Some questions about genetics and composition of Europeans through out history

[Insuperable]

It became more and more obvious recently that the mesolithic population which was the most similar to Saamis once inhabited the entire Europe before being replaced by Sardinian like people who pushed the natives towards the north. During recent studies it also became more and more obvious that there were at least two big neolithic invasions which replaced the mesolithic population. In one of the peer review paper scientists show how Sardinian like people gradually replaced mesolithic population through out southern Europe. We, forum freaks, have seen this as bringing the so called Mediterranean component and minor SWA (as named by bloggers) into Europe. Later in neolithic through other invasion the West Asian component was brought into Europe.

Now all this seems very nice so far, but something still bugs me when comparing peer review papers and the results of blog calculators.

1. Mesolithic samples showed high African and Syberian input. Swedish mesolithic sample on K27 scores 13% Nilotic-Omotic wtf and 5% Amerindian. I know also that Le Brana mesolithic sample also scored very high African and very high Syberian.

Question: If people there are a meso-neo mix what happened with this African input? Modern Europeans don't show that high African nor the Asian (at least the vast majority) on blog calculators based on the ADMIXTURE software.
Have in mind that the research paper I have in mind specifically is "The Ancient admixture in human history" by Patterson et a (David Reich team). It were the same authors who in that paper debunk their 2011 Moorjani et al paper where it was stated that southern Europeans have SSA input. Apparently they developed new statistics and upgraded their algorithm (they use algorithm based on the three method and not based on the ADMIXTURE there) for their Patterson et al paper. Because of that I am even more confused.

2. If Sardinian like people brought Med component in Europe judging by the blog calculators why does mesolithic Iberian sample scores 25% SouthWest European component on K27? While Swedish mesolithic sample does not score it on globe13 it scores 10% Med and Brana sample score 25%. Perhaps this is not important as much as guessing someone ancestry I presume, but still I wonder.

Seems to me that methods among researchers are not universal as one would thought.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Seems to me that methods among researchers are not universal as one would thought.

This.

And you should question these things. Also, compare MDLP's to Harappa World's to Dodecad's results for those aDNA samples (y'know Oetzi, the Gok farmer, the two Mesolithic Northern hunters, and La Brana Mesolithic). You'll see the way the categories come out differ significantly. Dodecad also had K7b results for these specimens that were different then K13. Finally, the British research team that extracted the La Brana specimen's DNA concluded the individual was more "Western" then "North Eastern".

Point being: same raw data but a myriad of different results based on how reference populations and what not are arranged.

Think of it this way regarding La Brana remains: individual had significant "northern European" genetic input plus "Siberian" and the only population currently like that in Europe is found in the North East.



2. If Sardinian like people brought Med component in Europe judging by the blog calculators why does mesolithic Iberian sample scores 25% SouthWest European component on K27? While Swedish mesolithic sample does not score it on globe13 it scores 10% Med and Brana sample score 25%. Perhaps this is not important as much as guessing someone ancestry I presume, but still I wonder.

Yup, good observation. The Med components position as strictly a Neolithic signal is actually quite questionable.

[el22]

I want to add my own naive question in this thread:

If I remember well I read in some thread here that say E-V13 is something like 10,000 years old. Looking at the map of its distribution in Balkan it looks like something like 10 million people may have it. This should mean that all human population comes out of roughly 2000 people who lived 10,000 years ago. This can mean either that:
* humanity consisted of a couple of thousand individuals 10,000 years ago, something that I find hard to believe, given that 3,000 years ago we had cities with 50,000 inhabitants.
* or humanity was significantly larger, consisting of at leas a few hundred thousands individuals, but only the offspring of about 1% of them survived. This isn't the case with humans today, and this isn't the case with wild animals either, so I can't see how this could be the case with humans back then.

What I've got wrong here?

[Fire Haired]

It became more and more obvious recently that the mesolithic population which was the most similar to Saamis once inhabited the entire Europe before being replaced by Sardinian like people who pushed the natives towards the north.
Yes partley true.
click here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?90760-Sardine-Neloithic-Euro-s-Finnish-and-Sami-Mesolithic-Paleolithic-Euro-s)
Aust DNA and aust dna of Mesolithic and Neolithic Europeans. Have showed that the group most tests call North Euro, Atlantic Baltic, or North east Euro is from Mesolithic-Paleolithic Europe and orignally was 100% in Europeans. The farmers or most of them that spread from 9,000-6,000ybp spread a group most tests call Mediterranean. Since Sami and FInnish live so far north and most of their ancestors really were never true farmers till i think like 2,000ybp. They kept way more Mesolithic-Paleolithic Group north euro way more than other Europeans and i have seen a bunch of stuff showing they are the closest relatives to the 3 Mesolithic aust dna samples we have. Then sardine who have the highest amount of med in globe13 72% are the closest relatives to Otzie the Iceman 5,300ybp farmer from alps Italy.

