Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

[Angela]

Are you crazy, angry, frustrated or what else, man? I made QUESTIONS about what people might know about the topic that could help clarify what happened. There is no speculation at all, I didn't even state anything, just questioned what other people thought about it.

You people are too easily triggered when something that you all say you have no problem with is even mentioned as a possibility and proposed as QUESTIONS to be discussed and hopefully answered by other people. It's so funny you guys really think you sound convincing when you say you are totally fine with that Levantine ancestry, when the fact is that such aggressive replies NEVER come about when we're talking about higher or lower CHG or steppe contribution. Please, I'm no naive child anymore, okay? Maybe even you yourselves do not notice that because it is a too deep-seated, already subconscious pattern of thought, but we out here definitely can.

That is completely over the line, and you owe bigsnake and the rest of us an apology. The poster here who is triggered, super aggressive and incredibly emotional is you. You became completely personal with your accusations to me, which I probably should have handled privately, then there was another poster, and now bigsnake, the latter, especially, for no reason at all from what I can see.

Look, I know it's not pleasant having people point out what many of them see as errors in method and conclusions in your work, work to which you've devoted a lot of time and about which for some reason you feel very passionately, but that's the way it goes. What do you think happens when you're grilled about a paper you're presenting to a journal, or defending your thesis, or sitting on a witness stand.

Emotional outbursts of virtual screaming and vitriolic abuse are not the way to handle it.

Cut it out.

Were this anthrogenica or eurogenes you'd already be banned.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ygorcs:

In your post #340, what does 5% Levant+North African_Early Neolithic represent. Is it the Mean? Is it the lowest end of a range?, Tell me what it means in terms of Univariate Statistics?

 

[ratchet_fan]

Ygorcs: In theory, wouldn't everything in Italy already be "Eastern Med" shifted before the MLBA given the Neolithic migration from Anatolia had already reached Italy by 6,500 BC as this recent paper with the slide show documented. The only major sources of ancestry in Italy before Steppe would be WHG+EEF+ some early Iran_Neolithic or CHG type ancestry. Antonio et al 2019 Admixture graph is pretty clear on that. Correct? Or am I misinterpreting Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 admixture graph.

Just as an FYI, the reason I ran the model fit using Iron Age Roman samples only is because of the earlier discussion about the Imperial Romans and drawing inferences from them. So using the Iron Age Romans, I can still get good fits as documented in my post 137 and 274. So how people want to model those Samples using G25 is not pertinent to me personally. The fact is that there were 3 of the Iron Age Romans that were Southern Shifted. For me that is all I care about. That alone is enough to piss off the usual suspects.

Next, since everyone is playing around with models, I wanted to see what my fit looks like using only R1, who is the oldest Iron_Age Republican Roman/Late Bronze sample and I think the least Southern Shifted, and all the Chalcolithic, Neolithic and Mesolithic samples, I can get distances from 10% to 18%, depending obviously on the Calculator and source sample data.

Dodecad K7 using R1 plus all Roman samples from Chalcolithic to Mesolithic.

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 13.1542% / 13.15415094 | ADC: 0.25x
53.2	R18_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
46.8	R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

Dodecad K7 using same sample as above, but excluding R1

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 17.3235% / 17.32345868 | ADC: 0.25x
89.4	R18_Neolithic_Ripabianca_di_Monterado
10.6	R15_Mesolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Eurogenes K13 same sample as K7 with Iron Age R1

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 10.4111% / 10.41110892 | ADC: 0.25x
68.8	R1_Abruzzo_Teramo_Late_Bronze_Age_Italy
31.2	R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy

Eurogenes K13, same sample as K7 model 2, no R1 in Source data

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 17.4502% / 17.45015358 | ADC: 0.25x
73.0	R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy
27.0	R11_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy

Dodecad 12B, sample same as Dodecad K7 model1 and Eurogenes K13 model 1 (included R1)

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 13.0751% / 13.07509661 | ADC: 0.25x
66.4	R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
33.6	R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Dodecad 12B, no R1 in Source data.

