The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

[bicicleur 2]

Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.

check my post nr 296
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europea/page12?p=501346&viewfull=1#post501346
none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)

on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer

 

[LeBrok]

check my post nr 296
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europea/page12?p=501346&viewfull=1#post501346
none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)

on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer

It is more like it, because anyone till LN1 is pure hunter gatherer. LN1 is the first farmer/herder who showed up there. Rudimentary farmer, but still. I'm questioning their presentation of LN1 as pure hunter gatherer, from admixture and composition side.

 

[MarkoZ]

check my post nr 296
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europea/page12?p=501346&viewfull=1#post501346
none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)

on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer

Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.

His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.

 

[Angela]

Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.

His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.

It's a hot mess is what it is. You can structure these things to point in the direction you choose. For example, many of the Eurogenes calculators will give people inflated "Eastern European". Even if the reference populations are ancient samples, some of these "creators" never tell you the confidence intervals, or give you all the possible combinations with that information attached, or, they're absurd mixes of populations from wildly differing eras, or combinations of ancient samples with modern samples, or groups for whose movement there's absolutely no archaeological or historical proof. You have to be like a jaded and totally skeptical prosecutor in examining these things. Said prosecutors have the attitude that virtually everyone will shade or fudge the truth if not outright lie. Never accept what anyone says or "evidence" anyone gives you until you check for it yourself.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Angela, you have consistently claimed David Wesoloski adjusts his tests in a way for his agenda but have no evidence. You assume he does because he's a little Steppe and R1a bias. That isn't a good reason

 

[Angela]

Angela, you have consistently claimed David Wesoloski adjusts his tests in a way for his agenda but have no evidence. You assume he does because he's a little Steppe and R1a bias. That isn't a good reason

A little biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.

Nor did I mean to point to one particular blogger, and posters should be put into the mix as well.

I'm not saying that a lot of people don't have preferences. The question is do they try to massage every piece of data to fit a pre-determined narrative? Is there any balanced analysis whatsoever?

Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.

Haven't you been following the controversy because a project trying to replicate the results of dozens and dozens of psychology and even medical and medical genetics papers found that the majority of the results couldn't be replicated? The stats weren't totally accurate. Maybe it was just error, a lack of understanding of certain choices that were made, but the fact remains that the results weren't accurate.

Grow up, Fire-Haired. You're getting too old to be so naive.

 

[bicicleur 2]

It's a hot mess is what it is. You can structure these things to point in the direction you choose. For example, many of the Eurogenes calculators will give people inflated "Eastern European". Even if the reference populations are ancient samples, some of these "creators" never tell you the confidence intervals, or give you all the possible combinations with that information attached, or, they're absurd mixes of populations from wildly differing eras, or combinations of ancient samples with modern samples, or groups for whose movement there's absolutely no archaeological or historical proof. You have to be like a jaded and totally skeptical prosecutor in examining these things. Said prosecutors have the attitude that virtually everyone will shade or fudge the truth if not outright lie. Never accept what anyone says or "evidence" anyone gives you until you check for it yourself.

that is why I'm telling autosomal can be very misleading
I think those calculators who compare anciant DNA with modern populations are even worse
autosomal can give you a hint at best, but it is never solid proof

It looks like in this study they've mixed up CHG with Siberian (Karitiana)

 

[bicicleur 2]

It is more like it, because anyone till LN1 is pure hunter gatherer. LN1 is the first farmer/herder who showed up there. Rudimentary farmer, but still. I'm questioning their presentation of LN1 as pure hunter gatherer, from admixture and composition side.

what I understand is that LN1 is proto-corded ware, judging from the burial sites
and it is important to note he had CHG but he didn't have EEF contrary to later corded ware

 

[bicicleur 2]

A little biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.

Nor did I mean to point to one particular blogger, and posters should be put into the mix as well.

I'm not saying that a lot of people don't have preferences. The question is do they try to massage every piece of data to fit a pre-determined narrative? Is there any balanced analysis whatsoever?

Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.

Haven't you been following the controversy because a project trying to replicate the results of dozens and dozens of psychology and even medical and medical genetics papers found that the majority of the results couldn't be replicated? The stats weren't totally accurate. Maybe it was just error, a lack of understanding of certain choices that were made, but the fact remains that the results weren't accurate.

