First of all do not quote pseudo scientific crap like Dodecad and Eurogenes.
We might not agree with everything what they intepret but I don't think neither you or me is in the position to call Dienekes or Polako pseudo scientists. Ironic also because you quote Lazaridis, probably not knowing who he really is.
Then Lazaridis et al found that Caucausians have higher ANE ancestry compared to Iranians, Armenians and other Middle Easterners. Otherwise they are pretty much the same. On the intra west Eurasian plot they are also very close.
No you are misintepreting him. Lazaridis says in his work, that in Western Asia ANE
peaks in
North Caucasus. That doesn't automatically conclude that all North Caucasian ethnic groups have more ANE than Iranians or other Middle Easterners. Adding to that, Georgians are technically speaking not North (even if they cluster genetically closest to them)but
West Caucasians. And Georgians have ANE level comparal to Anatolian Turks. The Only Caucasians having more ANE ancestry than Iranians, Kurds or even Iraqis are Nakh-Dagestin speakers (majority of North Caucasians) but not Kartvelian Speakers (West Caucasians).
Georgians are pretty much the same as Iranians, Kurds and non Beduin Iraqis, but without the ASI component. You can even see that in the spreadsheet from Lazaridis et al.
If you claim something than provide the source for your claim. Just a post before I tried to explain you that the ASI in Iranians, Kurds or Iraqis could (and very likely is) ANE derived and Kalash like.
Said that I don't think none of them can really pass in Europe, let alone Eastern Europe like Russia and Poland where people are much lighter and Mesolitich influenced. Georgians are 0% Mesolitich while Poles are mostly Mesolitich (70% at least).
I advise you to read more about the most recent scientific papers. You are at least 3 years behind with your knowledge about genetics. Mesolithic, lighter? Those two thinks oppose each other so much that I don't know where to start. I could list you so many things false about that statement, but I am not going to bother.
You also keep calling Georgians "slightly lighter skinned Kurds, Iranians or Iraqis" as if you could spot a lighter skinned version of these with easy. This is pseudo scientific talk of AnthroBoards. Maybe they are simply slightly lighter skinned West Asians. At the end of the day All Europeans are up to 80% just lighter skinned West Asians.
If that man told you he is Irish or French, would you jump up and and shout "no you are an Iraqi".
And obviously you have never seen a Georgian personally in your entire life otherwise you wouldn't talk like that. I have seen enough of them. They have their own look different from Armenians, Kurds, Iranians or Turks. Of course there is enough overlap. But there is also overlap to Near Easterners from different parts of Europe, because at the end of the day most of theEuropean genes came from the Near East. For example the "Mediterranean" genes in Europe are Southwest Asian and West Asian related, proto farmer derived ferticle crescent DNA, also. The only difference to Georgians here. That their farmer DNA has merged with 1/3 of ANE and became "West Asian" while in Europe it merged with 1/4 WHG and became known as "Mediterranean" and Europeans have additional but ANE related WHG.
And about the Armenians. They are as much "indo Europinized" as allot of nations in Europe.
