Genetic overlap of MENA pops with Europeans (based on EUtest K15)

[Peterski]

In Eurogenes EUtest K15 all Europeans are basically a mix of 7 admixtures:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19c_bZjUV_RouKyGyLHmMDw57WwAVabXFJOaso_gcuRE/edit#gid=1872836177

Of these seven, four were present already in Mesolithic Europe, those were:

North Sea + Atlantic + Baltic + East European

The remaining three came to Europe in the Neolithic and Bronze Age times:

West Med + East Med + West Asian

I checked the combined percent of these 7 admixtures in MENA populations:

Sorted list, from most overlapping with Europe (Georgians) to least (Somalis):

62171

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62171&d=1474927596

[Myanthropologies]

Why does afghan pashtun say SSA admixed? They're not.

[Peterski]

Yemenite Jews have SSA, not Afghan Pashtuns.

[Petalpusher]

You are missing the "Red_Sea" which is important in MENA.

[Peterski]

Red Sea isn't common in Europe. And I was checking % of admixtures typical for Europeans.

Georgians have the highest combined percent of admixtures which are typical for Europeans.

They score on average 93,66% of admixtures which are common in Europe (including 15,54% of North Sea + Atlantic + Baltic + East European and 78,12% of West Med + East Med + West Asian).

Of course West Med + East Med + West Asian were not yet present in Mesolithic Europe.

Loschbour, La Brana & other WHG score as a mix of North Sea + Atlantic + Baltic + East Euro.

[Grishnack]

I'm gonna save this for when Stears calls me a gypsy midget.

[Myanthropologies]

Yemenite Jews have SSA, not Afghan Pashtuns.

Shit I wasn't wearing my glasses so thats probably why I missed that

[Petalpusher]

Red Sea isn't common in Europe. And I was checking % of admixtures typical for Europeans.

Georgians have the highest combined percent of admixtures which are typical for Europeans.

It's an intense component similar to SW_Asian, scoring 5-10% is a lot.


Georgians have no more overlap than other groups with Euro they just score a shit ton of West Asian, while average Europeans barely reach 5% of it (2% in Norway for ex), you are just assuming everything is the same than West Asian in your grouping, which creates that effect.

The best way to see overlap is simply a pca.

[Peterski]

Most of Southern Europeans have double digits of West Asian admixture in this calculator.


The best way to see overlap is simply a pca.

A PCA would be good for similarity or relatedness, but overlap is something a bit different.

Europeans have much more of West Asian than Red Sea, that's why I included West Asian.

[Petalpusher]

Most of Southern Europeans have double digits of West Asian admixture in this calculator.



A PCA would be good for similarity or relatedness, but overlap is something a bit different.

Europeans have much more of West Asian than Red Sea, that's why I included West Asian.

It's limited to the southern half of Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, that's not a lot of population, everyone else in Europe is well under 10% West Asian. As it's very far southeast on the pca, not surprising.

The majority of what an European is scoring isn't 50% West Asian, yet you see it as if they overlap with that 50% West Asian + everything else just because they score 5% of it. I'm not sure what you are trying to calculate but that's not an overlap. In the same way a Lebanese gets a higher overlap score with Europe than an Ashkenazi just because he scores more East_med.. that isn't right obviously.

[Peterski]

What is this "West Asian", what makes it different from "West & East Med"? And what about CHG admixture, or "Caucasus-Gedrosia" from other calculators, which is widespread all over Europe. On Anthrogenica Passa posted maps of Natufian / Levant Neolithic / Anatolia Neolithic admixture but I can't find them now.

[Petalpusher]

What is this "West Asian", what makes it different from "West Med" and "East Med"? And what about CHG admixture, or "Caucasus-Gedrosia" from other calculators, which is widespread all over Europe. On Anthrogenica Passa posted maps of Natufian / Levant Neolithic / Anatolia Neolithic admixture but I can't find them now.

West_Asian is probably similar to CHG or Iran_N+ 1/3 "Eastern" as it appears on the pca, but the calculator predates theses genomes so like all others components they are not really based on actual aDNA but more some kind of regioning.

litvin, i think i got what you are trying to say. you sum up components that all and all europeans score and exclude what majority dont score extra to whats in their other part (like siberian, east asian, amerindian, oceanian, red sea, south asian, south east asian, sub saharan african, north east african).

but this method also says georgians are more european than north west russians, finns, portuguese, south italians, sicilians and almost all spanish samples (as some of these score siberian, some score red sea, some score african). theres no need to say this in this way. either way georgians are allready white and european. its only some anthroforum account that can say other wise. there are even way more fairer (and of course euro featured needless to say) people who are considered non euro (only on forum though) though they always consider them selves european.

and some of people in your list also include some ethnichities which are considered european by 23andme too (given category/color on pcas). this is from your sheet:


<tbody>
Population
European


North_Swedish


94.86




Georgian


93.66




Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon


92.87




Abkhasian


92.82




Spanish_Murcia


92.75




South_Italian


92.576666663




Portuguese


92.14




Spanish_Extremadura


92.03




Lezgin


91.81




Spanish_Galicia


91.68




Finnish


91.42




Adygei


90.95




Kargopol_Russian


90.91




Tabassaran


90.793333331




Armenian


90.65




East_Sicilian


90.403333333




Chechen


89.91




Cyprian


89.84




East_Finnish


89.63




Tatar


77.250000003




Saami_Finland


77.01




Chuvash


73.95




Mari


67.743333336




West_Greenlander


16.49




East_Greenlander


4.56



</tbody>

and a similar ranking was made by dna tribes. heres the percentages:

http://s25.postimg.org/dhzkq5bnz/dna.png
SaveSave
SaveSave

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

West_Asian is probably similar to CHG or Iran_N+ 1/3 "Eastern" as it appears on the pca, but the calculator predates theses genomes so like all others components they are not really based on actual aDNA but more some kind of regioning.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but speaking of West Asian, how come Basques have practically 0? Indo-Europeans were a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers with some Caucasus HG right? If they brought the 80%+ R1b to Basques, how come Basques have practically 0 West Asian?

[Myanthropologies]

Who is the base population for "European"? Ashkenazis should obviously be at the top of this, considering they have the least genetic distance to A population in Europe (sicilians). Some of those groups will be genetically closer to certain European groups than others. For example, afghan pamiris, tajiks, Pasthuns, etc, will be genetically closer to eastern europeans such as the Chuvash and Russians more than Lebanese people would be. On the other hand, Lebanese people are genetically closer to southern Euros. Idk if I consider caucasians mena, they are definitely geographically and phenotypically euro, besides Armenians and Azeris.

[Petalpusher]

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but speaking of West Asian, how come Basques have practically 0? Indo-Europeans were a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers with some Caucasus HG right? If they brought the 80%+ R1b to Basques, how come Basques have practically 0 West Asian?

If you have the answer you probably qualify for a nobel prize. Likely their R1b came before or some huge founding effect, Basque imo have very little steppe, they get 5% ANE and this might even come from some mesolithic admix who had a little already. They also score low EHG/CHG, and no Iran_N (all that branch really), though no Iran_N is more common for Euro.

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

If you have the answer you probably qualify for a nobel prize. Likely the R1b came before, Basque imo have very little steppe, they get 5% ANE and this might even come from some mesolithic admix who had a little already. They also score low EHG/CHG, and no Iran_N (all that branch really), though no Iran_N is more common for Euro.

