Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age, despite high mobility

[Ghurier]

You're very naive if you think that science is science and thus devoided of any bias. Science has always been in the service of power. Or have we already forgotten about the scientists serving the Nazis?

Wow, it escaladed quickly ...

I know many people have biases, I just don't care about other people biases and I don't try to enter the mind of other peoples to imaginate why they are doing what they are doing.
I just try (as much as possible) to have the more objective approach.

Thus, biased or not, if their claim is valid, I don't care if they are emphasing it for their own pet-imaginary narrative ... if the claim is valid, it is valid, period !
Who is doing ideology when some observations "have to be hidden" because "nasty peoples" might use it ?
Sry, I don't do that.

Power always try to manipulate science/data to its own advantage ... Scientific production didn't have to serve any master.
What matter at the end of the day are the facts !

The very idea that science as science deserves unconditional trust is anti-scientific.

Did anyone claimed such a thing ?
Science is a permanent evolving construction.
Obviously, mistakes/frauds are made on the road, but ultimately they will be "corrected" by a carefull analysis of the data.

Yet, I provided statistical arguments showing that north African DNA got injected inside IA-Europe ... Your silence speaks volumes.

You absolutely missed my point about the example you gave of Neanderthals.

Neanderthal heritage is believed to be present in all Europeans, and it is admixture that it goes back tens and tens of thousands of years. Can the same be said of the Iron Age and Post-Iron Age North African? Can it really be said that all Western Europeans have a North African heritage?

I already replied to you :

We have significant amount of haplogroup tracing the contact between north Africa and Europe, I would find surprising considering the population movement during Roman era and later during middle age if someone in Europe today manage to have 0 ancestors from north Africa if we go back ~3000 years ago.

After, the question of "are all Europeans carrying ancestry from north African by 1000 BCE ?" is a more tricky question.
Because, when the injection is small, it is easy to lost the genetic material by drift (that's why even with all living humans today you can't recover 100% of neanderthal genome).
Still your very existence is conditionned to this "DNA injection", even if by drift this DNA didn't made it to you.

A ~10th generation ancestor might provide 0% of your actual genome, yet without this dude you don't exists.

Do you really understand what I am talking about? It would not seem so.

That sounds "agressive". And you, are you sure you understand ?
I noticed that you failed to reply to my arguments about Y-DNA injection during European IA.
Maybe it is because you failed to understand it.

Western Europe according to this paper

Yes and ?
Are you being picky because I put alltogether western, central, and northern Europe ?
What is the point here ?
Do you know how we call such strategy in science ? "Hypercritical methodology" (being picky about pointless elements).
This is a well known strategy of pseudo-scientists (showing they are unable to identify the key elements of a discussion, either on purpuse or by ignorance).
I faced that behavior quite often in my own field.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Wow, it escaladed quickly ...

I know many people have biases, I just don't care about other people biases and I don't try to enter the mind of other peoples to imaginate why they are doing what they are doing.
I just try (as much as possible) to have the more objective approach.

Thus, biased or not, if their claim is valid, I don't care if they are emphasing it for their own pet-imaginary narrative ... if the claim is valid, it is valid, period !
Who is doing ideology when some observations "have to be hidden" because "nasty peoples" might use it ?
Sry, I don't do that.

Power always try to manipulate science/data to its own advantage ... Scientific production didn't have to serve any master.
What matter at the end of the day are the facts !



Did anyone claimed such a thing ?
Science is a permanent evolving construction.
Obviously, mistakes/frauds are made on the road, but ultimately they will be "corrected" by a carefull analysis of the data.

Yet, I provided statistical arguments showing that north African DNA got injected inside IA-Europe ... Your silence speaks volumes.



I already replied to you :

After, the question of "are all Europeans carrying ancestry from north African by 1000 BCE ?" is a more tricky question.
Because, when the injection is small, it is easy to lost the genetic material by drift (that's why even with all living humans today you can't recover 100% of neanderthal genome).
Still your very existence is conditionned to this "DNA injection", even if by drift this DNA didn't made it to you.

A ~10th generation ancestor might provide 0% of your actual genome, yet without this dude you don't exists.



That sounds "agressive". And you, are you sure you understand ?
I noticed that you failed to reply to my arguments about Y-DNA injection during European IA.
Maybe it is because you failed to understand it.



Yes and ?
Are you being picky because I put alltogether western, central, and northern Europe ?
What is the point here ?
Do you know how we call such strategy in science ? "Hypercritical methodology" (being picky about pointless elements).
This is a well known strategy of pseudo-scientists (showing they are unable to identify the key elements of a discussion, either on purpuse or by ignorance).
I faced that behavior quite often in my own field.

You still do not give me an answer to my question, so far you have only made insinuations with side arguments that do not prove that every Western European may have really North African ancestry.

I didn't comment on E-M35 because you don't think it proves in any way what we are talking about.

I am only interested in the accuracy of the claims of archaeognetic studies. About the rest I don't give a damn. And to claim on the basis of a single sample found in Austria that all Western Europeans may have North African ancestry is simply a gamble.

 

[Ghurier]

You still do not give me an answer to my question, so far you have only made insinuations with side arguments that do not prove that every Western European may have really North African ancestry.

I answeared twice,

We have significant amount of haplogroup tracing the contact between north Africa and Europe, I would find surprising considering the population movement during Roman era and later during middle age if someone in Europe today manage to have 0 ancestors from north Africa if we go back ~3000 years ago.

