Printable View
English, Irish, a smidge of German a bit back. But I have lots of gaps in his family tree, I'm not even sure of his grandad's ethnicity, though he had an English surname.Quote:
Originally Posted by McCool
My dad scores closest to Irish on K13, Orcadian on K15.
What are your haplogroups bro?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berahthraban
DIY version? Care to elaborate? I do not know what that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Wolf
DIY is the standalone version to use with R. It was the pre release/beta, the ANE K7 on Gedmatch is the right one. Until Eurogenes releases its new BR K7.
Yeah they were saying ANE K7 was giving screwey results and to try the DIY version but I think it's been fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
I score above the Norwegian standard but I think below Slavs & Finns. Considering I am quite mixed European I still get more than I really should. If I was pure Norwegian it would be more believable - even then I get more than their average.
I don't know the Finnish or Polish or etc. averages though. I am just assuming they score more than Norwegians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
Does there exist a better test for determining ANE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevo
I think I have to pay for K8, right? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevo
WHG-UHG 60.17
ANE 18.92
ENF 9.95
East_Eurasian 7.62
ASE 2.51
East_African 0.75
West_African 0.08
Will he send it for free to those who have already contributed? and when is it coming out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hevo
There is only one legitimate way right now to find out how much ANE(that is, specific, ANE peaking genetics, as ANE also had WHG and Amerindian admixture) anyone has right now, and that is the Eastern_Euro component on Eurogenes K15.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strasser-ue
All these low K calcs, and the typical non-sense that "Karitiana Indians, Kalash or North Caucasus people are the most ANE" you get from those low K calcs are not accurate at all. PCAs prove this as well.
K7 is overall a useless calculator, the new Basal-rich K7 will also be useless as it will be based on the direct AG3-MA1(especially ridiculous with MA1 since it's more than 24k years old, which won't account for later drift among populations and you're comparing it with modern newer 6-10k year old genomes without the archaic shift towards Andamanese unlike MA1) genome rather than artificially split up components based on peak, it still won't split up the WHG and Amerindian from it(if you think it had no WHG, how the heck could it have haplogroup U? WHGs also had ANE, both is from shared ancestry from earlier on, like in the paleolithic).
The most ANE populations, in order, are:
Afontova Gora 2(50%)
Karelia HG
Samara HG
Khvalynsk
Mari(38%)
Chuvash
Mal'ta
Yamnaya
Erzya
Selkup
Finnish Sami
SHGs
Kargopol Russians
East Finns
Ket
Shors
South-West Russians
Tatars
Belorusians
Lithuanians(21%)
Others:
Irish: 8%
Tabassaran: 14%
Burusho: 15%
West Greenland: 10%
Karitiana: 0%
South Indians/Tamils: 4%
K7 gives 24% to Mari, 27% to Tabassarans and other North Caucasus people, 30% to South Indians, 35% to certain Pakistani groups like the Burusho, and 44% to Karitiana, and differences between NE Europeans and NW Europeans in ANE are negligible.
Pretty obvious which is more accurate based on where ANE geographically actually was.
In this case, I am 9.3% ANE.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
i agree with you. however eastern euro component of k15 was not purely ane at all. more like ehg and many other stuff. and ehg is 75 % ane and 25 % whg -- lazaridis approximation. just like overall whgs are 6,7 % ehg according to him. though swiss whg didnt have any extra amount of ehg and so ane. the only relationship it has with ane is having a very old common ancestor as every other have. so nothing special. also ane dont have whg -- you mistake it for its child (ehg) which has whg (~25 % as i said).Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
so modern chuvash definitely doesnt have more ane than mal'ta boy ancient genome has which it self along with ag2/3 is the reference for ane. :D its more than impossible -- technically. its not good idea to calculate ancients for ones thats made for moderns. it should be opposite. ancients can only be used to proxy to calculate modern ones. so better not to post proportions of ancient genomes using modern blogger calculators.
as to some incredibly high ane in some north indians, i also believe its mistake of calculator of low k that cant distinguish. for instance eurogenes upcoming k7 has a ag3-ma1 component but it has basically two very different stuff that have to be differentiated. (when saying two, im not saying ag3 and ma1 different, its same cluster, what im saying those calculator component has some thing not really ane but similar included).
similarly basal component and villabruna of that calculator.. villabruna component there is mix of more than 3 very very different thing, it has already have whg basal ane and many others in very mixed proportions for different populations and basal have whats actually not basal. so ane is not the only problematic thing with that calculator. for every component, he has to group some together so that he can have clear picture for some europeans which is the aim. if he doesnt do so and attempt to distinguish every thing as possible he can then the result would lead a huge diversity and distance among some europeans.
and one other thing.. in that calculator, ane in some pops may not be not correct for some but for other pops the levels are rather okay. and this is interesting. there is actually nothing wrong with mari and tabassaran s high level of ane as you said, they actually have even more than 24 and 27 if we pick all. but its true on other hand that,indians actually have much lower than north east europeans who have their ane lumped with other stuff on that calculator. i read very soon some 5000 year old ancient genomes coming from n india too though. and some info is already leaked and its nothing ane.