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 18.9304% / 18.93041390 | ADC: 0.25x
79.4	R9_Neolithic_Grotta_Continenza
20.6	R15_Mesolithic_Grotta_Continenza

Now I know those are not great for Modern Populations, but we are using samples from a long, long, long time ago. However, it is not like you have to sing David Bowie's Space Odyssey line "Ground Control to Major Tom" to find me. So using an "Independent" criteria to evaluate model fit distances from samples that old, I will use MyTrueAncestry's definitions, those are not mine, its MTA's. I quote


"Genetic distance measures how close you are to a given sample.
10 means this is your ancient ancestry
20 means this is part of your ancestral link
30 means possibly related to your ancestry"

So what ever was in Rome before the MLBA, according to MTA is is part of my ancestral link. Whatever happened in the MLBA happened, doesn't change that I have an ancestral link with Neolithic Rome up to the period of R1, which is around 950BC, some calculators call R1 Late Bronze age, but I am not going to split hairs. As for Sicily and Rome, yes, starting in Sicily by around 900 BC, the Phoenicians settled some cities on the NW coast and founded and built ports, I know the history, obviously sometime during the Imperial period, people from the Levant, Syrians, Jews moved into Rome and as far South as Sicily, mostly on the East Coast if Saint Paul's Letters are accurate as to where the major Jewish Settlements were.

What would have brought early Iran_Neo or CHG admixture to Europe (above what came from Indo-Europeans and Anatolian farmers)>

 

[Ygorcs]

Ygorcs: In theory, wouldn't everything in Italy already be "Eastern Med" shifted before the MLBA given the Neolithic migration from Anatolia had already reached Italy by 6,500 BC as this recent paper with the slide show documented. The only major sources of ancestry in Italy before Steppe would be WHG+EEF+ some early Iran_Neolithic or CHG type ancestry. Antonio et al 2019 Admixture graph is pretty clear on that. Correct? Or am I misinterpreting Antonio et al 2019 Figure 2 admixture graph.

Yes, of course, but I think the whole discussion is if there was some eastward shift after the Neolithic/Chalcolithic or not, isn't it?

Just as an FYI, the reason I ran the model fit using Iron Age Roman samples only is because of the earlier discussion about the Imperial Romans and drawing inferences from them. So using the Iron Age Romans, I can still get good fits as documented in my post 137 and 274. So how people want to model those Samples using G25 is not pertinent to me personally. The fact is that there were 3 of the Iron Age Romans that were Southern Shifted. For me that is all I care about. That alone is enough to piss off the usual suspects.

Is that all you care about? Then you shouldn't "worry" anymore: nobody here has ever said there weren't Southern Italian-shifted Romans even before the Imperial Era. Also, those Romans wouldn't stop being Southern Italian-shifted even if they totally lacked Levant_N-like admixture, because Levant_N itself had a lot of Barcin_N_like ancestry (as much as ~40-45% in some models I've seen), so ~6-14% Levant_N-like ancestry wouldn't shift Southern Italians with and without that additional ancestral component much further from each other. Modern South Italians generally have more steppe ancestry than most of those ancient South Italian-like and Greek-like aDNA samples, and I don't think anyone is arguing that that is totally incorrect and couldn't have happened at all, or have I missed something?

Eurogenes K13 same sample as K7 with Iron Age R1

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 10.4111% / 10.41110892 | ADC: 0.25x
68.8	R1_Abruzzo_Teramo_Late_Bronze_Age_Italy
31.2	R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy

Eurogenes K13, same sample as K7 model 2, no R1 in Source data

Target: PalermoTrapani Distance: 17.4502% / 17.45015358 | ADC: 0.25x
73.0	R9_Abruzzo_Neolithic_Farmer_Italy
27.0	R11_Abruzzo_Mesolithic_Hunter-Gatherer_Italy

Why such high distances? Is that using scaled or non-scaled samples in your analysis?

So what ever was in Rome before the MLBA, according to MTA is is part of my ancestral link. Whatever happened in the MLBA happened, doesn't change that I have an ancestral link with Neolithic Rome up to the period of R1, which is around 950BC, some calculators call R1 Late Bronze age, but I am not going to split hairs.

Yes, I agree, we all agree, but is that the topic under discussion here? I think nobody is arguing for a massive displacement or replacement of Italians after the Neolithic, but just assimilation of minor but significant foreign components, including much more CHG and/or Iran_N, as well as steppe and Levant_N.

As for Sicily and Rome, yes, starting in Sicily by around 900 BC, the Phoenicians settled some cities on the NW coast and founded and built ports, I know the history, obviously sometime during the Imperial period, people from the Levant, Syrians, Jews moved into Rome and as far South as Sicily, mostly on the East Coast if Saint Paul's Letters are accurate as to where the major Jewish Settlements were.