Yeah that makes sense. I mean, the only way that i can think of for them to have so low autosomal DNA from the steppe and still get all their R1b from Indo-Europeans is if Indo-Europeans killed all the males of "Population 1" and raped all the women, making Population 1 100% R1b and 50% Autosomal steppe. Then POP1 does the same to another population, POP2 (and POP2 becomes 100% R1b and 25% steppe). This occurs one more time till Population 3 is 100% R1b and 12.5% Autosomal steppe, and finally this population does the same to the Basques, making them 100% R1b and 5% ANE. It's just so implausible.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but speaking of West Asian, how come Basques have practically 0? Indo-Europeans were a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers with some Caucasus HG right? If they brought the 80%+ R1b to Basques, how come Basques have practically 0 West Asian?

sorry for interrupting. petalplusher will answer better but heres what i can tell with my english. they dont score 0 %. i mean you can show as 0 % but it doesnt mean they dont have any thing that other have. if you make a calculator using basque as reference for south west european, they will have only south west european and even no other component for instance but in their 100 % south west european there will be many stuff, let it be south east euro or north east euro so on. but these are geographic component based components. as for ancient ancestry based ones for instance, if you want to use a chg as one of component names in your calculator (k=10, k=5, what ever), you need to treat chg as 100 % same thing to use it as reference. but chg ancient genomes them selves werent pure (they had at least 21.4 extra ehg and 7 % extra whg according to lazaridis. though you can model them many different things. its not easy to understand who descend from who. you say that x is older than y so x is ancestral to y but later you find an older y genome with difference. so dont take any thing granted. and other components have ancestry from each other too, like whg was at least 6,7 % extra ehg. do you also know how corded ware genomes be modeled as half? well i wont reveal it now:)) another thing for instance in calculators you see whg/shg -- but not all whgs were exactly same, let alone scandinavian hunter gatherers which you can model as 42,9 % non-whg but ehg which was around 75 % ancient north eurasian. its also very hard to say that one doesnt have any of this. for instance in calculators around you dont see a north african having ane. its like 0 %. so they dont have any? but that calculator says north africans have some whg. and whg has some ehg. and ehg has ane. so north african has ane. but if you take it as indirect you dont add it so they score 0 %. calculators ignore many things. similarly basque have any west eurasian stuff in them too. but a calculator can say basque dont have any x but have y. and y in itself is half x but if you treat y genome as a single stuff and use it as reference all those bunch of x that basque have will not be shown in results. also if you remember dodecad's k10 (or k13) georgians unlike their neighbors had very low north euro but was like high caucasian (or what ever its called in that calculator) component. but the mds plot for calculator components was like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s640/1_2.png
look at north european and west asian (that misleading name). also see mediterranean and south west asian. so what georgians had in huge amount (west asian) had already some thing very close to north euro component or vice versa or it was ancestral to north euro itself so they didnt score extra amount. think of it like this: you have a son who start a dynasty and becomes king. people who descend from him (thus also from you) will be called noble. time passes and people say to you are not noble because you dont descend from that king. what they dont know is that the king is your son. blah blah :wink (basques and sardinians are other scape goats of calculators because they are often used as reference given their relative homogenity in genetic sense.)

ps. akh i see he already answered. any ways you can read i guess and understand my language:)

[Peterski]

Basque imo have very little steppe

In Eurogenes Steppe K10, ancient Yamnaya people score 95-100% Steppe, ancient Corded Ware people score 60-75% Steppe (German Bell Beaker people probably 40-60%, but I'm not sure). Modern Basques score around 5% Steppe, Sardinians score 0%. Modern Southern Europeans score 10-25% and Northern Europeans 20-40% (North-Western score probably 20-35 and North-Eastern around 25-40).

So Basques do have some Steppe admixture. Only Sardinians have minimal amounts.

Percent of Steppe admixture is lower almost everywhere in Europe than % of R1 haplogroup. But most of European mtDNA - especially in Western Europe - is from Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic WHG, so Steppe admixture had to be mostly from males. Add to this some founder effects, and this might explain why some populations have much more of Steppe Y-DNA than of Steppe autosomes.

As Gimbutas wrote it was a gangbang of Neolithic Europe by Steppe penis.

[Yggdrasil]

In Eurogenes Steppe K10, ancient Yamnaya people score 95-100% Steppe, ancient Corded Ware people score 60-75% Steppe (German Bell Beaker people probably 40-60%, but I'm not sure). Modern Basques score around 5% Steppe, Sardinians score 0%. Modern Southern Europeans score 10-25% and Northern Europeans 20-40% (North-Western score probably 20-35 and North-Eastern around 25-40).

So Basques do have some Steppe admixture. Only Sardinians have minimal amounts.

Percent of Steppe admixture is lower almost everywhere in Europe than % of R1 haplogroup. But most of European mtDNA - especially in Western Europe - is from Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic WHG, so Steppe admixture had to be mostly from males. Add to this some founder effects, and this might explain why some populations have much more of Steppe Y-DNA than of Steppe autosomes.

As Gimbutas wrote it was a gangbang of Neolithic Europe by Steppe penis.

How do we even define Neolithic and Mesolithic mtDNA?
What mtDNA did Indo-europeans have?

[GoneWithTheWind]

Somalis are Caucasoid in origin. Very obvious.

[Peterski]

Spreadsheet for Steppe K10 calculator (not population averages, but individuals):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb0GVyrf2ztR_QvoIYcmhWtsYv0p39avjqM-G3-6Xew/edit#gid=1809893991

[Peterski]

Some of ancient samples on Gedmatch:

http://forum.molgen.org/index.php?topic=8462.0

http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

I1290 Iran Neolithic - Gedmatch kit M967114
I1671 Iran Late Neolithic - Gedmatch kit M937770

Here are the results of Iran Neolithic when using Eurogenes EUtest K15:

Kit M967114. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 57.24
2 South_Asian 23.06
3 East_Med 17.75
4 Sub-Saharan 1.95

Kit M937770. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 55.34
2 East_Med 30.22
3 South_Asian 12.07
4 Sub-Saharan 2.36

====================================

I1661 Iran Copper Age - Gedmatch kit M124870

Here are the results of Iran Copper Age in Eurogenes EUtest K15:

Kit M124870. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 55.84
2 East_Med 36.11
3 South_Asian 7.46
4 Red_Sea 0.59

==============================

And "Iran_Recent" from Lazaridis 2016, who lived during the 1400s AD:

Kit T637158. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 36.1
2 East_Med 33.71
3 Eastern_Euro 9.65
4 Red_Sea 5.97
5 South_Asian 5.28
6 Baltic 4.33
7 Atlantic 2.89
8 North_Sea 2.05

[Peterski]

Samara EHG, Russia (sample I0124):

Kit M218547. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Eastern_Euro 41.05
2 North_Sea 25.76
3 Baltic 25.02
4 Amerindian 6.97
5 Atlantic 1.2

Khvalynsk culture, Russia (sample I0122):

Kit M340431. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 37.49
2 Eastern_Euro 31.74
3 Baltic 21.98
4 Amerindian 5.99
5 Atlantic 2.8

[Ylla]

me

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 23.71
2 West_Med 19.44
3 Atlantic 14.42
4 North_Sea 13.97
5 West_Asian 11.2
6 Baltic 9.2
7 Eastern_Euro 6.36
8 Red_Sea 1.71

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Greek_Thessaly 4.74
2 Greek 5.69
3 Tuscan 7.32
4 Italian_Abruzzo 7.65
5 Central_Greek 7.71
6 West_Sicilian 8.43
7 East_Sicilian 8.77
8 Ashkenazi 9.76
9 South_Italian 10.33
10 Bulgarian 10.73
11 North_Italian 11.83
12 Romanian 12.51
13 Italian_Jewish 14.32
14 Serbian 15.14
15 Algerian_Jewish 15.67
16 Sephardic_Jewish 15.96
17 Portuguese 19.01
18 Spanish_Extremadura 19.32
19 Spanish_Galicia 19.47
20 Spanish_Murcia 19.71

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 67.9% Greek_Thessaly + 32.1% Tuscan @ 3.68
2 73% Greek_Thessaly + 27% West_Sicilian @ 3.85
3 80.6% Greek_Thessaly + 19.4% North_Italian @ 3.9
4 92% Greek_Thessaly + 8% Sardinian @ 3.95
5 88.4% Greek_Thessaly + 11.6% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.99
6 89.1% Greek_Thessaly + 10.9% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.02
7 90.7% Greek_Thessaly + 9.3% Spanish_Aragon @ 4.08
8 93.3% Greek_Thessaly + 6.7% French_Basque @ 4.09
9 90.1% Greek_Thessaly + 9.9% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 4.1
10 89.2% Greek_Thessaly + 10.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.12
11 63.5% Greek_Thessaly + 36.5% Greek @ 4.19
12 91.4% Greek_Thessaly + 8.6% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4.21
13 74.8% Greek_Thessaly + 25.2% Italian_Abruzzo @ 4.22
14 90.2% Greek_Thessaly + 9.8% Spanish_Cataluna @ 4.23
15 91.8% Greek_Thessaly + 8.2% Southwest_French @ 4.23
16 89.8% Greek_Thessaly + 10.2% Spanish_Extremadura @ 4.23
17 90.2% Greek_Thessaly + 9.8% Portuguese @ 4.29
18 91.4% Greek_Thessaly + 8.6% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 4.34
19 61.8% Greek + 38.2% Tuscan @ 4.39
20 92.1% Greek_Thessaly + 7.9% Spanish_Galicia @ 4.45

[Peterski]

Kit M115616 - Neolithic Levant:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 48.63
2 West_Med 27.8
3 Red_Sea 23.25
4 Northeast_African 0.32

