufian to see how much comes up in south Italians, but you keep understanding that I am telling you to use both Natufian and Talforat.

You see, there is no evidence to believe there is an excess of Natufian in south Italy compared to Anatolia_N (whereas in Cypriots it is obvious, and easy to see why), whereas there are reasons to think there is some Talforat.

I accuse your bunch of having cut any contact with reality, and what do you say to prove me wrong?


Which is like saying that "being paid to work in a hospital and to cure patients doesn't make you an expert", or "being paid to build houses doesn't make you an expert", and all such moronic statements. Of course it is possible that an incompetent person is hired to work in a hospital but being hired to work in a hospital as a doctor is a pretty strong hint that the hired person is an expert at being a doctor, unless you're saying you'd rather be operated by a random person taken from the streets than a surgeon.

These population geneticists did not graduate or study updated 2022 population genetics, there is no standardization because the field is updating so much. Thats like saying "Im a professional engineer trust me i know how to make rockets to land on Mars. "

By using your same flawed logic that South Italy is too far away from the Levant to receive admix then Sicily could very well be 30% North African given its proximity to Tunisia just like you said Cyprus must have received 30% Phoenician given its proximity to the Levant despite the paper's models showing otherwise.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics

 

[Francesco]

The Bronze Age and Iron Age levant had much more Levant_N admix than Iran_N.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/142448v1.full

From this paper they seem pretty an equal mix of the two. Not an expert though, so I don't want to die on this hill.

As others already noticed, the most important objection to the model you proposed, I believe, is the one that requires not only a massive input from the east, but also a fairly important input from Northern Europe, both of wich seem pretty unfounded.

On the other hand, I find that the model of 28 % GHG for Cypriots could make sense, since such an excess of CHG ancestry compared to Myceneans could quite easily account for their Phoenician ancestry.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/142448v1.full
From this paper they seem pretty an equal mix of the two. Not an expert though, so I don't want to die on this hill.
As others already noticed, the most important objection to the model you proposed, I believe, is the one that requires not only a massive input from the east, but also a fairly important input from Northern Europe, both of wich seem pretty unfounded.
On the other hand, I find that the model of 28 % GHG for Cypriots could make sense, since such an excess of CHG ancestry compared to Myceneans could quite easily account for their Phoenician ancestry.

They used Iran_ChL and not Iran N as a proxy, they are not the same.

Cypriots having 28% Iran N and no Levant_N makes no sense since the Phoenicians had more Levant_N than Iran N

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Now you wanna force unrealistic models to fit your narrative. Especially when using Jordan_PPNB as an outgroup which partially descends from Taforalt related pops. According to that model Italians just have 1% Taforalt and no Natufian and Cypriots have 0% Natufian/Taforalt. Obviously the paper's outgroups are simply BAD because they didnt add Anatolian_HG and Taforalt as outgroups.

The point is to check if Natufian is inflated because of the lack of the Taforalt proxy, you cant do that on qpAdm unless you find very good outgroups that give both good p value and low Standard Errors.

Let me guess, it is "bad" because it doesn't support your delusional ideas? Is "1% Talforat" too little or does that makes sense because it translates to low levels of more proximate north african admixture, which is what both ADMIXTURE and Y haplogroups support?

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

Let me guess, it is "bad" because it doesn't support your delusional ideas? Is "1% Talforat" too little or does that makes sense because it translates to low levels of more proximate north african admixture, which is what both ADMIXTURE and Y haplogroups support?

Wow very nice projection of your own delusions. Let me guess, the Cypriot model is "bad" because it doesn't support your delusional ideas either? If you accept the South Italian model then you should accept the Cypriot model, there is no one or the other. You either accept both South Italians and Cypriots having no Levant N or you dont.

