Target: AUS_Willandra_Lakes_4000BP:WLH4

[marco]

How does this sample have iberomaurusian ancestry?

Target: AUS_Willandra_Lakes_4000BP:WLH4
Distance: 4.8103% / 0.04810310
67.6 Papuan
16.0 VUT_2900BP_all
7.0 Iran_N
6.0 Taforalt
2.2 WHG
1.2 Ethiopia_Mota_4500BP


I know moderns shouldn't be used but as you can see North African pops up

Target: AUS_Willandra_Lakes_4000BP:WLH4
Distance: 1.9842% / 0.01984211
63.2 Papuan
13.6 Agta
9.2 Kadar
7.6 Onge
6.0 Berber_MAR_TIZ
0.4 Mada

My son along with me seem to score this sample and other samples like Papuan, is their some connection

[gixajo]

Maybe just because is a proxy for an ancient people that is not in datasheet, same that WHG or Iran_N.

It´s just an effect of modelling some coordinates with other coordinates, a math thing that not necessarily implies a real dna link.

[marco]

Maybe just because is a proxy for an ancient people that is not in datasheet, same that WHG or Iran_N.

It´s just an effect of modelling some coordinates with other coordinates, a math thing that not necessarily implies a real dna link.

What about us scoring them? It seems even the modern samples get some berber in their moderns

My son for example

Target: Son_scaled
Distance: 0.9677% / 0.00967750 | R4P
76.8 Berber_MAR_ERR
15.4 Sicilian_East
5.6 Bantu_Kenya
2.2 Australian

He always requires it to bring his distances down, it has a big effect on his distances

[gixajo]

What about us scoring them? It seems even the modern samples get some berber in their moderns

My son for example

Target: Son_scaled
Distance: 0.9677% / 0.00967750 | R4P
76.8 Berber_MAR_ERR
15.4 Sicilian_East
5.6 Bantu_Kenya
2.2 Australian

He always requires it to bring his distances down, it has a big effect on his distances

I'm just saying that none of that necessarily implies an authentic ancestral relationship.

Why the results are which they are?Because the algorithm comparing the coordinates arrives at the solution that this sample coordinates is an adequate solution in that percentage.

Could there be some kind of connection between a 4,000-year-old individual found in Oceania and a 15,000-year-old group of Northwest African hunter-gatherers? I don't know if there exist any theory about this issue,but if we go to the extreme and go back a long time, we all come from the same group of people.

And why you used 4P to model your son? That Oceanian individual appears also without reducing populations?

[marco]

I'm just saying that none of that necessarily implies an authentic ancestral relationship.

Why the results are which they are?Because the algorithm comparing the coordinates arrives at the solution that this sample coordinates is an adequate solution in that percentage.

Could there be some kind of connection between a 4,000-year-old individual found in Oceania and a 15,000-year-old group of Northwest African hunter-gatherers? I don't know if there exist any theory about this issue,but if we go to the extreme and go back a long time, we all come from the same group of people.

And why you used 4P to model your son? That Oceanian individual appears also without reducing populations?

Yeah it still appears, the reason I reduced populations is because I'm running the whole datasheet. I'll try out your model and see how that works for him, but he does score Papuan like me in his autosomal