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Samaritan 22.01

[Peterski]

Copper Age Spain (sample I1300):

Kit M547763. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Med 53.76
2 Atlantic 32.72
3 North_Sea 11.89
4 Red_Sea 1.62

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian 19.44
2 French_Basque 28.95
3 Spanish_Cantabria 29.15
4 Spanish_Aragon 29.59
5 Southwest_French 29.66

Copper Age Spain (sample ATP2):

Kit M849224. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Med 46.28
2 Atlantic 37.51
3 North_Sea 9.71
4 East_Med 4.54
5 Red_Sea 1.46
6 Sub-Saharan 0.26
7 Oceanian 0.25

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian 18.41
2 French_Basque 21.85
3 Spanish_Aragon 23.04
4 Spanish_Cantabria 23.54
5 Southwest_French 23.76

[Shepherd]

litvin, i think i got what you are trying to say. you sum up components that all and all europeans score and exclude what majority dont score extra to whats in their other part (like siberian, east asian, amerindian, oceanian, red sea, south asian, south east asian, sub saharan african, north east african).

but this method also says georgians are more european than north west russians, finns, portuguese, south italians, sicilians and almost all spanish samples (as some of these score siberian, some score red sea, some score african). theres no need to say this in this way. either way georgians are allready white and european. its only some anthroforum account that can say other wise. there are even way more fairer (and of course euro featured needless to say) people who are considered non euro (only on forum though) though they always consider them selves european.

and some of people in your list also include some ethnichities which are considered european by 23andme too (given category/color on pcas). this is from your sheet:



and a similar ranking was made by dna tribes. heres the percentages:

http://s25.postimg.org/dhzkq5bnz/dna.png
SaveSave
SaveSave
whats the source for this one?

is it accurate? interesting result, but I'm curious why Sardinia is 75%

They usually are almost entirely European aren't they? Like some isolated 100% European fortress, like the Basques

[Sikeliot]

is it accurate? interesting result, but I'm curious why Sardinia is 75%

They usually are almost entirely European aren't they? Like some isolated 100% European fortress, like the Basques


The West Med genetic component common to Sardinians can be split up into WHG and SW Asian.

[Rethel]

What mtDNA did Indo-europeans have?

Wrong question.

The missing part is what and when.

Generally IE have mts from A to Z... :)

[Shepherd]

The West Med genetic component common to Sardinians can be split up into WHG and SW Asian.

I see

[Dick]

It's limited to the southern half of Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, that's not a lot of population, everyone else in Europe is well under 10% West Asian. As it's very far southeast on the pca, not surprising.

The majority of what an European is scoring isn't 50% West Asian, yet you see it as if they overlap with that 50% West Asian + everything else just because they score 5% of it. I'm not sure what you are trying to calculate but that's not an overlap. In the same way a Lebanese gets a higher overlap score with Europe than an Ashkenazi just because he scores more East_med.. that isn't right obviously.


https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Sikeliot]

Someone asked me in a reputation comment why Sicily scores 70% European and Georgia 80%. It is because Sicilians' affinity to North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, Levant, etc. cannot be included as European, but genetic components from the Caucasus and West Asia are more overlapping with Europe.

[Bagot]

whats the source for this one?

is it accurate? interesting result, but I'm curious why Sardinia is 75%

They usually are almost entirely European aren't they? Like some isolated 100% European fortress, like the Basques

It's old and obsolete, and not even a peer-reviewed paper.

[Neon Knight]

I'm working on something similar which I will post in the near future. But I can say now that Sami and Sardinians turn out to be quite European.

[wvwvw]

..

[Stanislav]

I think that correctly look only for tru european markers: Athlantic, North Sea, Baltic and West_Med. East Euro - is in maximum in the uralic people - mari, chuvash and ets. East Med - is arabs, jewish and druzes, West Asian - is turks.

I see

yes, sikeliot gave you the correct answers. that paper (with yellow colored chart) is based on snps, how much common (specific variations in genome) you share with others. thats what matters. also on mds of the op calculator the ill-titled west asian component is the closest to north european component (unless you dont have a seperate west european component because it will be like half euro half med and so it will be closer) while med is very further away, sharing less with the north european component.

when two component in a calculator is very close to each other if you score extreme high on one of them you cant technically score much extra on the other. (because of common snps). but usual pcas will oversee this because they are not based on raw data but outcome percentages on the sheets and when you make a pca on calculator percentages the fst distances between components them selves will be not considered so distance will be huge. (you scoring 50 % on A, i scoring 50 on B but the rest is C for both of us we will end up in very different places if i make a pca using these percentages without considering the relationship between A, B or C. if A and B is already very different stuff than each other then its normal we end up very different. but if A and B components shares a lot then the situation will be very different.) and there is this other thing: its also possible we can both be 50 % A component on a calculator but it can be very different snps for both of us but they are lumped together in this category (A component) because the options limited and theres seemingly no other category to put them, especially if its low k. but similarly high k also treats much similar stuff as if very different. either way you will miss things.

I think that correctly look only for tru european markers: Athlantic, North Sea, Baltic and West_Med. East Euro - is in maximum in the uralic people - mari, chuvash and ets. East Med - is arabs, jewish and druzes, West Asian - is turks.

turks does not even score 30 % west asian in that calculator. east euro it self is part baltic + some thing else. north sea it self is half w asian + some thing else. and because mari score 38 % east euro we cant exclude that because russians have like 27 % of it. east med peaks in some jews and druzes around 50 % but south italians have 30 % east med on that calculator. to decide if we can exclude east med we need to check the fst distances between ancestral clusters them selves. you suggested we should look at west med but east med is closer to north sea, atlantic and baltic more than west med is to these three. west asian is also closer to north sea, atlantic and baltic more than west med is to these three. east euro and baltic is equidistant from north sea and from atlantic too. so we cant exclude them if we stick to this calculator. :)

(slide to right to see the rest of table if it doesnt show properly)


<tbody>


N_Sea
Atlant
Balt
E_Eur
W_Med
W_Asia
E_Med
M_East
S_Asia
SE_Asia
Siber
Amer
Ocean
NE_Afr


North_Sea






























Atlantic


0.015






























Baltic


0.02




0.022




























Eastern_Euro


0.02




0.022




0.024


























West_Med


0.029




0.028




0.037




0.038
























West_Asian


0.027




0.026




0.033




0.031




0.035






















East_Med


0.026




0.024




0.034




0.032




0.027




0.019




















Middle_Eastern


0.053




0.05




0.059




0.058




0.051




0.046




0.038


















South_Asian


0.06




0.062




0.064




0.056




0.075




0.053




0.055




0.078
















Southeast_Asian


0.112




0.114




0.115




0.102




0.123




0.109




0.11




0.127




0.075














Siberian


0.111




0.113




0.114




0.1




0.125




0.11




0.112




0.13




0.083




0.056












Amerindian


0.138




0.141




0.141




0.128




0.156




0.14




0.143




0.161




0.12




0.113




0.107










Oceanian


0.178




0.179




0.181




0.173




0.188




0.176




0.174




0.19




0.145




0.166




0.178




0.217








Northeast_African


0.109




0.108




0.114




0.108




0.112




0.103




0.094




0.106




0.102




0.137




0.144




0.178




0.195






Sub-Saharan


0.144




0.144




0.148




0.142




0.149




0.139




0.132




0.139




0.131




0.164




0.171




0.204




0.219




0.042



</tbody>


and this is another k level calculator and its mdp was like this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s640/1_2.png
here there is no east or west med distinction but only one med. also dont have components like baltic but only north europe.
SaveSave

[Bagot]

yes, sikeliot gave you the correct answers. that paper (with yellow colored chart) is based on snps, how much common (specific variations in genome) you share with others. thats what matters. also on mds of the op calculator the ill-titled west asian component is the closest to north european component (unless you dont have a seperate west european component because it will be like half euro half med and so it will be closer) while med is very further away, sharing less with the north european component.

when two component in a calculator is very close to each other if you score extreme high on one of them you cant technically score much extra on the other. (because of common snps). but usual pcas will oversee this because they are not based on raw data but outcome percentages on the sheets and when you make a pca on calculator percentages the fst distances between components them selves will be not considered so distance will be huge. (you scoring 50 % on A, i scoring 50 on B but the rest is C for both of us we will end up in very different places if i make a pca using these percentages without considering the relationship between A, B or C. if A and B is already very different stuff than each other then its normal we end up very different. but if A and B components shares a lot then the situation will be very different.) and there is this other thing: its also possible we can both be 50 % A component on a calculator but it can be very different snps for both of us but they are lumped together in this category (A component) because the options limited and theres seemingly no other category to put them, especially if its low k. but similarly high k also treats much similar stuff as if very different. either way you will miss things.