Grow up, Fire-Haired. You're getting too old to be so naive.

they call it 'alternative truth', it is not something new Trump now just invented, it is everywhere
these kind of alternative truths are much worse, because they are 'scientific alternative truths'
they used to formulate these in religion, but as that don't work anymore they hide it in a lot of 'science'
and I'm not talking about archeology and genetics here, I'm talking about all those 'social and environmental studies' those 'serious' politcians like to use as arguments

 

[bicicleur 2]

Something appears to be amiss in Genetiker's analysis here. The tell-tale sign is that the Caucasus 'pine green' component is completely absent in modern Europeans like Lithuanians. Not sure what he did to have them turn out like this.

His 'mid blue' component seems to be a synthesis of Caucasus & Eurohunter. I've never seen this happen.

by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
this is K = 13 from Genetiker
before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer

 

[Fire Haired14]

A little biased? I'd tell you to do some research on pertinent sites but what do you know, they've all been scrubbed.

Yes only a little biased.

Also, if you don't know that calculators and statistical analysis in general can be done to lean toward certain results depending on which samples, which reference populations are used, how the cluster is formed and on and on, then you don't understand these programs as well as you think you do.

People can do this for ADMIXTURE and PCA but not formal stats like F3 or D-stats or qpadm.

 

[MarkoZ]

People can do this for ADMIXTURE and PCA but not formal stats like F3 or D-stats or qpadm.

Formal three- or four population models still require certain assumptions about the ancestral populations. Why that's a problem with the generally skewed sampling of prehistoric populations should be obvious. That's why I'm inclinced to distrust amateurs whom I know to have a certain ideological tinge. They usually don't even make an attempt to work out the best model and tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.

A prime example of the three population model done right is, in my opinion, the Cassidy et al. paper on Irish ancient DNA. The results have been quite surprising, but are generally ignored by amateurs in favor of their own models.

by pine green,do you mean teal or something else?
this is K = 13 from Genetiker
before I studied K = 14 which he published last summer
in K = 14 the distinction between WHG and EHG is clearer

Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing. The component that peaks in the Neolithic Iranians.

 

[LeBrok]

Formal three- or four population models still require certain assumptions about the ancestral populations. Why that's a problem with the generally skewed sampling of prehistoric populations should be obvious. That's why I'm inclinced to distrust amateurs whom I know to have a certain ideological tinge. They usually don't even make an attempt to work out the best model and tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.

A prime example of the three population model done right is, in my opinion, the Cassidy et al. paper on Irish ancient DNA. The results have been quite surprising, but are generally ignored by amateurs in favor of their own models.



Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing. The component that peaks in the Neolithic Iranians.

I'm suspecting that this is an indication of Neolithic Iranian too. A farmer signature in LN1 after all.

 

[Northener]

'tend to settle with whatever best fits their narrative.'.

It's the best thing scientist can do! It's always a model wit basic assumption. It never equals reality. So it's at his best a narrative, a metaphor. History of populations isn't mathematics.....



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Angela]

It's the best thing scientist can do! It's always a model wit basic assumption. It never s equals reality. So it's at his best a narrative, a metaphor. History of populations isn't mathematics.....



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

So scientists should start with the narrative and try to force the facts to fit it instead of looking at the facts as objectively as possible and coming up with a logical narrative?

No, thank you.

 

[Northener]

So scientists should start with the narrative and try to force the facts to fit it instead of looking at the facts as objectively as possible and coming up with a logical narrative?

No, thank you.

No!
The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the reality of the past. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Sile]

No!
The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the past reality. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

the reconstruct should be then that these are the first Balts because IIRC the area found was only free from the ice-age 500 years before the age of these finds .
They should not be referred to as proto-slavs .............

 

[arvistro]

That CW guy was neither Balt nor Slav.
He most likely spoke late PIE. Balts came later to these lands, from Trzciniets, which was apparently in big lines a mix of those late PIE (not from Latvia but from same place Latvian CW came) plus Euro farmers.
That is my current narrative.

 

[MOESAN]

Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.

Agree - problems of historical perspective with basic ancient components and their presence(s) in more recent pops: how and from where newer pops acquired their diverse components compared to their cultural transformations...

 

[MOESAN]

No!
The past is gone. So only we can do is reconstruct it, by a narrative, as accurate as possible. But it never correspondences with the reality of the past. So there always be room for discussion and progressing views.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

TO try to go closer to reality is not a sin, and honest scientists can do it, pace by pace, for the most in using pluridisciplinary methods - the problem is some scientists and some more numerous "amateurs" are biased...