So why aren't Circassians, Georgians, and Chechens considered Europeans by a lot of this forum?

[Petalpusher]

Well in actuality, PCA plots only tell part of the picture. That's why they all look so different. Your best bet is some admixture calculators and d-stat runs. Even admixture calculators aren't always accurate, that's why no scientific studies ever use them. They often proxy component that are something else, and they don't weigh out how related certain components are to each other, they just compare score numbers of several labeled groups between modern population. However, admixture calculators still give a better picture than PCAs.


Also, that's pretty much every non european caucasoids problem. They either lack the WHG or have too much of a foreign component.

Admixture calculators are exactly the same thing, they are based off fst, just like in studies. Plenty of studies even used the base K13 model for a while. They do weigh components to each others, that's actually the only thing they do, assessing each sample's common genetic drift with the others. The first thing you run for a sample is something like (Yoruba;x,Han) x being the population you test, see which is closer (shares more to be precise), then go further etc..

In the end you ll get something like this in f3 (lighter color: less shared genetic, redder: more shared genetic). Obviously WHG/SHG comes out as the the whitest component (the color in the histogram..) tested against Yoruba, as it is the most removed from Africans. Also not very Han like (E_Asia). If you lack WHG you are not going to cluster closer with genetically northern populations, it's that simple.

[Myanthropologies]

Higher ANE than Europeans, so no

Weren't ANEs like Tatars or saamis though?

[Shepherd]

Higher ANE than Europeans, so no

Hardly higher than NE Europeans

[Danishmend]

Weren't ANEs like Tatars or saamis though?

OMG no, the component is based on "Mal'ta boy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27...orth_Eurasians

The term "Ancient North Eurasian" (ANE) is the name given in genetic literature to an ancestral component that represents descent from the people of the Mal'ta-Buret' culture or a population closely related to them.[3] According to 2016 genomic study, it was found that global maximum of ANE ancestry occurs in modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Nganasans and Yukaghirs.[3]

Genomic study also indicates that the Yamnaya invasion from steppes introduced "Ancient North Eurasian" admixture into Europe.[2][3] "Ancient North Eurasian" genetic component is visible in tests of the Yamnaya people, which makes up 50% of their ancestry.[2] as well as modern-day Europeans (5%-18% ANE admixture), but not of Europeans predating the Bronze Age.[2][3]



Tatars and Samis have more ANE than NE Europeans, but they are still far from representing pure Ancient North Eurasians.

Hardly higher than NE Europeans

Caucasians have more ANE than NE Europeans.

[Myanthropologies]

Admixture calculators are exactly the same thing, they are based off fst, just like in studies. Plenty of studies even used the base K13 model for a while. They do weigh components to each others, that's actually the only thing they do, assessing each sample's common genetic drift with the others. The first thing you run for a sample is something like (Yoruba;x,Han) x being the population you test, see which is closer (shares more to be precise), then go further etc..

In the end you ll get something like this (lighter color: less shared genetic, redder: more shared genetic)

Then why are d stats slightly different? On anthrogenica I was told that PCAs and admixture calcs can be sometimes very pseudoscientific, and that d stats and IBS are the true way to go. What is sketchy though is that I saw like 100s of people on that site share admixture calculator results, yet later claim that d stats results are different.

Please though, if you could inform me on this subject a bit more that'd be awesome. I do not want to think everything I've been learning for the past 6 months in terms of genetics/anthropologies is a lie lol. The people with the whole d stats thing did seem to have a bit of an agenda. On d stats, pashtuns were closer to Russians and Finns than to Pamiri Tajiks,though pamiri Tajiks, some other caucasus and NW indian pops still showed up. I was highly confused. On the other hand "d stats" said that Georgians are closer to French people than to Azeris l, Persians, etc. Again, makes no sense. The one guy claimed he had support from "Behar et al 2010," but I'm not sure if I buy that.