It's not really a peer-reviewed paper, it's a 4/5 years old DNA Tribes' report. They tested a smaller amount of SNPs and DNA tribes is a commercial company, not an academic institution.

It's not really a peer-reviewed paper, it's a 4/5 years old DNA Tribes' report. They tested a smaller amount of SNPs and DNA tribes is a commercial company, not an academic institution.

yes its a commercial company. none of these calculators around is peer reviewed. though similr to few was used by some academicians in the past. its just you get more or less same percentages. same for this paper, nothing outdated. its just as imperfect as what we have today. unfortunately in 5 years or more span of time calculators didnt change much. except some pops its even always same samples being used for modern pops since then. all we do is changing the titles of components. its same both for ancient genome or geographic ancestry based calculators. what we called A is renamed B -- a new category. (though there are some calculators that should be wiped completely because of some above-average mistakes. even though calculator persons admitted the mistake and corrected in the next version, you can still find it being posted even today -- im not referring to this thread.) well there were some academic studies that sounded great process (because any thing is great process as population genetics is a beginner level science today regardless of how we discuss things like crazy) but none changed what we have significantly. as some calculator persons are critical of several formulations of academic papers and all want to come up with whats true according to them so dont apply them. result is no much progress -- its all repetition. :)

[Shepherd]

I think that correctly look only for tru european markers: Athlantic, North Sea, Baltic and West_Med. East Euro - is in maximum in the uralic people - mari, chuvash and ets. East Med - is arabs, jewish and druzes, West Asian - is turks.
West Asian doesnt peak in Turks but in Georgians

East Euro peaks in Belorussians, not Uralic people

[Böri]

After Saamis, Nord Turkic groups like Tatar and Chuvash are the 'most Euro, obviously but none of them are MENA. Another striking point is Turkmens being more Euro-shifted than Turkish. Turkic groups aren't 'MENA, ethnicities. Actually only Semites and Indo-Iranians are MENA. We could argue whether Armenians are MENA or not but no Turkic group from the Balkans until Siberia is MENA

[Pahli]

After Saamis, Nord Turkic groups like Tatar and Chuvash are the 'most Euro, obviously but none of them are MENA. Another striking point is Turkmens being more Euro than Turkish. Turkic groups aren't 'MENA, ethnicities. Actually only Semites and Indo-Iranians are MENA. We could argue whether Armenians or not but no Turkic group from the Balkans until Siberia is 'MENA,

Tatars and Chuvash are not even close to being the most Euro, they have too much East Asian / Siberian admixture. Stop your OWD please. Turkmens are barely even more Euro than Turks, they are too Eastern Asian as well. You are so cringy, "muh turkic groups are not MENA even though they live in the Middle East :("

[Ibericus]

West-Med (unlike East-Med) has some WHG in it.

[Petalpusher]

Still confusing fst and distances as usual, "West Asian" would be 5 times closer to Europe on pca if fst were distances, but it's not. People wouldn't score 5% of it either, specially in the north where it fades to nothingness. As easily seen on any pca it's far from Europe, because it's also at the same time more related to East_med, south Asian, red_sea and even NE Africa, components were formed having different relation to several elements. Just like if we were comparing the fst relationship to Austria of an half Somali/Austrian, with a Czech, the Czech will always be infinetly closer to Austria ethnically than the half Somali/Austrian, yet this guys would have a much better fst relationship with Austrian, than anything clustering in the same region than he is. If anything it shows it's pred a mix of ANE and Basal, a lot of it.

[Peterski]

How do we even define Neolithic and Mesolithic mtDNA?

Well, most typical Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic European mtDNA was:

U5a, U5b, U4, U2 (surely U2e, maybe U2d2 and other U2 too), U8a, U8c

And as it seems U5a1, U4, U2e and U5b2a1a1 were more Eastern Euro.

While U5b, U5a2, U8a and U8c were more Western-Central European.

=============

Neolithic mtDNA = Post-Mesolithic haplogroups which entered with Earlt Neolithic farmers.

Almost everything not listed above (not U5, U4, U2, U8a, U8c) came after the Mesolithic.

U8b (unlike a & c) seems to be Non-Mesolithic. But all of U5 and U4 is Mesolithic.


What mtDNA did Indo-europeans have?

Mixed. They had a lot from European hunters, but also from some other groups.

From European hunters they had mostly U5a1, U4, U2e, U2d2 and U5b2a1a1.

They also had (most certainly from other groups) for example the following ones:

K1b, T1a, T2a1, T2c1, H6a1, H5, H2, H13, J1b, J2b1, I3, W6, W3a1a, X2b, N1a1, R1, C4a3

====================

Here is a very good website about mtDNA (but last updated few months ago):

http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com

[Peterski]

Mesolithic mtDNA is probably between 10% and 25% in Europe today (depending on region). And this percent already includes also re-expansion of Mesolithic mtDNA during the Bronze Age (with IEs).

So Mesolithic Y-DNA survived (or rather re-expanded with Indo-Europeans) much better than Mesolithic mtDNA. Modern Europeans are mostly Mesolithic-descended IE men + Neolithic-descended women.

But Southern Europeans also have much of Y-DNA of Near Eastern (Non-Mesolithic) origin.

=====================

Short summary of the history of Europe:

Mesolithic: men and women in Europe are of Hunter (WHG in the west, EHG in the east) origin

Neolithic: men and women of Near Eastern origin colonize Western-Central Europe; in Eastern Europe men of Mesolithic origin survive, and kidnap Near Eastern (maybe Caucasian?, Iranian?) women as wives

Copper Age: East European Steppe is inhabited by Mesolithic EHG-descended men and by mixed women (Mesolithic and Neolithic mtDNA); in Western-Central Europe Neolithic Farmer ancestry dominates

Bronze Age: Eastern European men invade Western-Central Europe, eliminate most of Neolithic-descended men (especially in Northern Europe), but capture their women (absorbing Neolithic-descended mtDNA)

Iron Age: Europe is dominated by Mesolithic Hunter Y-DNA (R1, I1, I2) but Neolithic Farmer mtDNA

21st century AD: Near Eastern men again colonize Western Europe, mixing with local mtDNA

22nd century AD: East European men invade West Europe, killing most of Muslim MENA men

(Pre-)History repeats itself! :)

Still confusing fst and distances as usual, "West Asian" would be 5 times closer to Europe on pca if fst were distances, but it's not. People wouldn't score 5% of it either, specially in the north where it fades to nothingness. As easily seen on any pca it's far from Europe, because it's also at the same time more related to East_med, south Asian, red_sea and even NE Africa, components were formed having different relation to several elements. Just like if we were comparing the fst relationship to Austria of an half Somali/Austrian, with a Czech, the Czech will always be infinetly closer to Austria ethnically than the half Somali/Austrian, yet this guys would have a much better fst relationship with Austrian, than anything clustering in the same region than he is. If anything it shows it's pred a mix of ANE and Basal, a lot of it.

hello petalplusher)):)

but in terms of the relationship between components the fst chart tells the distance. whos closer to who and this is projected in mdp plot which correlates. its a unit/measure of distance. the smaller the number (close to zero) the smaller the distance. but of course what doesnt tell the distance is that numbers in oracles which tries to give us best fits. its a different logic of course. also you said it would be 5 times closer to europe. correct me if im wrong please. but europe is not a single point. its a mix of several ancient populations (which of course have ancestral relationship to each other but differentiated in long span of time living isolated in different points), so europe is often in a triangle shape if we refer to 2d projection. and each corners represent an ancestral cluster. and without any of them we cant have a european population because its a mix of them though the ones that are closer to corners have less of other components (sardinians for istance) but still have them and are no less euro than the one right in middle which ended up there because of huge mixing (and in fact this mixing is relatively very recent).

another thing, you also know it but your message confused me. this west asian component =/= west asians. armenians (who can geographically be the northern most west asians today, the southern most being yemenese or omani i guess) have 37.5 % of this component in that calculator. iranians (geographically core west asian) have 33.87 %. in levant (which is again core west asia) lebanese have 19-22 %. to the south and west, bedouins have 13 %, saudis 8 % and egyptians 7 % west asian. to be a genetically west asian, you have to have bunch of south w asian (semitic) or lets call it red sea. also some east med. so if your definition of west asia as you place on pca refers to average of west asians, well its not really close to european triangle. but if you mean the component defined in that calculator, its not distant. the west asian in mdp plot is the component but west asians who score bunch of other thing rather than the component named after their region, its different thing. the so called component (which peak in north and central western georgia which the calculator considered in that category) are european. not the pops of region, all having very different snps.

