„Friend of Germanics”
You are right, this population must be very old that they can preserve own language so near to the Proto-Indo-European. Side by side the most archaic populations are the Unreduced/Reduced Cromagnonid ones in the British Isle, Scandinavia and North-East Europe.Originally Posted by Ocko
"Remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus,"or that virtue "was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice."
/King Baldwin IV in the Kingdom of Heaven/
The complaint by Hamar Fox doesn't have merit:
--Ex-Skadite Polak(o) Davidski of Eurogenes, even though he is slightly wrong, since the data he's looking at is really between R1b hg Irish Celts and R1a hg Polish Balto-Slavs, not Basques or any non-I.E. Y-DNA like I hg, so it does not in fact refer to 'indigenous European'. He doesn't use Sweden or Denmark as representative of Nordic Europe because of the aforementioned I hg in common with the Balkans I2 hg, but the Irish and Poles are just highly concentrated bottlenecks of the same haplogroups found generally among Germanic populations and mostly without extreme bias of either hgs R1b or R1a. Scandinavians as well as Balkanites have the highest indigenous European DNA from the Mesolithic, but they still have mostly hgs R1b and R1a combined higher than hgs I1 and I2.I suppose there will be people wondering why I didn't take Sub-Saharan African, East Asian, and South Asian admixtures into account in my analysis. The reason is that I wasn't looking at which group was most West Eurasian, or Caucasoid. Based on everything I've seen to date, in my own work as well as elsewhere, the most West Eurasian group would probably be the French Basques from the HGDP. However, the differences between them, and certain groups from Northeastern Europe, like Northern Poles and Lithuanians, really wouldn't be that great anyway. I might do a write up about that at some point.
https://www.nature.com/articles/468880a
I have found David Wesolowski's calculators good for ranking relative nearness and distance of single populations, although his admixture combinations are totally wrong. That's because he uses representative populations to make PCA plots. One is not descended from points on his charts, just somewhere in between certain extremes. For instance, he got my English and Dutch right at the top, how they are in reality and shared with MDLP as well as Harappa World and MyTrueAncestry, but if you look at the major/minor columns of DNA source, he tends to make high percentages of English combine with Semitic populations of the Mediterranean or above average percentages of Scandinavian with below average Iberians populations. According to his Gedmatch calculator, I could be almost 100% English, just with some Semitic DNA rounding it off, or I could be 75% Norwegian or Danish mixed with Spanish for the remainder. Obviously, that is definitely untrue in each case. Eurogenes has released newer calculators on YourDNAPortal featuring various combinations, down to the 10% figure, but they are still wrong. The only thing correct is the final product of single populations, which this Polack ranks perfectly, unlike Dodecad by Dienekes that says I'm German, which is 'close, but no cigar'. Most pie charts of ancestry calculators are wrong and run counter to common sense, but not just Eurogenes and there's no sense singling him out.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nt-ethnicities
Maciamo Hay of Eupedia says MyTrueAncestry is wrong, but it comports with the correct results of the others I named above, so take his criticisms with grains of salt. For instance, he quibbles about differences between ancient archaeological cultures and modern populations, but modern populations listed fit very well with mediaeval tribes. One must therefore, connect points A and C by looking at B in a train of consequences, which Mr Eupedia obviously hasn't done and it makes him look like a real novice! LOL, how serious he takes himself!
I'm going to agree with Hamar, since the British Isles are traditionally the least admixed of all European regions, being more isolated and less exposed to mass migrations across the Continent. There's a problem with Wesolowski's admixture reference populations, even though the end results for nearest single populations comes out better than all others, such as MDLP or Dodecad and every other GEDmatch calculator. That's just the thing: a calculator model based upon inferences and assumptions, of relativity rather than exactitude. At least MyTrueAncestry uses actual grave DNA for one's own DNA to be compared to, whereas the reference populations of Eurogenes and others are skewed by modern sourcing since admixture has already been too widespread. For instance, Latin Americans are related to Europeans, but those populations are tainted by European DNA despite erroneously used to source Amerindian affinity. If one is related to Iberians in Europe, there's usually the same percentile found with Latin Americans, as they're equally Atlanto-Meds.
The point of genetic genealogy should be to find one's own ancestors, not necessarily to determine what current population one belongs or is related to now, although MTA does both. There's only one tab that focuses entirely on modern ethnicity and it matches the Eurogenes model, which is perfectly fine when dealing with what group one belongs to now and I cannot fault David in actually beating everyone else (Vadim Verenich or Dienekes Pontikos, etc) for consistency and accuracy. Finding ancestral populations by fractional approximation in the amount per current population is not at all accurate and that's a major error of Eurogenes, whereas MTA shows three admixture scenario packages based upon grave DNA. MDLP does a better job by sourcing for admixture components within and across Europe, but there's too much skewed focus on populations in Eastern Europe, reflecting calculator bias. It is hard to rely on any one admixture calculator or genetic genealogy outfit, but DNAGenics is probably better than GEDmatch and YourDNAPortal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks