Search results

If you scroll a bit up you will see my qpAdm models proving that South Italians have excess Natufian admix.

Like i've said qpAdm is not perfect. In this case G25 models might be better than qpAdm models due to the limitation of too many proxies. Also Dodecad is an outdated calculator. It makes no sense to use just Minoans as a proxy for Italians when they clearly much more excess Iran N and Levant N...

My models prove that the paper is wrong. According to the paper's faulty model South Italians have no excess Natufian admix but that is false because they overinflated Iran Neolithic by not including Natufian or Levant_N. My models which are based on the paper's outgroups clearly show that once...

Cyclades Milos seems to be around 40-50%

Dodecanese have Anatolian-Armenian related stuff, Canaanite related and also some Balkano-Slavic.

I used Sarno et al.paper's outgroups but i added Taforalt and Anatolian HG in order to help qpAdm tell apart Natufian from Turkey_N easier. I also removed Jordan_PPNB because Natufian used as a left pop and is ancestral to Jordan_PPNB. Those academics by not using Taforalt and Anatolian HG as...

You confused Iberomaurusian Taforalt with Ancestral North African. According to the Paper Taforalt has 45% ANA and Nautifan has 27% Taforalt and not 27% ANA, which means Natufian has 12% ANA. Pay attention to the graph in the paper and also read the supplementary material models too.

It is a common knowledge in population genetics. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full

ANF has 95+% Dzudzuana admix while Natufian has 88% Dzudzuana and 12% Ancestral North African. They can easily be told apart on qpAdm. They also had thousands of years of separation and drift.

They used these outgroups: (Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, GoyetQ116-1, ElMiron, Vestonice, Villabruna, EHG, Levant_N, Natufian, Mota) They did not even use Anatolian Hunter Gatherer as an outgroup to help qpAdm to tell apart Anatolia_N from Levant_N. :facepalm: No wonder they cant model them...

You can simply check for Natufian, if they score 10% Natufian that means 20% Levant_N. Also if an Academic has a hard time making qpAdm to distinguish Anatolia_N from Levant_N then obviously he doesn't know how to use qpAdm.

I said MY model, my model shows no steppe and instead shows 20% WHG. Obviously my qpAdm model is false. I made it as an example to you how qpAdm can be used wrongly.

Show me a qpAdm model from the paper that uses Levant N but gets 0% of it or even minus.

Why did my model not choose Levant_N? Why did it also prefer 20% WHG and no Steppe? It must be real because its qpAdm, am i right?

A lot of "scientific" papers pass peer review while being completely outdated and stupid. Just because its a paper it does not make it real.

It is still a good comparison of the excess Levant N in South Italy since we have other ancient Italian samples in Italy.

There are literally Bronze Age samples from Sicily, are you actually denying that they exist?

qpAdm also does not prefer Steppe when you use qpAdm wrongly like they did. An example of a stupid qpAdm model below. qpAdm is often used wrongly in many papers like this.

There is clear 100% confirmed excess Levant_N admix in South Italy. G25 models are consistent with qpAdm models. But you can force Levant N out and just use Iran N as a proxy on qpAdm, that is a forced model. Once you add Levant N it will pick Levant N. Also Iran N was not even close to those...

Yeah why not. If you charge though you should label the regions.