In short, ANE had no WHG, because it had EHG instead, but EHG had 25% WHG. Makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by itsalex
You're wrong.
Modern Chuvash absolutely has a better case for having more ANE than ANE itself, just like WHGs like La Brana, Loshbour, Villabruna, KO1 are more WHG than paleolithic WHGs such as El Miron, Vestonice, etc(and these are not different populations, Vestonice/etc wasn't replaced, these are populations after genetic drift)
Mal'ta should not be the reference for ANE, it is 24k years old, there has been too much drift genetic between then and now, which is why we also use mesolithic WHGs over paleolithic Europeans. It may as well be we don't have any admixture from Mal'ta at all(we do, but post-drift), if we had direct admixture from Mal'ta without drift going by how much ANE calcs give us we'd all have 5% Andamanese given Mal'ta had 25%, yet we don't. Afontova Gora is better(from 17k BC) but it's still not perfect. Until there is a sample from that region similar to Afontova Gora from 6-12k BC basing ANE on anything other than modern components is ridiculous(btw, you can see on PCAs, Afontova Gora plots near the populations I mentioned while Mal'ta is waaay south going towards Andamanese).
Mal'ta is a step between OoA archaic humans and evolving/drifting into a homogenous race, it's basically a mutt. The homogenous(the most far out on PCA plots) races are(although again, not totally homogenous, but atleast 80-90%) WHG, Natufian, Han Chinese, Amerindian, CHG, Melanesian, Ethiopian Ari/Hadza, Yoruba, Pygmy, San(and Anatolian/Balkan farmers as well as ANE to a far lesser extent).
No, if you want to know which modern population is closest to an ancient one, you model the ancient one on modern components. I've already explained the problems with basing it on an entire genome of an ancient sample, especially if you don't have the right ones(for example, before other discoveries, calcs based on ancients, not modern samples, showed Sardinians, Bedouins and Georgians all with the same amount of EEF, even though PCA plots told a completely different story, yet people bought into this bullshit which basically said Sardinians were MENA). Calcs based on modern components definitely match up better with PCAs than calcs based on ancient components, which really, have results that are all over the place and don't make sense. Eurogenes K15 is still the most accurate calc out there, too many other calcs tell British people they're Croatian based on ancients.Quote:
its not good idea to calculate ancients for ones thats made for moderns. it should be opposite. ancients can only be used to proxy to calculate modern ones. so better not to post proportions of ancient genomes using modern blogger calculators.
Dad:
Population
ANE 15.71
ASE 1.70
WHG-UHG 62.49
East_Eurasian 1.04
West_African -
East_African 1.44
ENF 17.63
Mother:
Population
ANE 16.25
ASE 1.99
WHG-UHG 62.82
East_Eurasian 1.31
West_African 0.47
East_African 0.72
ENF 16.43
ane had no whg, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
whg (loschbour so on) had some ane, yes.
ane had ehg, no. -- the opposite, ehg had ane. ehg is the child of ane, being 75 % like ane and the rest 25 % being whg.
you are still saying modern chuvash is more whats called ane (ancient north eurasian) than mal'ta boy ancient genome (ma1) had? while calculator reference for ane is ma1? if there was another reference than ma1 and ag3 for calculators to use, then there would be slight possibility. but given calculators we have today, its technically impossible that chuvash is more ane than mal'ta boy. its like saying lithuanians are more whg than bichon hg, and then saying lithuanians should be reference for whg despite all the mix they have. thats like changing the whole meaning of the given word whg.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
maybe it shouldnt. but it is the reference. its not me who use mal'ta and ag3 as reference for ane, its those academicians and calculator bloggers what ever. that doesnt have to be direct admixture without drift, we have ane through some hgs. when a reference is used, the calculators treat it as 100 % being same stuff. whats lumped in it, its lost in a sense. (small andamese isnt the point here, calculators interested in the huge other part of mal'ta which cannot be explained by other ancient.) so for instance when there is a ehg component, all the ane and extra whg will be in it. and when there is a whg component as well, it will show you amont of extra whg you have (in addition to you have in ehg which is hidden to viewer of a spread sheet).Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
but unless you base your ane component on modern chuvash which is not the case, its not possible they will be more ane than mal'ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
and no actually you shouldnt attempt to model ancient using moderns, instead one of the way to do is checking the shared genetic drift using various analysis and then rank the modern pops in ascending of percentage shared with that ancient in question. and ta da.
when there is a eef component that doesnt distinguish highly diverged ancestries from each other (which is funny i agree), its possible some irrelevant to each other folks have similar amount -- like 70 and even 80% (that suggests 70 % of their ancestry is common? no!). in reality that these three doesnt have equal amount of that farmer like ancestry, one of them (bed) has more basal and then natufian-like one. the other (sard) has more whg in addition to basal and natufian-like. the other (geo) has considerable ehg (and very small whg) in addition to basal, but not natufian-like. all these stuff are too different than each other to be lumped, i agree. a sardinian at best share only 25 % of its ancestry as common with bedouin. im saying this as hidden ancestry but when you have west med component as sardinian reference then no there will be nothing common.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
Spoiler!