After, the question of "are all Europeans carrying ancestry from north African by 1000 BCE ?" is a more tricky question.
Because, when the injection is small, it is easy to lost the genetic material by drift (that's why even with all living humans today you can't recover 100% of neanderthal genome).
Still your very existence is conditionned to this "DNA injection", even if by drift this DNA didn't made it to you.

LIKELY most modern European have at least 1 ancestor from North Africa when looking in the last 3000 years.
You've not isolated enough populations in Europe to dodge that.

Main argument :
The large number of Y-DNA injection during IA and Roman times, all across Europe (mediteranean coast during 1st milenia BCE and whole Europe due to Romans).
If the Y-DNA survived it means that descendants were produced and that the genetic material of the carrier got dilueted in the population.

I didn't comment on E-M35 because you don't think it proves in any way what we are talking about.

You're not in my mind .
And yes, it proves that a significant (still small overall) amount of North African DNA was injected in Europe during 1st millenia BCE and during Roman era.
If not, please explains us how you inject North-African Y-DNA in Europe without importing North-African autosomal DNA aswell !!!

For exemple, do you believe that modern R1b carriers in Europe have more WSH dna than modern G-carriers ?
If you wonder, the answear is NO.
Same apply to all components injected millennia ago that had time to diffuse inside the population.
Peculiar ancestry at the level of an individual lineage have a typical survivance of few centuries.

After, if you refuse arguments showing that some North African DNA injection occured then of course no one will ever be able to prove you that it occured .

I am only interested in the accuracy of the claims of archaeognetic studies.

Not really.

 

[Pax Augusta]

I answeared twice,
LIKELY most modern European have at least 1 ancestor from North Africa when looking in the last 3000 years.
You've not isolated enough populations in Europe to dodge that.

I get it, so you are not a European. I guess yours is also just disinterested love of truth.

Ahahah.

 

[Ghurier]

I get it, so you are not a European. I guess yours is also just disinterested love of truth.

Showing your true colors ?
But as you ask, yes, it is really my "disinterested quest for reality" speaking here. Can you claim the same ?
Do you know how I recognise pseudo-scientists ? They always want to speak about me instead of speaking of the data ... But that's something we have in common, I also love to speak about myself.

Honestly, you should have read carefully this thread (because I mentionned it), my autosomal DNA is typically Hallstatt-like (closest IA-sample I18492 HUN_la_tene 290 BCE).
According to DNAgenics, here are all the BCE samples with who I share "significant" segments :

Last time I checked, 23andMe was assigning me 100% of European segments.
Which only means that in a ~400 years horizon all my ancestors were most likely in Europe ...
Which is consistant with my 11 generations deep genealogic tree for the ~300 last years (thanks to french records for that), of which the last 3-4 generations are "DNA-confirmed" by cousins.

Also, my mtDNA is likely lurking in Europe since ~35 kyr, and my Y-DNA entered Europe at worst ~3500 BCE.

For fun, here is the map, with each polygon being a city/village, of my ancestors localization between 1700 and 1750 CE. Colors from green to red indicating the density of ancestors. Colors are in log-scale, if not, only the few villages around my birth place would be visible :

Thus, genetically, I'm a gaul, linguistically I'm French, culturally speaking I'm like from deep deep deep north-east France (thus French with a little bit of germanic influences).
But somehow, you're right, I'm not "European", most of my recent ancestry is localised at the scale of a Canton !!!
And the cherry on the cake ? With two parents born at 3km of distance ... I have 0% consanguinity (no shared segments between my parents, and first ancestor shared between them on my genealogic tree : 10 generations before me) !


I'll be honest, even if I don't care that much about people motivations, I'm not blind, I was suspecting it since the first message, but now I acquired a deep certitude about your real motivations here.
Thank you !

 

[Pax Augusta]

Showing your true colors ?
But as you ask, yes, it is really my "disinterested quest for reality" speaking here. Can you claim the same ?
Do you know how I recognise pseudo-scientists ? They always want to speak about me instead of speaking of the data ... But that's something we have in common, I also love to speak about myself.

Honestly, you should have read carefully this thread (because I mentionned it), my autosomal DNA is typically Hallstatt-like (closest IA-sample I18492 HUN_la_tene 290 BCE).
According to DNAgenics, here are all the BCE samples with who I share "significant" segments :

Last time I checked, 23andMe was assigning me 100% of European segments.
Which only means that in a ~400 years horizon all my ancestors were most likely in Europe ...
Which is consistant with my 11 generations deep genealogic tree for the ~300 last years (thanks to french records for that), of which the last 3-4 generations are "DNA-confirmed" by cousins.

Also, my mtDNA is likely lurking in Europe since ~35 kyr, and my Y-DNA entered Europe at worst ~3500 BCE.

For fun, here is the map, with each polygon being a city/village, of my ancestors localization between 1700 and 1750 CE. Colors from green to red indicating the density of ancestors. Colors are in log-scale, if not, only the few villages around my birth place would be visible :

Thus, genetically, I'm a gaul, linguistically I'm French, culturally speaking I'm like from deep deep deep north-east France (thus French with a little bit of germanic influences).
But somehow, you're right, I'm not "European", most of my recent ancestry is localised at the scale of a Canton !!!
And the cherry on the cake ? With two parents born at 3km of distance ... I have 0% consanguinity (no shared segments between my parents, and first ancestor shared between them on my genealogic tree : 10 generations before me) !


I'll be honest, even if I don't care that much about people motivations, I'm not blind, I was suspecting it since the first message, but now I acquired a deep certitude about your real motivations here.
Thank you !

You are a real rooster. A true galletto.