It is probably alot more complicated but it seems the Hunter gathers who were already in Europe over 10,000ybp and the farmers were too very diff people genetically. And modern Europeans are kind of a mix of the two but most more from the Mesolithic-Paleolithic hunter gathers. But what is weird is the farmers dont match with anyone in the mid east ecven though that is orignally were they spread. They were deifntley Europeans when u compare them to people today they would group with Sardine and Iberian the most. The med in globe13 never gets over 30% in mid eastern but uselly does in Europeans west of Poland if med is not European why is it most popular in Europe and so small in Mesolithic hunter gathers in spain and swedan who had some probably from farmer inter marriage. The med group doesnt make any sense unlike other Caucasian groups NOrth euro, southwest asian, and west asian which show obvisouly a region they are unqiue to meditreaen is spread out everywhere. \

But that does not mean they were exactly like Sami people.


During recent studies it also became more and more obvious that there were at least two big neolithic invasions which replaced the mesolithic population. In one of the peer review paper scientists show how Sardinian like people gradually replaced mesolithic population through out southern Europe. We, forum freaks, have seen this as bringing the so called Mediterranean component and minor SWA (as named by bloggers) into Europe. Later in neolithic through other invasion the West Asian component was brought into Europe.

Now all this seems very nice so far, but something still bugs me when comparing peer review papers and the results of blog calculators.

1. Mesolithic samples showed high African and Syberian input. Swedish mesolithic sample on K27 scores 13% Nilotic-Omotic wtf and 5% Amerindian. I know also that Le Brana mesolithic sample also scored very high African and very high Syberian.

Question: If people there are a meso-neo mix what happened with this African input? Modern Europeans don't show that high African nor the Asian (at least the vast majority) on blog calculators based on the ADMIXTURE software.
Have in mind that the research paper I have in mind specifically is "The Ancient admixture in human history" by Patterson et a (David Reich team). It were the same authors who in that paper debunk their 2011 Moorjani et al paper where it was stated that southern Europeans have SSA input. Apparently they developed new statistics and upgraded their algorithm (they use algorithm based on the three method and not based on the ADMIXTURE there) for their Patterson et al paper. Because of that I am even more confused.

2. If Sardinian like people brought Med component in Europe judging by the blog calculators why does mesolithic Iberian sample scores 25% SouthWest European component on K27? While Swedish mesolithic sample does not score it on globe13 it scores 10% Med and Brana sample score 25%. Perhaps this is not important as much as guessing someone ancestry I presume, but still I wonder.

Seems to me that methods among researchers are not universal as one would thought.

i know the african and siberian thing made no sense and there were traces of it in all the aust dna tests they took so it was for real. I guess that is important but not major right now we are trying to figure out how they made modern Europeans.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Scandinavia was not very heavy on saami in most historical times, they only became a big component of those countries when the plague wiped out most of everyone else.

They have come to the conclusion everyone was like saami in europe for kind of dumb reasons, but there was a big push from europe to north africa maybe 20k years ago so when the "nilotic component" is being detected you are actually detecting the saami-like europeans in the first place. It's fairly sure that a lot of the east of North America was populated by people who did ice crossings to north america from western europe, that is you amerindian component. Again, they are actually detecting themselves. Le Brana, probably same thing but I don't have details.

So if you realize iberians went really heavy into africa, and had SOME saami mixture then this all makes some sense. Everything is backwards, basically.

And again sardinian is similar story I imagine. I think it's way more likely that sardinians came to sardinia from west europe than anything else. Most of the I you see in europe is around the cost so you don't expect that for general mixing as that's where any invasions happen. If things happened like claimed then I should be found in lots of mountain refugeums in big numbers and the basques would have huge I numbers, but they only have a little. There's also a lot of r1b in sardinia.

So what's wrong is that r1b was always in iberia, I had its refugeum where greece is today, and sardinians were early maritime I culture that had mixed with r1b and both of them had been making incursions into north africa for a very long time. So basically everything is backwards, and an into africa theory may even be in order as we have endless evidence of migrations into africa, but not out of africa.