Exactly. And indeed these models I have been using show a bit higher Levant_N-like ancestry in eastern Sicily, not in western Sicily, where Phoenicians were.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ratchet_Fan: Not sure, and I don't want to speculate about something that I can't say with close to 100% certainty. There is enough of that crap going on here about Sicily and Southern Italy already. As a reference, I will point you to the Antonio et al 2019 paper and what they documented. And I quote

"Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe."

So there was already some ancestry in Neolithic Italy, based on my reading of Antonio et al 2019 that was from the Near East that was present well before the Steppe or Bronze Age. So the fact that some of the Iron Age Romans, or the ones that Fit me damn close, were Eastern Shifted, well they were that way likely, again, operative word is likely, well before the bleeping Imperial age. pardon my expression on a Sunday afternoon.

Maybe Jovialis, Angela, Regio_X, or Leopoldo can chime in with a better explanation than mine. I don't state anything I wrote above as a dogmatic statement of fact, just my own personal hypothesis.

Cheers. PT

 

[Ygorcs]

Ygorcs:

In your post #340, what does 5% Levant+North African_Early Neolithic represent. Is it the Mean? Is it the lowest end of a range?, Tell me what it means in terms of Univariate Statistics?

Keyword: EXPECT. It's of course just a personal guess of the lowest average amount I think we are likely to find in modern Sicilians considering lots of evidences which I won't repeat here after so many posts.

 

[Angela]

The temperature needs to cool down here. Is the question as to whether the "extra" "Levantine" in southern Italians/Sicilians is a couple of percent or ten percent so earth shatteringly important? I certainly couldn't care less about the actual number.

What is important is why analyses done using an amateur calculator are almost always in contradiction with the results of the academicians.

That's important. Are all the researchers idiots, or is there something wrong with the assumptions behind the hobbyist analyses or even with the calculator itself? Is it fundamentally wrong to use samples which are so far from proximate to the period? Were the wrong ancient samples then chosen, either because of lack of knowledge of the particular samples chosen, or misconceptions about which samples should be used, or the use of samples which are totally mislabeled?

In my personal opinion, I see all of these errors.

Now, it may turn out in the end that wrong method or not, the final number around which the amateurs circle is closer to reality. If that's the case, fine with me; I couldn't give a damn.

I'm not, however, going to pretend an analysis is well done when it isn't. It's nothing personal against any member posting here.

 

[Jovialis]

@Ygorcs

I recommend that you claim down. Frankly, you seem obsessed with trying to prove this point of Levantine admixture. I pointed out the fact that the ABA that southern Italians are modeled with has the lowest amount of the three (2% according to your own model), and you take it as some kind of affront? Why? What are you trying to prove? That is the sample that Raveane et al 2019 used.

I should remind you, you are not above infractions, or worse. You have already stepped ove the line several times, but we have given you a pass, out of respect of your position. Don't abuse it, cool it with the aggression.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ygorcs: Why the high distances, because those are Mesolithic to Neolithic sources. There by definition is No Steppe at all in there, which there is in Sicily and Southern Italy as well. And again, I am only using a sample of 17. One would like a sample of at least 30 from a period(s) to at least approximate a normal distribution via Central Limit theorem. Wouldn't you agree?

You think modern people can take a sample of just 17 Ancient Romans who are WHG plus some Neolithic EEF and get distances of, pick your distance that makes you happy? If you can, show it to me?

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ygorcs: You refuse to answer the question, is it a Mean or lower limit of a range. So if is the lowest Average amount, then I think you are calling it a "mean" correct? So if it is a "mean" which is an average or measure of central tendency, then if the sample used approximates a normal distribution, then by definition some of the population will in fact be below the mean and some will be below the mean. Is that not correct?

 

[ratchet_fan]

Ratchet_Fan: Not sure, and I don't want to speculate about something that I can't say with close to 100% certainty. There is enough of that crap going on here about Sicily and Southern Italy already. As a reference, I will point you to the Antonio et al 2019 paper and what they documented. And I quote

"Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe."

So there was already some ancestry in Neolithic Italy, based on my reading of Antonio et al 2019 that was from the Near East that was present well before the Steppe or Bronze Age. So the fact that some of the Iron Age Romans, or the ones that Fit me damn close, were Eastern Shifted, well they were that way likely, again, operative word is likely, well before the bleeping Imperial age. pardon my expression on a Sunday afternoon.