Maybe there should be no ANE in WHG because ANE was too far away too? <----- your argument and logic about why South Italians should have no Levantine admix.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

These population geneticists did not graduate or study updated 2022 population genetics, there is no standardization because the field is updating so much. Thats like saying "Im a professional engineer trust me i know how to make rockets to land on Mars. "

By using your same flawed logic that South Italy is too far away from the Levant to receive admix then Sicily could very well be 30% North African given its proximity to Tunisia just like you said Cyprus must have received 30% Phoenician given its proximity to the Levant despite the paper's models showing otherwise.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics

You're the one doing a lof of mental gymnastics, included your delusion that "those population genetists" know less than you and (your words) "most papers are wrong".
Anyway, you're showing serious lack of logic: It is easier for Levantine ancestry to reach Cyprus because of the geographic distance (as well as historical events) than south Italy and it is easier for north african ancestry to reach south Italu than Cyprus because of geographic distance (as well as historical events).
The exact proportions must be evaluated using empirical methods, but you are claiming that because Cyprus has Levantine ancestry, then Sicily and south Italy must have Levantine ancestry, whereas what you've said is that it is possible to model Cypriots without Levantine ancestry, especially if you do not use a Levantine reference pop (0bviously), so it could be possible to model south Italians as not having Levantine ancestry, but I've cited papers that did use Levantine and other MENA groups as potential sources and the results were negative.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

You're the one doing a lof of mental gymnastics, included your delusion that "those population genetists" know less than you and (your words) "most papers are wrong".
Anyway, you're showing serious lack of logic: It is easier for Levantine ancestry to reach Cyprus because of the geographic distance (as well as historical events) than south Italy and it is easier for north african ancestry to reach south Italu than Cyprus because of geographic distance (as well as historical events).
The exact proportions must be evaluated using empirical methods, but you are claiming that because Cyprus has Levantine ancestry, then Sicily and south Italy must have Levantine ancestry, whereas what you've said is that it is possible to model Cypriots without Levantine ancestry, especially if you do not use a Levantine reference pop (0bviously), so it could be possible to model south Italians as not having Levantine ancestry, but I've cited papers that did use Levantine and other MENA groups as potential sources and the results were negative.

Both Cypriot and South Italian models fail because of high STD errors when using Natufian or Levant_N. It is not possible to model Cypriots with Natufian or Levant_N with the paper's outgroups.


Nice mental gymnastic about geographic distance, when there is a sea and those people are known to travel through the sea then its kinda like being neighbors in some cases. You do realize Cyprus is next to Egypt but Cypriots have no Egyptian admix? There is no strict rule about receiving or not receiving admix based on the geographic SEA distance.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Wow very nice projection of your own delusions. Let me guess, the Cypriot model is "bad" because it doesn't support your delusional ideas either? If you accept the South Italian model then you should accept the Cypriot model, there is no one or the other. You either accept both South Italians and Cypriots having no Levant N or you dont.

Maybe there should be no ANE in WHG because ANE was too far away too? <----- your argument and logic about why South Italians should have no Levantine admix.

You have just thrown away logic at this point, there is literally no compelling argument or evidence that if I refuse the Cypriot model than I must refuse the south Italian model, you are just making stuff up.
Have a nice day and go on working on your inferential skills.

P.S. My argument to why there is no substantial Levantine admixture (20% is substantial) in South Italy is that NO ONE HAS DETECTED IT YET despite dozens of papers.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

You have just thrown away logic at this point, there is literally no compelling argument or evidence that if I refuse the Cypriot model than I must refuse the south Italian model, you are just making stuff up.
Have a nice day and go on working on your inferential skills.

Nice coping mechanics. exposing your mental coping gymnastics is illogical now? You refuse the Cypriot models and accept the Italian ones just because of geographic distance. What the actual ****. According to your logic WHG should not have ANE because of the huge geographic land distance, not even a sea full of ships and Phoenicians traveling everywhere.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Nice coping mechanics. exposing your mental coping gymnastics is illogical now? You refuse the Cypriot models and accept the Italian ones just because of geographic distance. What the actual ****. According to your logic WHG should not have ANE because of the huge geographic land distance, not even a sea full of ships and Phoenicians traveling everywhere.