[Myanthropologies]

OMG no, the component is based on "Mal'ta boy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27...orth_Eurasians

The term "Ancient North Eurasian" (ANE) is the name given in genetic literature to an ancestral component that represents descent from the people of the Mal'ta-Buret' culture or a population closely related to them.[3] According to 2016 genomic study, it was found that global maximum of ANE ancestry occurs in modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Nganasans and Yukaghirs.[3]

Genomic study also indicates that the Yamnaya invasion from steppes introduced "Ancient North Eurasian" admixture into Europe.[2][3] "Ancient North Eurasian" genetic component is visible in tests of the Yamnaya people, which makes up 50% of their ancestry.[2] as well as modern-day Europeans (5%-18% ANE admixture), but not of Europeans predating the Bronze Age.[2][3]



Tatars and Samis have more ANE than NE Europeans, but they are still far from representing pure Ancient North Eurasians.



Caucasians have more ANE than NE Europeans.

Hmm. I thought the Yamnaya = ANE + WHG was dismissed a couple of months ago


I thought now they say it was either WHG + Iranian Neotholic or EHG + Iranian Neotholic.

[Shepherd]

Caucasians have more ANE than NE Europeans.

of course, but its just barely higher

[Myanthropologies]

of course, but its just barely higher

Aren't the Eupedia maps really old though? (Not that I don't believe your statement, but just saying). The "Early European Farmer" map on there still indicates that it peaks in Iranians and Jews rather than Sardinians (who they actually peak in). Those Anatolian Farmers were genetically more northern than Sicilians were.

[Berahthraban]

Gedrosia-DNA calculators are terrible, at least for European populations, but there are pretty accurate gedmatch calculators. MDLP, Eurogenes and even some outdated Dodecad calculators work much better than Gedrosia calculators.

I don't think I can find any individual result with zero distance, but I can use Turkish average.

Eurogenes K8, East-Central Anatolian Turkish Average (Cappadocian samples)

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Turkish @ 0,80873
2 Azeri @ 5,424639
3 Ossetian @ 8,44629
4 Kurdish @ 8,963052
5 Iranian @ 9,393984
6 Adygei @ 9,600197
7 Abkhasian @ 9,699285
8 North_Ossetian @ 10,11616
9 Balkar @ 10,160396
10 Kabardin @ 10,464718
11 Kumyk @ 11,105368
12 Georgian_Laz @ 11,284381
13 Georgian_Imer @ 12,151084
14 Armenian @ 12,618906
15 Chechen @ 12,922456
16 Lebanese_Muslim @ 13,28911
17 Georgian_Jewish @ 13,68917
18 Ashkenazi @ 13,698742
19 Sephardic_Jewish @ 13,812133
20 Syrian @ 14,16589
163 iterations.

As you can see Georgians are far from the Turkish average, this is what all gedmatch calculators say.

What they lack in WHG they make up for in ANE.

North Caucasians have more ANE than South Europeans (22-28% vs 0-9%)
South Europeans have more WHG than North Caucasians (19-34% vs 2-11%)
South Europeans have more Near Eastern than North Caucasians (60-67% vs %55-60)

Genetics aside, North Caucasians have higher rates of light hair and coloured eyes than South Europeans.

This is basically my answer to you, Petalpusher: "Generally it's accurate. So one could wonder how they could plot here if they are as much basal than south to central Europeans, it's just the lack of WHG, in a way they also have too much ANE related ancestry. If they were swapping some of it for some WHG they would be Bulgarian,Tuscan or even N.Italian.". The WHG makes a huge difference, and their extra ANE actually drags them too much east.

Caucasians and Turks plot right next to each other in all maps I've seen, and the same result can be seen on many Gedmatch calculators.

[Shepherd]

Aren't the Eupedia maps really old though? (Not that I don't belive your statement, but just saying). The "Early European Farmer" map on there still indicates that it peaks in Iranians and Jews rather than Sardinians (who they actually peak in). Those Anatolian Farmers were genetically more northern than Sicilians were.

Idk, you may well be right

This is just what Ive seen