Maybe Jovialis, Angela, Regio_X, or Leopoldo can chime in with a better explanation than mine. I don't state anything I wrote above as a dogmatic statement of fact, just my own personal hypothesis.

Cheers. PT

Thanks. Its a little hard to wrap my mind around this.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

As I said before it'd be really excellent if some Italian members of this forum got their G25 coordinates so we could compare their results to the samples already included in the spreadsheet. That would be the best test. I must say, though, that from geography and historical dynamics I wouldn't expect average Sicilians to have any less than ~5% Levant_N+North African_EN ancestry, considering how close they plot to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as Cypriots.

The discussion is about Levant_N, because your thesis is that there was a gene flow rich in Levant_N that hit south east Europe and south and central Italy; we already know that there is around 5% north-african in Sicilians, so it's not the point of the discussion. Also, as others have already pointed out, I think that the best way to explain way "west jews" can be modelled similar to Greeks and south Italians is that the former started out as pure levantine population and later they picked up much ancestry both from south Europe and (ashkenazis)north Europe ( I don't know about Sephardis, but they don't appear in the PCA). Now it's implausible to think that south Italians and Greeks have similar levels of north European ancestry. From the supplements of this paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328, the PCAs and the admixtures models seem consistent with the thesis that there is not a significant share of admixture from "ancestral populations" (I guess Anatolian vs Levant, who were not tremendously different, though). At least that's how I make sense of it, but whoever has other interpretations is invited to share them.







I think that it is also interesting to take a look at the admixture chart of Cretans and Armenians and west asian/levant populations:

How I make sense of the last tabel is that Kurds capture better Cretan ancestry because they themselves have more ancestry from the caucaus/iran-anatolian gene flow that hit south east Europe, followed by Syrians because they also derive a good chunk of their ancestry from this gene flow (as the last paper about the history of the near east supports, the one that has found [a result found in another paper if I am not mistake] a very significant gene flow from Anatolia and the Caucasus to the north Levant). It's true that it depends a lot from the K used, and the fact that the Syrians get overall a better median value is also consistent with Ygorcs's thesis, to be honest, but the fact that the two other Levantine populations get much worse results coupled with the other charts/PCAs gives me the impression it overall better supports the "classical" two way model between Anatolians and Caucasus/Iran, and a subsequent migration of such a mixture to the Levant.

 

[Ygorcs]

Ratchet_Fan: Not sure, and I don't want to speculate about something that I can't say with close to 100% certainty. There is enough of that crap going on here about Sicily and Southern Italy already. As a reference, I will point you to the Antonio et al 2019 paper and what they documented. And I quote

"Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe."

So there was already some ancestry in Neolithic Italy, based on my reading of Antonio et al 2019 that was from the Near East that was present well before the Steppe or Bronze Age. So the fact that some of the Iron Age Romans, or the ones that Fit me damn close, were Eastern Shifted, well they were that way likely, again, operative word is likely, well before the bleeping Imperial age. pardon my expression on a Sunday afternoon.

Maybe Jovialis, Angela, Regio_X, or Leopoldo can chime in with a better explanation than mine. I don't state anything I wrote above as a dogmatic statement of fact, just my own personal hypothesis.

Cheers. PT

That is indeed correct, but AFTER the Neolithic there was progressive eastward shift linked especially to higher and higher CHG/Iran_N admixture accumulated over time and at least in a small part Levant_N-related admixture too. It was not a matter of quality, but a matter of quantity: increase in some ancestral components at the expense of others. That's how South Italian-like aDNA samples got ABA-like. After the MLBA, in PCA, higher steppe ancestry pulled them northwestward, higher CHG/Iran ancestry pulled them even more strongly northeastward, and a minor Levant_N+North African_EN ancestry pulled them a bit eastward, slightly away from the conjunction between the Sicily_BA:Yamnaya and Sicily_BA:CHG/Iran clines. See:

https://imgur.com/a/1MCWUBf

 

[Ygorcs]

That is completely over the line, and you owe bigsnake and the rest of us an apology. The poster here who is triggered, super aggressive and incredibly emotional is you. You became completely personal with your accusations to me, which I probably should have handled privately, then there was another poster, and now bigsnake, the latter, especially, for no reason at all from what I can see.

Look, I know it's not pleasant having people point out what many of them see as errors in method and conclusions in your work, work to which you've devoted a lot of time and about which for some reason you feel very passionately, but that's the way it goes. What do you think happens when you're grilled about a paper you're presenting to a journal, or defending your thesis, or sitting on a witness stand.