We have positive evidence of ANE ancestry in some WHG (do you mean EEHG perhaps?), we have also positive evidence of the LACK of signifcant modern MENA ancestry in south Italians (the papers I linked, and Levant_BA admix would translate to affinities towards the MENA, hellenistic Anatolia might be different for no modern pop resembles them).
Have you ever opened a book? "muh sea full of ships and Phoenicians travelling everywhere" is not an apt description of the past, for those ships were full of trading goods and those Phoenicians did not settle anywhere in significant numbers, especially in Italy where they had only two small emporia in Sicily.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

We have positive evidence of ANE ancestry in some WHG (do you mean EEHG perhaps?), we have also positive evidence of the LACK of signifcant modern MENA ancestry in south Italians (the papers I linked, and Levant_BA admix would translate to affinities towards the MENA, hellenistic Anatolia might be different for no modern pop resembles them).
Have you ever opened a book? "muh sea full of ships and Phoenicians travelling everywhere" is not an apt description of the past, for those ships were full of trading goods and those Phoenicians did not settle anywhere in significant numbers, especially in Italy where they had only two small emporia in Sicily.

Here's the evidence of excess Natufian in South Italians according to the outgroups of your beloved professional geneticist paper. Now cope

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Here's your evidence of excess Natufian in South Italians according to the outgroups of the paper. Now cope.

You said that the lack of talforat increases the natufian by a lot, so you yourself have said that it is not a plausible model, and you're saying nothing new (it is more plausible that there is low talforat in south Italy rather than high natufian, and it is exactly what the scientific literature says).
THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SAYS YOU'RE WRONG, you even failed to argue your case logically, so it is you who made a fool out of yourself, and your display is getting pathetic: do you get always so uppity when you're loosing an argument? Maybe it is because you had earlier so confidently claimed that you are right whereas most of the experts are wrong.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

You said that the lack of talforat increases the natufian by a lot, so you yourself have said that it is not a plausible model, and you're saying nothing new (it is more plausible that there is low talforat in south Italy rather than high natufian, and it is exactly what the scientific literature says).
THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SAYS YOU'RE WRONG, you even failed to argue your case logically, so it is you who made a fool out of yourself, and your display is getting pathetic: do you get always so uppity when you're loosing an argument? Maybe it is because you had earlier so confidently claimed that you are right whereas most of the experts are wrong.

According to your Taforalt models Cypriots dont have Taforalt or Natufian. Now accept it or cope. Very biased of you to accept only one model because it fits your narrative.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

According to your Taforalt models Cypriots also dont have Taforalt or Natufian. Now accept it or cope.

According to your words, qpAdm can't distinguish models where there is low talforat or high natufian, so you logically can't use the Cypriot case to "force" anyone to accept that south Italians have high natufian.
What is needed is further evidence, which points to high natufian in Cypriots (history, ADMIXTURE models, haplogroups, f4 tests...), and low talforat/north african in south Italy.

Capiche?

 

[Francesco]

They used Iran_ChL and not Iran N as a proxy, they are not the same.

OK, I see. As I said, not an expert on the matter, so no problem. The principal criricities of the model still stand though

Cypriots having 28% Iran N and no Levant_N makes no sense since the Phoenicians had more Levant_N than Iran N

Maybe the Levant_N component get absorbed by the Anatolian_N? Just guessing.

 

[Idontknowwhatimdoing]

According to your words, qpAdm can't distinguish models where there is low talforat or high natufian, so you logically can't use the Cypriot case to "force" anyone to accept that south Italians have high natufian.
What is needed is further evidence, which points to high natufian in Cypriots (history, ADMIXTURE models, haplogroups, f4 tests...), and low talforat/north african in south Italy.

Capiche?

Bruh, that comment just proved how little you understand qpAdm outgroups. I used the paper's shitty outgroups for that model to show you how bad they are. Better outgroups can distinguish them. AHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You don't even understand how it works.