What is your source for these percentages for the Red Sea component? There are calculators and then there are calculators.
Dodecad K10a the first and most used source for Red Sea percentages as far as I know.
Why would you assume that at least some part of it wasn't always in the "farmer" genome, through the Natufians, for example? It would then have spread everywhere the farmers went. It may have been cut slightly in the northern Near East when those peoples absorbed a lot of ANE.
I did assume that some very noisy percentage of it was always part of it at least among some EEF farmers. It is possible that some Red Sea was already present among the earliest farmers but Red Sea is not automatically Red Sea most of the Red Sea showing up in EEF is actually the EEF portion of Red Sea itself. But than there is some SSA (1-3%) among EEF farmers but the point is that a Red Sea (1/4 SSA) component rised exponentially in Northern West Asia and as well probably in Europe. The oldest Bronze Age Armenian samples have 0-2% Red Sea this rises with every century the samples get younger, by few percentage ending by modern Populations with 5%(non Semite NWA) -17%(Semite Levantines) Red Sea. I imagine that Proto Semites had 1/3 of their aDNA as Red Sea while the rest was rather Mediterranean as I explained above why I think that way.
So Iranians have ~5% Red Sea. 5%* 3= ~15%. The reason why I take the full 5% instead of decreasing it by 1-2% as I did it above, is because among Iranians we are probably dealing with Teal Farmers and I suspect that Teal farmers had close to non Red Sea. So almost all Red Sea in Iranians is probably real Semitic.
Have Oetzi or Stuttgart or NE or any of the ancient farmers been run through calculators that have that component? I know, for example, that Otzi had a S.W.Asian Component, which Dienekes said was related to the "Red Sea" component. (7.6%, comparing, for example, to 7.1% for Tuscans, 5.6 for Northern Italians, and 12.5% for Southern Italians/Sicilians.)
Southwest Asian is related but not the same as Red Sea.
2 points
1. Ötzi is a late Neolithic sample, by this time some more Red Sea definitely reached already the farmers slowly. It's not like Red Sea came by one big migration it was a slow process as we see on the Armenian samples.
2. The portion that shows up as Southwest Asian is the EEF portion of Southwest Asian itself. The Southwest Asian component itself contains like ~50% Red Sea if you compare K10a to World9 calculator this get's obvious. Since Red Sea itself can be decribed as 3/4 Caucasian and 1/4 SSA as by Dienekes himself, than Southwest Asian itself only contains 1/8 SSA. So Southern Italians having 12,5% Southwest Asian means they have like ~6.25% Red Sea. What seems pretty much correct if you take a look at the Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0
According to that they have 6.1% Red Sea. And I honestly doubt that all of it in South Europe is Neolithic European but majority of it probably Semite. That also makes historically sense. If we expect that max 2% of it is EEF Neolithic. Than 4% is Afro_Asiatic related, that makes a total of 12% (Semite) influx into Sicily for example. Thats significantly less than Lebanon with 40% but it's there.
On the other hand Spaniards have like 1.6% Red Sea. Half of it probably Neolithic and other half Semite related. Thats a total of 2.4% Semite admixture, but than despite Red Sea component eating up all SSA in Italians( which is a strong indiciation that SSA in Italy came via Semites) there still remains 1.5% SSA in Spaniards. Thats a strong indiciation that this SSA in Spaniards has a different source. Post Neolithic source, since majority of Neolithic SSA gets eaten up by Red Sea already. So let's say 1.25% is post Neolithic (just my estimation) and Morrocans are like 1/5 SSA, thats like 6.25% North African admixture. A total of 8.75% Afro_Asiatic admixture for Spaniards I assume. I know I will get some hate for these estimations but it's just my theory so calm down.
View attachment 7419
Also, could you explain your reasoning that Red Sea is 1/4 SSA?
I remember K10a Red Sea description as a even mix of Southwest Asian and East African. And according to a comment of Dienekes East African is like even mix of SSA and Caucasian(most likely EEF). So Red Sea 3/4 EEF 1/4 SSA fits.
As to scientific evidence that people don't want to accept because of their prejudices or "ethnic" myths, I try very hard to point it out when I see it, even when it is certain Italians who are doing it. (It's also important to realize that population genetics aficionados from any country are not always representative of most citizens in that country.) Unfortunately, it sometimes seems like a many headed hydra, one in each part of the world, including the Middle East, as I'm sure you know. Northern Middle Easterners do not, in my experience, want to be associated with Arabs, for example, perhaps because of the SSA admixture.
Yep that might be one reason for allot who are into genetics but not exactly the main reason: The main reason is a geopolitical. Let me give you a hint. Biggest sponsors of ISIS in Syria are Qatar beside Turkey, and Al Qaida in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria(AL Nusra) and around the world, Saudi Arabia.
And expect Saudi Arabia (which did take allot of refugees it seems, though they are also fault for the miserey) non of the Arab Gulf states such as qatar, UAE took a single refugee.
Thats just one example why even Arabic speaking Levantines themselves! do not want to be associated with them.