happycow's G25 results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

What about CHG since it's not found in the spreadsheets?

---

Which spreadsheet are you referring to? If you're using online nMonte runner, CHG is definitely there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

I see. So, over-fitting is bad when using ancient samples but it's good when using modern samples like in the first results, right?

---

Yes, low distances are good when using ancient samples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Yes, low distances are good when using ancient samples.

---

Wait..um, if the distance say is greater than 1.5 is good fit when using ancient samples but bad if we're using modern samples, right? I just want to get the confusion out. This is the calulcation I've done for Palestinian Muslims using ancient samples:

"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 2.4035,
"Levant_PPNB": 50.83,
"Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan": 31.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 10.83,
"TZA_Pemba_600BP": 5,
"MAR_Iberomaurusian": 1.67,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,

To you, this is great fit, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

Wait..um, if the distance say is greater than 1.5 is good fit when using ancient samples but bad if we're using modern samples, right? I just want to get the confusion out. This is the calulcation I've done for Palestinian Muslims using ancient samples:

"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 2.4035,
"Levant_PPNB": 50.83,
"Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan": 31.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 10.83,
"TZA_Pemba_600BP": 5,
"MAR_Iberomaurusian": 1.67,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,

To you, this is great fit, right?

---

It's not a great fit, it's okay.

For ancient samples, the lower the better. But if you get high distances using ancients, I wouldn't get too worried since genetic drift causes older samples to naturally be more distant.

For modern samples, try to keep it at around 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NPKTO

Which spreadsheet are you referring to? If you're using online nMonte runner, CHG is definitely there.

---

Found it. It's in Georgia category.

"sample": "Custom:Palestinian",
"fit": 3.7165,
"Levant_PPNB": 55.83,
"IRN_Wezmeh_N": 22.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 11.67,
"GEO_CHG": 10,

I think it needed more simple in the mix.

0.01
"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 3.666,
"Levant_PPNB": 54.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 19.17,
"GEO_CHG": 12.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 8.33,
"MAR_Iberomaurusian": 5.83,

0

"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 3.604,
"Levant_PPNB": 52.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 22.5,
"GEO_CHG": 10,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 9.17,
"MAR_Iberomaurusian": 5.83,

How is it now?

Which region of Palestine is the OP from by the way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

It's not a great fit, it's okay.

For ancient samples, the lower the better. But if you get high distances using ancients, I wouldn't get too worried since genetic drift causes older samples to naturally be more distant.

For modern samples, try to keep it at around 2.

---

But..isn't 2 a high distance for the fit to be good using modern samples?

"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 1.3939,
"Lebanese_Christian": 65.83,
"Egyptian": 20.83,
"BedouinB": 10.83,
"Dinka": 2.5,

I don't get it. Does this look like a bad fit to you? By your statements, this is a pretty good fit for Palestinians when using only ancient samples:

"sample": "Test1:Palestinian",
"fit": 1.0421,
"Levant_Canaanite_MBA": 53.33,
"Levant_JOR_EBA": 22.5,
"TKM_IA": 13.33,
"Canary_Islands_Guanche": 6.67,
"TZA_Pemba_600BP": 4.17,
"GEO_CHG": 0,

In other words, the lesser the distance the greater the accuracy when using the ancient samples for moderns, and the greater the distance the greater the accuracy when using the modern samples for moderns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Which region of Palestine is the OP from by the way?

---

The West Bank.

This man is a typical Palestinian just less Arab shifted than the average.

God, you guys are making things confusing for me.