on a world scale pca if you make a w.a. cluster (people who score many stuff), writing w. asia next to it, of course it would be distant. it has nothing to do with the component discussed here. its the other component that pull it that way and give exotic look. some folks will be closer to east med cluster, or even south asians and north east africa (like saudi as geographical west asians have have 8 of this so called west asian component, and around 4 % north east african and egyptians having 12.85 % north east african, 6 % sub saharan admixture and only 7 % w asian according to that calculator.) well we can exclude some components as no euro but not this. because every one has relation to each other and there are others which have much more relations to distant pops too -- east med. west med too (besides whg it has bunch of other stuff). a lithuanian is also 2,5 % west med and 0.61 % east med. are we going to exlude these components too? because it makes s italians less than 30 % european (which is nonsense and there is no such thing) as we are in no position to say baltic is more euro than north sea, this is more so than other. we cant exclude them because lithuanians arent benchmark. what they dont score because their admixture is made up of whats in others doesnt mean no euro. we should look at majority of ethnichities and if they have score this med, then we cant treat it as non euro. the logic of it fades in north euro is totally irrelevant i believe. also this w a component on this one is not referenced from a middle eastern. its also not i neolithic which didnt have ane. (more than 50 % of admixture of i neolithic is unknown any ways, but probably crown from whom whg is descended.) chg is older, its mesolithic and it had ane (indirect, through ehg over 20 %). and it had indirect eurasian around 30-35 %. i neo is recent but not descendant of chg, i neo ancestry also went to east and again mixing with ane and other and settled there. and very different snps to be lumped. farmers also had it 29-30 % of that indirect eurasian on average. and we owe a lot all of these admixtures. :)

[Petalpusher]

hello petalplusher)):)

but in terms of the relationship between components the fst chart tells the distance. whos closer to who and this is projected in mdp plot which correlates. its a unit/measure of distance. the smaller the number (close to zero) the smaller the distance. but of course what doesnt tell the distance is that numbers in oracles which tries to give us best fits. its a different logic of course. also you said it would be 5 times closer to europe. correct me if im wrong please. but europe is not a single point. its a mix of several ancient populations (which of course have ancestral relationship to each other but differentiated in long span of time living isolated in different points), so europe is often in a triangle shape if we refer to 2d projection. and each corners represent an ancestral cluster. and without any of them we cant have a european population because its a mix of them though the ones that are closer to corners have less of other components (sardinians for istance) but still have them and are no less euro than the one right in middle which ended up there because of huge mixing (and in fact this mixing is relatively very recent).

another thing, you also know it but your message confused me. this west asian component =/= west asians. armenians (who can geographically be the northern most west asians today, the southern most being yemenese or omani i guess) have 37.5 % of this component in that calculator. iranians (geographically core west asian) have 33.87 %. in levant (which is again core west asia) lebanese have 19-22 %. to the south and west, bedouins have 13 %, saudis 8 % and egyptians 7 % west asian. to be a genetically west asian, you have to have bunch of south w asian (semitic) or lets call it red sea. also some east med. so if your definition of west asia as you place on pca refers to average of west asians, well its not really close to european triangle. but if you mean the component defined in that calculator, its not distant. the west asian in mdp plot is the component but west asians who score bunch of other thing rather than the component named after their region, its different thing. the so called component (which peak in north and central western georgia which the calculator considered in that category) are european. not the pops of region, all having very different snps.

on a world scale pca if you make a w.a. cluster (people who score many stuff), writing w. asia next to it, of course it would be distant. it has nothing to do with the component discussed here. its the other component that pull it that way and give exotic look. some folks will be closer to east med cluster, or even south asians and north east africa (like saudi as geographical west asians have have 8 of this so called west asian component, and around 4 % north east african and egyptians having 12.85 % north east african, 6 % sub saharan admixture and only 7 % w asian according to that calculator.) well we can exclude some components as no euro but not this. because every one has relation to each other and there are others which have much more relations to distant pops too -- east med. west med too (besides whg it has bunch of other stuff). a lithuanian is also 2,5 % west med and 0.61 % east med. are we going to exlude these components too? because it makes s italians less than 30 % european (which is nonsense and there is no such thing) as we are in no position to say baltic is more euro than north sea, this is more so than other. we cant exclude them because lithuanians arent benchmark. what they dont score because their admixture is made up of whats in others doesnt mean no euro. we should look at majority of ethnichities and if they have score this med, then we cant treat it as non euro. the logic of it fades in north euro is totally irrelevant i believe. also this w a component on this one is not referenced from a middle eastern. its also not i neolithic which didnt have ane. (more than 50 % of admixture of i neolithic is unknown any ways, but probably crown from whom whg is descended.) chg is older, its mesolithic and it had ane (indirect, through ehg over 20 %). and it had indirect eurasian around 30-35 %. i neo is recent but not descendant of chg, i neo ancestry also went to east and again mixing with ane and other and settled there. and very different snps to be lumped. farmers also had it 29-30 % of that indirect eurasian on average. and we owe a lot all of these admixtures. :)

Europe is quite like a crepe in 3D except a few countries or regions with SSA/East Asians who makes them stick out a little out of it. It's around Europe, that more shaped structures form.

Fst shows geneflow against drift. We call it distance for convenience but it can be sometimes very different to a distance, or maybe more correctly it can be very different than what only some fst "distances" suggest. What makes West Asian relatively close N.Sea and Baltic for example is that it is made of ANE but everything else diverged more heavily than some other components, that may have less or no ANE but more WHG, etc.. it's what makes it more distant in the end.


I ve never seen a pca like the one you posted, or very very old ones. Nobody use "Northern Europe" or "Mediterranean" as a thing anymore, it's way too broad. Which calculator it is, where these things peak? is there a spreadsheet and a fst?

I ve never seen a pca like the one you posted, or very very old ones. Nobody use "Northern Europe" or "Mediterranean" as a thing anymore, it's way too broad. Which calculator it is, where these things peak? is there a spreadsheet and a fst?

i see. i posted from eurogenes and dodecad. pca had 13 components so it should be k 13. i also posted fst of the op calculator (eurogenes).

but the fst for the one with 13 components was like this as i saved: -- med peak in sardinians and then basques and neuro in lithuanians as usual.


<tbody>


Siber
Amer
W_Afr
Pal_Afr
SW_Asia
E_Asian
Med
Austr
Arctic
W_Asia
N_Euro
S_Asia


Siberian


























Amerindian
0.11
























West_African
0.176
0.202






















Palaeo_African
0.232
0.258
0.096




















Southwest_Asian
0.133
0.157
0.14
0.198


















East_Asian
0.057
0.109
0.165
0.221
0.123
















Mediterranean
0.132
0.155
0.151
0.207
0.051
0.123














Australasian
0.176
0.211
0.215
0.268
0.184
0.161
0.185












Arctic
0.091
0.101
0.197
0.253
0.152
0.095
0.151
0.203










West_Asian
0.117
0.137
0.143
0.198
0.059
0.109
0.055
0.173
0.134








North_European
0.115
0.13
0.148
0.203
0.059
0.109
0.048
0.174
0.128
0.038






South_Asian
0.092
0.124
0.139
0.196
0.086
0.077
0.087
0.145
0.117
0.074
0.075




East_African
0.167
0.193
0.046
0.111
0.133
0.155
0.136
0.207
0.188
0.129
0.136
0.129

</tbody>

[Petalpusher]

I don't see anything like that in the Dodecad of Gedmatch. N.Europe closer to South Asia is possible, it's just the west asian which is weird.


I know the K15 fst, it produces this, there s the same on Eurogenes filled with individuals rather than averages.

https://s22.postimg.org/k2v7u5z3z/K15_V3.png

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

I think it's right that N. Europe is closer to S. Asia and Asia in general than the Mediterranean component. Mediterranean has more ENF, and a large part of ENF is Basal Eurasian that separated earlier from the Out of Africa population than WHGs, making the Med component farther away from all Asian populations than N.Europe.

I don't see anything like that in the Dodecad of Gedmatch. N.Europe closer to South Asia is possible, it's just the west asian which is weird.