My results:
Population
ANE 18.69
ASE 1.51
WHG-UHG 64.30
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African 0.60
ENF 14.89
By comparison, a Czech guy:
Population
ANE 16.99
ASE 1.99
WHG-UHG 63.61
East_Eurasian 0.23
West_African -
East_African 0.99
ENF 16.19
ANE 18.02
ASE 1.79
WHG-UHG 66.34
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.55
East_African 1.28
ENF 12.02
ANE 12.94
ASE 1.21
WHG-UHG 40.63
East_Eurasian 7.37
West_African 2.36
East_African 9.65
ENF 25.85
ANE 15.39
ASE 1.85
WHG-UHG 62.47
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African 0.77
ENF 19.52
Population
ANE 14.85
ASE 1.61
WHG-UHG 40.87
East_Eurasian 3.18
West_African -
East_African 1.21
ENF 38.28
ENF 66.34
ANE 16.68
WHG-UHG 10.20
ASE 3.53
East_Eurasian 1.58
East_African 1.46
West_African 0.22
starting a farm now ...
ANE 15.45
ASE 3.21
WHG-UHG 21.32
East_Eurasian 9.18
West_African 0.93
East_African -
ENF 49.91
Population
ANE 11.86
ASE 1.93
WHG-UHG 46.49
East_Eurasian 0.25
West_African 0.07
East_African -
ENF 39.40
PopulationQuote:
Originally Posted by All-In
ANE 17.91
ASE 4.96
WHG-UHG 8.17
East_Eurasian -
West_African -
East_African 1.21
ENF 67.75
Not so fast! You're working under me :laugh:
WHG-UHG 57.25
ENF 25.16
ANE 14.85
ASE 2,32
West_African 0.42
East_Eurasian -
East_Eurasian -
East_African -
From which part of Germany are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
North Rhine-WestphaliaQuote:
Originally Posted by Not a Cop
ANE 13.88
ASE 1.70
WHG-UHG 55.76
East_Eurasian 0.58
West_African 0.44
East_African -
ENF 27.64
You turn out to be pretty "Southern" kind of like Flemish or North French.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
Population
ANE 13.55
ASE 1.63
WHG-UHG 49.87
East_Eurasian 3.01
West_African 0.24
East_African -
ENF 31.70
ANE 18.92
ASE 2.51
WHG-UHG 60.17
East_Eurasian 7.62
West_African 0.08
East_African 0.75
ENF 9.95
Population
ANE 11.95
ASE 1.14
WHG-UHG 45.84
East_Eurasian 1.34
West_African -
East_African -
ENF 39.74
All the peaks:
ANE
Karitiana 44.9
Burusho 37.1
Pathan 35.1
ASE
Malay 59.1
Cambodian 52
Dai 40
WHG
Lithuanian 76
Estonian 75.2
Swedish 73.1
East Eurasian
Hezhen 89.4
Oroquen 87.5
Japanese 85.5
West African
Maasai 14.1
Ethiopian 11.9
Palestinian 2.9
East African
Ethiopian 85.9
Maasai 72
Somali 57.2
ENF
Bedouin 93.8
Saudi 92.6
Yemenite Jewish 92.2
Few things to note as it's an old calulcator but still an interesting one :
-"ASE" is not exactly the recent one we know of peaking at 100% in Negritos or Australoid, but probably still a mix of Oceanians+ something East Eurasian like. I tried to run Litvin's Australoid to see what he would score (+90% of the real ASE at K6):
Kit : Z905945
ANE 13.92
ASE 32.66
WHG-UHG -
East_Eurasian 28.22
West_African 2.86
East_African 10.40
ENF 11.95
-"West Africa" doesn't have real W.Africa populations in the spreadsheet such as Nigeria, Cameroon etc, still likely peak there, so only see very low peaks in horners, which for them goes instead for the most part in the "East Africa".
-"ENF" is the outdated reference pre NAF-CHG genomes. In Europe it peaks in S.Italians, Greeks and Sicilians (55-60%), it's something more similar to a Basal Eurasian.
Population
ANE 12.58
ASE 2.17
WHG-UHG 20.10
East_Eurasian 3.11
West_African 1.53
East_African 0.36
ENF 60.16
did he use karitiana as reference for ANE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
No, why? It would be 100% then. It's Mal'ta (MA1).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevillager
In the new K7 it is sourced on AG2-3, doesn't change much it puts the modern peak in Surui and Karitiana in second, but south Asians get more of it.
eurasia k6 gives me two times more ane than ANEk7 and was trying to figure out why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher
I also get more. @ K6 it peaks in Balochi (43.20%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevillager
What does UHG mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Petalpusher