Emotional outbursts of virtual screaming and vitriolic abuse are not the way to handle it.

Cut it out.

Were this anthrogenica or eurogenes you'd already be banned.

Angela, I make some QUESTIONS about something I don't know about (the history of Philistines and evidences of what happened to them after they got defeated by Jews), and I get immediately accused of "speculating with no basis", which is completely insane (or is making questions forbidden now in some topics, do we have a taboo list of topics not to be asked about? Please inform me if there is, because I may be somewhat outdated). And you think I am passionately and personally invested in this and were unfair to Bigsnake because of such a heavy-handed reply to just a few innocent questions? Oh, please, I won't even keep discussing about it, because I usually don't waste time discussing what is totally obvious and not open to various reasonably plausible interpretations.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Leopoldo: Interesting data, the Pheonicians founded the Port in Palermo probably between 800BC and 700BC. Carthage was founded by them as well. There clearly was a trade network among Palermo, Carthage and Tyre, the Phoenician homeland back in the Levant (Lebanon). So that 5% North African ancestry in Sicily likely includes Levant ancestry via the Phoenicians. I know the Di Gaetano et al 2009 paper is somewhat dated but it noted a co-occurence of the E-M81 Tunisian Berber marker and J1-M267 marker, and other Y-DNA Haplogroups to arrive at a estimate of 6% in that paper. So some of that Phoenician and later Carthaginian was related to the Pheonician founders, along with the local Tunisian Berbers. Not that their estimates were to far off, the Sazzini et al 2016 paper puts it at 4.6%, or Ygorcs 5% mean, so his number is supported by the extant research. So looking at Figure 3 from Sazzini et al 2016, it is hard for me to see how they are disentangling Berber-Tunisian for example from Levant. The dark Blue in North Africa and Middle East seems to be highly related and contains both North African_Berber and Levant ancestry given the Pheonicians were 1) From the Levant and 2) founded Carthage in Modern Tunisia.

 

[Ygorcs]

@Ygorcs

I recommend that you claim down. Frankly, you seem obsessed with trying to prove this point of Levantine admixture. I pointed out the fact that the ABA that southern Italians are modeled with has the lowest amount of the three (2% according to your own model), and you take it as some kind of affront? Why? What are you trying to prove? That is the sample that Raveane et al 2019 used.

I should remind you, you are not above infractions, or worse. You have already stepped ove the line several times, but we have given you a pass, out of respect of your position. Don't abuse it, cool it with the aggression.

Obsessed? When did you see me talking about this here before except when the thread was really about Italian genetic papers? The topic that is being discussed here now is this one, just like before the topic involved other populations and regions. Do you honestly think that my reactions against all these totally speculative and nearly paranoid accusations against me and other Eupedia members here are unwarranted and came out of the blue, to the point that I'm criticized as making baseless speculations about Philistines when I was in fact just keeping the conversation on by proposing some questions about the fate of Philistines, an intriguing subject that I know almost nothing about? Please, it's not that hard to try to be somewhat impartial about this even if it's a topic in which you have a strong disagreement about.

I'll leave it alone. I'm fully aware now that anything remotely close to South Italy is out of step here and will be dealt with as a lot of "passionate, personal and agenda-driven speculations from supporters of those usual suspects". There are indeed so many other interesting historical matters and fascinating places to discuss about here and elsewhere, so I'll simply ignore it. Maybe, as you think, only the "usual suspects" may be particularly interested about Italy, the rest should just ignore it, it must be a very important topic just for those who actually have some personal interest in it due to Italian ancestry. So, I'll heed to your advice: ignore it as apparently we all should at least until many more aDNA samples are published. Now you've convinced me.

Good night and enjoy a nice week, guys!

 

[Ygorcs]

Ygorcs: You refuse to answer the question, is it a Mean or lower limit of a range. So if is the lowest Average amount, then I think you are calling it a "mean" correct? So if it is a "mean" which is an average or measure of central tendency, then if the sample used approximates a normal distribution, then by definition some of the population will in fact be below the mean and some will be below the mean. Is that not correct?