I know the K15 fst, it produces this, there s the same on Eurogenes filled with individuals rather than averages.

why would north europe be close to south asia?

i dont know gedmatch. the last fst i post right above is dodecad. the previous was of the one in original post (eurogenes).
but petalplusher, not that weirdest world scale pca again :) we talked to you before. its very, very misleading as people look at it as if two points on a gipothetical line gives the ethnichity in the middle of the line while some one with 25+ % ssa and no amerindian can end up in exact same location with some one with 25+ % amerindian with no ssa. you can combine some weirdest scenario in that. no pca is perfect but this? plus, it really doesnt give idea on distance. i knew it very well. i dont want to mention 2d misses a lot again because it not suffer from that only. what i didnt know it was from k15 of eurogenes. because looking at fst of it (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQS3VvTUYyYXd0akk/) and pop averages its practically impossible that unless you run the most simple pca without considering raw data /snps but basing-standardizing only on percentages (as that totally ignore the relationship/distance between components) that is written on spreadsheet as outcome of the work, they cant end up there. but its not even exactly that because the percentages dont give it either. if the snps that goes different components were so close then why would he divide it in first place. also where is the atlantic there.. i get that two african are not included. oceanian also missing but atlantic? with all respect, the whole thing is like writing the name of geographical cluster next to it (to some where average of region) -- its not like they are components because it doesnt correlate with fst. can you seriously check your self please :) and do you know if eurogenes it self made a mds for these 15?

[Petalpusher]

Cause of ANE.

Ok i found it, it's an old DIY not on Gedmatch, globe13 : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FTCC6UyauUeBhPrA9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?pli=1#gid=24

I see why it looks like this now, of course the peak, Georgians score 60% of "West Asian" but 1.1% "N.European" on the other hand while it's the other way for Europeans with less SW_Asian, etc... Bit twisted way to do things but 5 years ago not much genomes available you had to imagine a lot of things. It probably still doesn't look that different than some more recent ones, even K15, once you put countries averages on it. Interestingly it looks a bit like some recent very low K.

[Myanthropologies]

Still confusing fst and distances as usual, "West Asian" would be 5 times closer to Europe on pca if fst were distances, but it's not. People wouldn't score 5% of it either, specially in the north where it fades to nothingness. As easily seen on any pca it's far from Europe, because it's also at the same time more related to East_med, south Asian, red_sea and even NE Africa, components were formed having different relation to several elements. Just like if we were comparing the fst relationship to Austria of an half Somali/Austrian, with a Czech, the Czech will always be infinetly closer to Austria ethnically than the half Somali/Austrian, yet this guys would have a much better fst relationship with Austrian, than anything clustering in the same region than he is. If anything it shows it's pred a mix of ANE and Basal, a lot of it.

So basically what you're trying to say is that PCA plots and admixture calculators don't show who's actually related to who, it just shows which populations you're like admixture wise, and that actual relations come from the ancestry itself?

[Petalpusher]

So basically what you're trying to say is that PCA plots and admixture calculators don't show who's actually related to who, it just shows which populations you're like admixture wise, and that actual relations come from the ancestry itself?

I'm saying one single fst value doesn't tell you what is in the end closer, it signals relationship, ancient or more recent geneflow, as the fst value lower but it works for all other components too.
Getting a lower fst value to N.Sea for example just means you have something N.Sea but unless the fst value is 0, you are made of plenty of other things than that N.Sea stuff, it doesn't mean it will necessarily end closer ethnically than some other components even if they have a higher fst value to N.Sea. The could be overall more similar regardless.


Let's say we find new type of genome "xyz" i could make it 40% N.Sea, 20% Sardinians, 20% N.African, 20% South Asian, yes its fst value with N.Sea would be closer but another "abc" could end up closer or much closer to N.Sea while being only made of 30% N.Sea, 40% Sardinian and 15% N.African and 15% South Asian, for the simple reason the other components are not going to deteriorate as much the overall distance to N.Sea and in fact would be more "distant" to Africa despite having less N.Sea. That's basically the type of phenomenon we are seeing on all pca, so yes West Asia has something common in the north (mostly ANE) but it is also made of some other things that pull it away from Europe in the end (more Basal, more broadly east Asian). Distances shows a present similarity, just like the vast majority of Austrians are gonna get Austria at a close distance, as they are from the same ethnic substrat, only distances show you that.

[Myanthropologies]

I'm saying one single fst value doesn't tell you what is in the end closer, it signals relationship, ancient or more recent geneflow, as the fst value lower but it works for all other components too.
Getting a lower fst value to N.Sea for example just means you have something N.Sea but unless the fst value is 0, you are made of plenty of other things than that N.Sea stuff, it doesn't mean it will necessarily end closer ethnically than some other components even if they have a higher fst value to N.Sea. The could be overall more similar regardless.


Let's say we find new type of genome "xyz" i could make it 40% N.Sea, 20% Sardinians, 20% N.African, 20% South Asian, yes its fst value with N.Sea would be closer but another "abc" could end up closer or much closer to N.Sea while being only made of 30% N.Sea, 40% Sardinian and 15% N.African and 15% South Asian, for the simple reason the other components are not going to deteriorate as much the overall distance to N.Sea and in fact would be more "distant" to Africa despite having less N.Sea. That's basically the type of phenomenon we are seeing on all pca, so yes West Asia has something common in the north (mostly ANE) but it is also made of some other things that pull it away from Europe in the end (more Basal, more broadly east Asian). Distances shows a present similarity, just like the vast majority of Austrians are gonna get Austria at a close distance, as they are from the same ethnic substrat, only distances show you that.

The world of genetics is a great mindfuck. I think somewhere you mentioned you went to college. Did you study anthropology/geneology? You seem to know a lot on this.

[Maguzanci]

The world of genetics is a great mindfuck. I think somewhere you mentioned you went to college. Did you study anthropology/geneology? You seem to know a lot on this.

Maybe he is a genetics and microbiology/biochemistry major?

[Myanthropologies]

Maybe he is a genetics and microbiology/biochemistry major?

I'm a bio major lol

[Petalpusher]

The world of genetics is a great mindfuck. I think somewhere you mentioned you went to college. Did you study anthropology/geneology? You seem to know a lot on this.

Ive been out of school way before college, so that should have been someone else. I don't think you need to study the field to comprehend this but just to experiment by yourself. What's done in studies is much more complicated, people shouldn't worry about what's "related" or not in fst anyway, with experience you can read into it, but not like some have been.
"R" (it's a software) is calculating the right distances on pca in the studies or your own pca, if they weren't right between the components you couldn't verify the fits the calculators give you, but they do work perfectly when accurate enough.

[Myanthropologies]

Ive been out of school way before college, so that should have been someone else. I don't think you need to study the field to comprehend this but just to experiment by yourself. What's done in studies is much more complicated, people shouldn't worry about what's close or not in fst anyway, with experience you can read into it, but not like some have been.
"R" (it's a software) is calculating the right distances on pca in the studies or your own pca, if they weren't right between the components you couldn't verify the fits the calculators give you, but they do work perfectly when accurate enough.

That's true. Dude I went from only knowing haplogrouos and basic terms like caucasoid, negroid, etc to learning a lot more in less than a year.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

It's an intense component similar to SW_Asian, scoring 5-10% is a lot.


Georgians have no more overlap than other groups with Euro they just score a shit ton of West Asian, while average Europeans barely reach 5% of it (2% in Norway for ex), you are just assuming everything is the same than West Asian in your grouping, which creates that effect.

The best way to see overlap is simply a pca.

What actually is Southwest Asian on these GEDmatch tests? Or like ASE or South-central-Asian for example - no idea what they are talking about.

Also, about GEDmatch, should I take what they say with a grain of salt, or does it depend on the test? Some tests give me some non-white stuffs but I think everyone actually gets them, even mainland Europeans so.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

That's true. Dude I went from only knowing haplogrouos and basic terms like caucasoid, negroid, etc to learning a lot more in less than a year.

I remember when you joined and I tought you about WHGs and ENFs and stuffs.

They grow up so fast :c

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

I found a better explanation of what Basal Eurasians are from the user Megalophias on Anthrogenica that I think explains why the Northern European component is closer to all Asians than the Mediterranean component. Gonna quote as I'm too lazy to write :P

"Basal Eurasian is a hypothetical kind of ancestry from an unknown population that no longer exists in pure form, but is mixed into modern Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and North Africans (but not East Asians, Oceanians, or pure-blooded Native Americans). A Basal Eurasian would be more closely related to East Asians, Oceanians, Native Americans, and ancient European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (also known as Crown Eurasians) than he would be to sub-Saharan Africans, but all the Crown Eurasians would be more closely related to each other than they were to Basal Eurasians. So a hunter-gatherer from Western Europe would be more closely related to a Chinese or Australian Aborigine than he would be to a Basal Eurasian, but more closely related to a Basal Eurasian than he would be to a Sub-Saharan African.

Basal in this context means branching off at the base - so for instance your cousin is basal to you and your brother (supposing you have one) - you are more closely related to each other than you are to him. If you looked at a family tree, your cousin would branch off the tree before (basal to) the split of you and your brother. A Basal Eurasian is like a first cousin to the Crown Eurasians (imagining European hunter-gatherers, East Asians, etc are like brothers) while a Sub-Saharan African would be second cousin to both the Basal Eurasians and the Crown Eurasians.

The reason it is thought to exist is because Neolithic European farmers as well as modern West Eurasians (Middle Easterners, Europeans, South Asians etc) and North Africans are less closely related to East Asians etc than ancient European hunter-gatherers are - so they seem to have some ancestry which is earlier than the origin of Crown Eurasians - yet it doesn't seem to make them more closely related to Africans.

This would be some population that came Out of Africa but became isolated from the mainstream of migration into Eurasia, or maybe was related to the first people who left Africa but stayed behind there for a while before leaving. Since they first appear in Neolithic farmers, the usual view is that they came from the Middle East or maybe from North Africa.

However, it isn't actually entirely certain that they even existed, since we have no ancient or modern samples of them. It is possible that some kind of complicated mixture with East Asian-like people drove up the East Asian affinity of some ancient West Eurasians but not all of them, in which case the Basal Eurasian would really just be regular West Eurasians. But it is kind of hard to make this scenario work out. When we have more ancient Middle Eastern DNA we should know more."

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

I found a better explanation of what Basal Eurasians are from the user Megalophias on Anthrogenica that I think explains why the Northern European component is closer to all Asians than the Mediterranean component. Gonna quote as I'm too lazy to write :P

"Basal Eurasian is a hypothetical kind of ancestry from an unknown population that no longer exists in pure form, but is mixed into modern Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and North Africans (but not East Asians, Oceanians, or pure-blooded Native Americans). A Basal Eurasian would be more closely related to East Asians, Oceanians, Native Americans, and ancient European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (also known as Crown Eurasians) than he would be to sub-Saharan Africans, but all the Crown Eurasians would be more closely related to each other than they were to Basal Eurasians. So a hunter-gatherer from Western Europe would be more closely related to a Chinese or Australian Aborigine than he would be to a Basal Eurasian, but more closely related to a Basal Eurasian than he would be to a Sub-Saharan African.

Basal in this context means branching off at the base - so for instance your cousin is basal to you and your brother (supposing you have one) - you are more closely related to each other than you are to him. If you looked at a family tree, your cousin would branch off the tree before (basal to) the split of you and your brother. A Basal Eurasian is like a first cousin to the Crown Eurasians (imagining European hunter-gatherers, East Asians, etc are like brothers) while a Sub-Saharan African would be second cousin to both the Basal Eurasians and the Crown Eurasians.

The reason it is thought to exist is because Neolithic European farmers as well as modern West Eurasians (Middle Easterners, Europeans, South Asians etc) and North Africans are less closely related to East Asians etc than ancient European hunter-gatherers are - so they seem to have some ancestry which is earlier than the origin of Crown Eurasians - yet it doesn't seem to make them more closely related to Africans.

This would be some population that came Out of Africa but became isolated from the mainstream of migration into Eurasia, or maybe was related to the first people who left Africa but stayed behind there for a while before leaving. Since they first appear in Neolithic farmers, the usual view is that they came from the Middle East or maybe from North Africa.

However, it isn't actually entirely certain that they even existed, since we have no ancient or modern samples of them. It is possible that some kind of complicated mixture with East Asian-like people drove up the East Asian affinity of some ancient West Eurasians but not all of them, in which case the Basal Eurasian would really just be regular West Eurasians. But it is kind of hard to make this scenario work out. When we have more ancient Middle Eastern DNA we should know more."

Woah, Northern Europeans are closer to all Asians than to Mediterraneans? Didn't know that..

calling bullshit bruh

I thought it went something like this:

North Europeans closest genetic relatives list (in order):
-Other Europeans (including Mediterraneans)
- West/Central Asians (?)
- Sand Niggers
- East Asians
- Papuans
- Negroids

Native Americans are somewhere in there too..between Sand Niggers and Central Asians.

I've heard theories that Europeans (especially North) are basically just depigmented or albino Indians (more like Northern Indians). And I think they are the closest genetic cousins so (makes sense also as they must descend from one group at some point, hence Indo-European language family).

[PunhetaDeBacalhau]

Woah, Northern Europeans are closer to all Asians than to Mediterraneans? Didn't know that..

calling bullshit bruh

I thought it went something like this:

North Europeans closest genetic relatives list (in order):
-Other Europeans (including Mediterraneans)
- West/Central Asians (?)
- Sand Niggers
- East Asians
- Papuans
- Negroids

Native Americans are somewhere in there too..between Sand Niggers and Central Asians.

I've heard theories that Europeans (especially North) are basically just depigmented or albino Indians (more like Northern Indians). And I think they are the closest genetic cousins so (makes sense also as they must descend from one group at some point, hence Indo-European language family).

Lol no that's not what I mean. Northern Europeans are a lot closer to Mediterraneans than to Asians. :high5

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xal68HraeTs/UJBfD1d2CoI/AAAAAAAAAzU/yvTVW2WNvLQ/s640/1_2.png

I'm trying to give an explanation as to why the Mediterranean and Southwest Asian (Arabs) components are further away from all other Asians than the Northern European component is, even though at first glance it doesn't make much sense cause Mediterraneans and Southwest Asians are geographically closer to the majority of other Asians, and being geographically closer normally means genetically closer.

About Northern Europeans being albino Indians (there might be some truth to it, who knows xD), it's Indians (mainly northern ones) that are pulled towards Europeans due to having some Indo-European (Ancient North Eurasian) ancestry. In short, Indo-Europeans were basically a group people living in the Caucasus region (south of today's Western Russia) that invented really good weapons and, around 5000 years ago, started conquering everybody from Europe to Northern India (damn R1ethelites). That's mainly why South Asians (i.e. Indians) on that map are being pulled towards Europe and are kinda far away from other Asians - they have varying degrees of Indo-European ancestry (more in the north, less in the south). It's easy to see where Indo-Europeans went through the R1a Y-Haplogroup map:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABRQ/fXpVQEDKw60/s1600/Underhill2010-R1a1.jpg

[Petalpusher]

What actually is Southwest Asian on these GEDmatch tests? Or like ASE or South-central-Asian for example - no idea what they are talking about.

Also, about GEDmatch, should I take what they say with a grain of salt, or does it depend on the test? Some tests give me some non-white stuffs but I think everyone actually gets them, even mainland Europeans so.

SW_Asian peaks in Bedouin but likely reflects for some Europeans an excess of Basal Eurasian or in some cases some more recent Levant/mena input when they get a lot. ASE is a different thing, in short it's Papuan/Onge/Australoid, everything that belongs to this branch.


I found a better explanation of what Basal Eurasians are from the user Megalophias on Anthrogenica that I think explains why the Northern European component is closer to all Asians than the Mediterranean component. Gonna quote as I'm too lazy to write :P

"Basal Eurasian is a hypothetical kind of ancestry from an unknown population that no longer exists in pure form, but is mixed into modern Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and North Africans (but not East Asians, Oceanians, or pure-blooded Native Americans). A Basal Eurasian would be more closely related to East Asians, Oceanians, Native Americans, and ancient European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (also known as Crown Eurasians) than he would be to sub-Saharan Africans, but all the Crown Eurasians would be more closely related to each other than they were to Basal Eurasians. So a hunter-gatherer from Western Europe would be more closely related to a Chinese or Australian Aborigine than he would be to a Basal Eurasian, but more closely related to a Basal Eurasian than he would be to a Sub-Saharan African.

Basal in this context means branching off at the base - so for instance your cousin is basal to you and your brother (supposing you have one) - you are more closely related to each other than you are to him. If you looked at a family tree, your cousin would branch off the tree before (basal to) the split of you and your brother. A Basal Eurasian is like a first cousin to the Crown Eurasians (imagining European hunter-gatherers, East Asians, etc are like brothers) while a Sub-Saharan African would be second cousin to both the Basal Eurasians and the Crown Eurasians.

The reason it is thought to exist is because Neolithic European farmers as well as modern West Eurasians (Middle Easterners, Europeans, South Asians etc) and North Africans are less closely related to East Asians etc than ancient European hunter-gatherers are - so they seem to have some ancestry which is earlier than the origin of Crown Eurasians - yet it doesn't seem to make them more closely related to Africans.

This would be some population that came Out of Africa but became isolated from the mainstream of migration into Eurasia, or maybe was related to the first people who left Africa but stayed behind there for a while before leaving. Since they first appear in Neolithic farmers, the usual view is that they came from the Middle East or maybe from North Africa.

However, it isn't actually entirely certain that they even existed, since we have no ancient or modern samples of them. It is possible that some kind of complicated mixture with East Asian-like people drove up the East Asian affinity of some ancient West Eurasians but not all of them, in which case the Basal Eurasian would really just be regular West Eurasians. But it is kind of hard to make this scenario work out. When we have more ancient Middle Eastern DNA we should know more."

ENA and basal Eurasian are two different branches from the supposed two OoA, i don't think the two are mega related as there s a 40-50k difference. BE is certainly more related to West Eurasians than East Eurasians however it's true it isn't more related to Africans than other Eurasians groups, Natufians actually have less affinity to Africans than all other groups, except WHG/SHG, even compared to EHG or Han, that's how non African, Natufians were. Genetically they are a bit weird. I think we will find some pure BE remains, but it could take some time to find the right ones since it's gonna be old and difficult to find things in a good state where we are likely to find it geographically. Natufian or Iran_N are mostly BE but with something WHG-like for Natufians and ANE-like for Iran_N, so it can give an idea already once it's correctly filtered, this is mostly what Eurogenes is working on as of late (and i'm sure, plenty of studies)

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

SW_Asian peaks in Bedouin but likely reflects for some Europeans an excess of Basal Eurasian or in some cases some more recent Levant/mena input when they get a lot. ASE is a different thing, in short it's Papuan/Onge/Australoid, everything that belongs to this branch.

Thanks. Can you tell me what is the difference between like Natufian and other ENF, as well?

[Petalpusher]

Thanks. Can you tell me what is the difference between like Natufian and other ENF, as well?

More or less WHG. If you look at the verical line on the left you will find everything from Natufian, ANF, early neo, middle neo, late neo/Copper Age. The tip down isn't exactly Basal Eurasian since we don't have it yet but it's something highly BE. This model is being finely tunned but basically that's how you find most Euro, somewhere between earlyneo/late neo you trace a line to MLBA and you are somewhere there.

https://s21.postimg.org/5j1w0am1z/K7_triangle_3.png

The same squeezed with more samples.

https://s21.postimg.org/66nobh7qd/capca.jpg

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

More or less WHG. If you look at the verical line on the left you will find everything from Natufian, ANF, early neo, middle neo, late neo/Copper Age. The tip down isn't exactly Basal Eurasian since we don't have it yet but it's something highly BE. This model is being finely tunned but basically that's how you find most Euro, somewhere between earlyneo/late neo you trace a line to MLBA and you are somewhere there.

https://s21.postimg.org/5j1w0am1z/K7_triangle_3.png

The same squeezed with more samples.

https://s21.postimg.org/66nobh7qd/capca.jpg

So, in conclusion, what are Europeans most like?

Are North Europeans WHG, Indo-European, Natufian hybrids? And Southern Europeans, the same thing but in different proportions (more Natufian, less WHG, Indo-European)?

And, who are our closest cousins? Does it vary? Perhaps North Europeans closest cousins outside of Europe would be like the northernmost Indians? And Southern Europeans closest cousins would be Levantines, outside of Europe?

[Bear]

North Europeans genetically formed by the following racial admixture:

- European Mesolotic (La Brana)
- ANE, Ancestral North Eurasian which is a hybrid component of East Asian and Caucasoid
- Neolotic Near Eastern which appeared in Europe during the last 5000 years.
- European Paleotic (below 5% as admixture)
- Siberian/mongoloid/basal eurasian

Europeans are racially 70% Eurasian and 30% Sub Saharian, the mixture of these groups created Europeans/Caucasoids, which means Every European today is a hybrid racial group.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

North Europeans genetically formed by the following racial admixture:

- European Mesolotic (La Brana)
- ANE, Ancestral North Eurasian which is a hybrid component of East Asian and Caucasoid
- Neolotic Near Eastern which appeared in Europe during the last 5000 years.
- European Paleotic (below 5% as admixture)
- Siberian/mongoloid/basal eurasian

Europeans are racially 70% Eurasian and 30% Sub Saharian, the mixture of these groups created Europeans/Caucasoids, which means Every European today is a hybrid racial group.

ANEs were not East-Asian lol

also 70% Eurasian and 30% Sub Saharian? What do you mean by Sub Saharian exactly?

[Petalpusher]

So, in conclusion, what are Europeans most like?

Are North Europeans WHG, Indo-European, Natufian hybrids? And Southern Europeans, the same thing but in different proportions (more Natufian, less WHG, Indo-European)?

And, who are our closest cousins? Does it vary? Perhaps North Europeans closest cousins outside of Europe would be like the northernmost Indians? And Southern Europeans closest cousins would be Levantines, outside of Europe?

Chronologically most Euro are a mix of ~middle neo (basal+WHG-like) + some additionnal WHG admix with the mesolithic euro during the whole neolithic era. Then some EMBA/MLBA (Yamnaya like) in the Bronze Age.

Yes it's mostly just different proportions, of basal, WHG, ANE but nobody has direct ancestry from Natufians nor ANE, they ve acquired it through groups that diverged from them a long time ago, then came into Europe in the neolithic and the bronze age.

For central to n.europe it would be Volga Ural groups outside Europe (ofc Russia first), for the southernmost Euro, mena, more mideast or caucasus (the reason why southernmost euros always score more "west asian" is simply that they are closer). But even a Basque is closer to Russians than mideasterns or caucasus, that's why "mediterranean" or south europe as a whole doesn't mean anything, There are huge distances between some groups living in locations that we call south europe geographically, a lot more than you can ever find in what is genetically central to north Europe, even between let's say a Croatian and a Swede, they are like 2-3 times closer than a Basque and a Sicilian, so you can't really divide Europe in just two things north and south.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Chronologically most Euro are a mix of ~middle neo (basal+WHG-like) + some additionnal WHG admix with the mesolithic euro during the whole neolithic era. Then some EMBA/MLBA (Yamnaya like) in the Bronze Age.

Yes it's mostly just different proportions, of basal, WHG, ANE but nobody has direct ancestry from Natufians nor ANE, they ve acquired it through groups that diverged from them a long time ago, then came into Europe in the neolithic and the bronze age.

For central to n.europe it would be Volga Ural groups outside Europe (ofc Russia first), for the southernmost Euro, mena, more mideast or caucasus (the reason why southernmost euros always score more "west asian" is simply that they are closer). But even a Basque is closer to Russians than mideasterns or caucasus, that's why "mediterranean" or south europe as a whole doesn't mean anything, There are huge distances between some groups living in locations that we call south europe geographically, a lot more than you can ever find in what is genetically central to north Europe, even between let's say a Croatian and a Swede, they are like 2-3 times closer than a Basque and a Sicilian, so you can't really divide Europe in just two things north and south.

And what groups of the Volga-Ural do you speak of?

(thanks btw)

[Stanislav]

East Euro peaks in Belorussians, not Uralic people

Wrong idea.

Mari

North_Sea 14.45
Atlantic 9.84
Baltic 15.82
Eastern_Euro 26.47
West_Med 1.10
West_Asian 7.56
East_Med 2.75
Red_Sea 0.22
South_Asian 1.84
Southeast_Asian 3.79
Siberian 14.63
Amerindian 1.49

Chuvash

North_Sea 14.76
Atlantic 12.65
Baltic 16.66
Eastern_Euro 24.55
West_Med 4.10
West_Asian 5.18
East_Med 2.69
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.84
Southeast_Asian 4.15
Siberian 10.96
Amerindian 2.37
Oceanian -
Northeast_African 0.09
Sub-Saharan -

Belorussian

North_Sea 22.23
Atlantic 13.12
Baltic 24.91
Eastern_Euro 23.27
West_Med 2.49
West_Asian 4.48
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.04
Southeast_Asian 1.45
Siberian 4.14
Amerindian 1.21
Oceanian 0.40
Northeast_African 0.80
Sub-Saharan 0.46

North_Sea 23.44
Atlantic 15.11
Baltic 25.56
Eastern_Euro 19.01
West_Med 8.94
West_Asian 3.11
East_Med 1.79
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.19
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian 0.74
Amerindian 1.28
Oceanian 0.06
Northeast_African 0.77
Sub-Saharan -