This model is where I was experimenting with Serednii Stih/Sredny Stog.
Attachment 142635
Attachment 142636
Printable View
This model is where I was experimenting with Serednii Stih/Sredny Stog.
Attachment 142635
Attachment 142636
So here i managed to lower the standard error with both AHG and CHG whilst retaing excellent p-value. And i have found out that i have definitly an extra CHG component from the Caucasus which also confirms the findings by professional papers. The AHG went up but stayed around the 35% mark even after trying various runs.
Well it is true Croats that have roots from the Lika/Dinar area have elevated CHG and low EEF. The catch though is that the CHG component is elevated!
The only thing i am still trying to figure out why i am better modelt with the precursor to EEF. (Researching that already and reading some stuff om that.)
That CHG you have there is before Kotias, which in the mesolithic. That late UP sample could be soaking up some Iran Neolithic. The CHG that is typically used in these models is Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croatian Legend
Nope not at all! I tried Kotias and the P value goes drastically down. I seem to have a more pure CHG variant and Basal reacher version. Kotias is already mixed with a litte EHG. To get a more cleaner split satsublia is better to get the exact CHG out especially someone like me that has a more Caucasian/Steppe related input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannicus
You seem to think in terms of G25/ Vahaduo ways, there is no one fit all calculation. You have to be more logical and flexible especially in a comlpex region like the Dinaric area.
I am going to repeat once more i tried those standard setups they FAIL with me!
You see this is what alot amateurs here donīt understand instead spewing BS theories and using Vahaduo as proof is laughable.
There are many scientific papers out there for various European groups and the genetic breakdown is a litte more complex then people here are aware.
No attack on you just a heads up.
No, what I'm saying is that Kotias is used in population genetics studies. When you hear discussions about "CHG" admix it's usually Kotias. What does the p-value go down to when you use Kotias?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croatian Legend
G25 I don't think deserves all the hate it gets. It is based on PCA which is what academics use. It for sure takes a back seat to academic tools like qpAdm. I've observed qpAdm behaving a lot like G25. I see correlation between the two with my own results. It's not an exact 1:1, but a similar pattern emerges.
I noticed that too. Most similarly to qpadm, I am modeled by IllustrativeDNA and G25 Davidski, there is always some margin of error, but still..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannicus
I think its fine. Should you use it to attempt to refute the findings of a genetics paper? Absolutely not. Other than that I think it can reveal deep ancestry. With some G25 lists, such as the ones with steppe, ANF, WHG, the results are pretty close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fistora
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannicus
Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here.
Satsurblia is definitly used and also swapped in profesional testing. Satsurblia indicates a pure CHG line and it is used to better seperater CHG from EHG. Also same goes with AHG and EEF: AHG hast an eastern shift and lacks the natufian component that EEF has. It is also used in population/individual testing to see which fits better.
And no genetic scientist uses G25 for professinal work , since you mentioned that it is based on PCA. You do realise that they have there own ways or software to do the PCA. Which is different then G25 from Davidski.
Or rather let me be more clear Davdskis coords are a joke for ancestral calculation no serous scientist uses that. Not to even talk about his methods how he creates the coords. But i won't go into that now.
G25 is only good for general clustering but not to break down your ancestral components.
Nope i have recreated his results with QPADM and i get very bad P-values and some even failed. He has a definitv biased to frame Poles as some Steppeüber population. Even though Qpadm results show that you guys are around 40 to 45 even 50% EEF so pretty normal central European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fistora
As matter of fact when i recreated his results it was barely over a good 0,05 value and the standard error was horrible.
By the way this is no personal attack on you just talking here.
And again looking at all other scientific work not just for Balkans also other regions of Europea you would see that things are a little more complex. I just find it funny that you take G25 from davidski as some proof even though all of the professionals actually warn from using Amateur tools like Davidski because it creates bias and a wrong picture.