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it be so? That's to be expected.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

That is indeed correct, but AFTER the Neolithic there was progressive eastward shift linked especially to higher and higher CHG/Iran_N admixture accumulated over time and at least in a small part Levant_N-related admixture too. It was not a matter of quality, but a matter of quantity: increase in some ancestral components at the expense of others. That's how South Italian-like aDNA samples got ABA-like. After the MLBA, in PCA, higher steppe ancestry pulled them northwestward, higher CHG/Iran ancestry pulled them even more strongly northeastward, and a minor Levant_N+North African_EN ancestry pulled them a bit eastward, slightly away from the conjunction between the Sicily_BA:Yamnaya and Sicily_BA:CHG/Iran clines. See:

https://imgur.com/a/1MCWUBf

Ok, so let me follow your line of reasoning, lets take the CHG/Iran_NEO that came in after the Neolithic period, and leave out the Levant admixture. I don't have the paper in front of me but didn't one of the papers in the last few years model the Steppe Herders as something like 60% EHG + 40% CHG/Iran_NEO, etc. And off the top of my head, I don't remember the author and no sure I have that paper on my hard drive or paper copy handy to look it up, but I think those figures from memory are reasonably accurate. So could it be that the Steppe Herders that came into Rome had proportionally, more CHG/Iran_NEO than EHG, whereas the Steppe Herders that went into Central Europe, and even more so into Northern Europe were in terms of admixture, more EHG? For the record, I am only proposing a question here, again not making a dogmatic statement of fact.

So in other words, maybe during the period of the Bronze Age some of that further Eastward drift you are indicating was at least partially related to the Steppe migration people that came into Italy being more on the Southern flank of the Steppe migration and while yes they spoke a PIE, there admixture components had higher percentages of CHG/Iran_NEO vs. EHG?

Does any of your G25 models provide results that might suggest, not prove, that what I am saying is a plausible explanation?

 

[Jovialis]

Obsessed? When did you see me talking about this here before except when the thread was really about Italian genetic papers? The topic that is being discussed here now is this one, just like before the topic involved other populations and regions. Do you honestly think that my reactions against all these totally speculative and nearly paranoid accusations against me and other Eupedia members here are unwarranted and came out of the blue, to the point that I'm criticized as making baseless speculations about Philistines when I was in fact just keeping the conversation on by proposing some questions about the fate of Philistines, an intriguing subject that I know almost nothing about? Please, it's not that hard to try to be somewhat impartial about this even if it's a topic in which you have a strong disagreement about.
I'll leave it alone. I'm fully aware now that anything remotely close to South Italy is out of step here and will be dealt with as a lot of "passionate, personal and agenda-driven speculations". There are so many other interesting historical matters to discuss about here and elsewhere, so I'll simply ignore it. Maybe, as you think, only the "usual suspects" may be particularly interested about Italy, the rest should just ignore it, it must be a very important topic just for those who actually have some personal interest in it due to Italian ancestry. So, I'll heed to your advice: ignore it as apparently we all should at least until many more aDNA samples are published. Now you've convinced me.
Good night and enjoy a nice week, guys!

This is a free and open discussion. I think the thread has some very good information in it. Though I am concerned, because you are addressing people in all caps, and making a lot of accusations yourself. This is a subject I'm invested in, and we were having a discussion. We can agree to disagree. My issue is not with you as a person. But rather inferences made by G25 that uses broad components of samples that should be analysed individually or with fully disclosed caveats that should be considered. Pointing out that aspect is not meant as an affront.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it be so? That's to be expected.

Ok, then the average Sicilian not having less than 5% is not 100% correct, wouldn't you agree, 2/3 will be +/- 1 Standard deviation, 95% will be +/- 2 Standard deviations, so for the sake of discussion, lets say Mean=5, SD=1, then 2/3 will be 4-6, 95$ will be 3 to 7% and still be an average Sicilian. 99% will be plus/minus 3 SD's so 2 to 8 would get all non-outliers, so what would really be the statisical outlier is someone with less than 2% North African/Levant or > 8% North African_Levant. Again just for argument, a Mean of 5 and SD of 1.5, would get you to .5 and 9.5 covering 99% of the distribution and admixture < 0.5 on the left tail and > 9.5 on the right tail would be the statistical outlier.

Ok, so I think we both agree that we both have a grasp of Basic Statistical theory that one would learn say in a JR level college course. So I think then you would also agree that if some amateur draws Samples from the right half of the distribution, and then runs a calculator, regardless of which one, it would produce results that are highly questionable. Can we agree on that?

As to your question earlier, I just took the results straight from the vahadou genetics calculator programs using the raw data that is there in the Source data.