10-24-2023, 05:24 PM
(10-24-2023, 02:19 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: NEV2 genotype files in plink format here
https://www.mediafire.com/file/46vjqtbd7...2.zip/file
Did you send Davidsky?
Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA (DISCUSSION ONLY)
|
10-24-2023, 05:24 PM
(10-24-2023, 02:19 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: NEV2 genotype files in plink format here Did you send Davidsky?
10-24-2023, 05:32 PM
(10-24-2023, 05:09 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: I don't think that graph has Fatyanovo. And it shows Nitra being closer to Bell Beakers and Unetice than Sintashta. I think if you put Fatyanovo in there they would cluster with Sintashta in IBD too. You are mistaken, this graph has Fatyanovo, this is said in the video, and Fatyanovo is not at all kindred by IBD. Moreover, Abashevo is the main object of the conference from the territory of Fatyanovo is analyzed there, and they are completely not related by Fatyanovo, but Nitra, Fuzesaboni, Babino (Post-Catacomb) and Sintashta are related. So you thinks incorrectly. The direction of direct relationship from Proto-Unetice, Nitra, Fuzesaboni to Post-Catacomb, then Abashevo and further Sintashta, strictly in geography from west to east. Some Post-Catacombs are so like Nitrans. Moreover, there is no continuity with Catacomb and Fatyanovo cultures, as also stated in the video.
10-24-2023, 05:49 PM
(10-24-2023, 05:19 PM)Andar Wrote: Fatyanovo samples are of course mostly Z93* simply because they are from around 2500 B.C when Z94 was just born so you barely will find any Z94 anywhere. We have hundreds of samples from Bronze Age to Iron Age from Nitra/Unetice + the region around and not a single one was Z93. The chance for Sintashta or Abashevo coming from Central Europe instead Fatyanovo is zero. You are completely mistaken, you do not have a single sample from Nitra and neighboring cultures, and you do not know at all what is really there according to Z94, simply because you do not have them. So your conclusion on zero probability is simply wrong. Here we are talking about a Proto-Unetice or Old Unetice culture, which is practically not related to classical Unetice culture. The site of the Old Unetice Culture is available in the Urals before the Sintashta times. (10-24-2023, 04:49 PM)DNA archi Wrote: The first, completely incorrect method, the distance method can completely unable to distinguish between the degree of kinship, the degree of whom comes from whom when all the cords are closest relatives, they have a common component. And in these conditions, all ordinary methods do not work at all. And the fact that Fatyanovo only has R1a-Z93*, and the Syntashta only R1a-Z94 on these map is not taken into account. I have on my maps Fuzesaboni and it is not very close to Fatyanovo and Sintashta is the closest: Distance of Fatyanovo to the pops on my map: 0. RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_-1824 0.014797 1. KAZ_Kairan_MLBA_-1452 0.018229 2. KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_-1489 0.018405 3. KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA_-1344 0.019077 4. RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA_-1725 0.022431 5. RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_-1550 0.023637 6. RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_-1650 0.024042 7. POL_Mierzanowice_EBA_-1844 0.024251 8. CZE_Unetice_preC_-2008 0.024626 9. RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_-1613 0.024631 10. KAZ_Chanchar_LBA_-1670 0.027270 11. KAZ_Kyzlbulak_MLBA1_-1435 0.027404 12. KAZ_Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul_-1470 0.027666 13. KAZ_Karagash_MLBA_-1490 0.027989 14. RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_-1333 0.028813 15. POL_EBA_-1895 0.028871 16. DEU_Unetice_EBA_-1891 0.030762 17. DEU_Unetice_EBA__-1958 0.031153 18. RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA_-1538 0.031291 19. RUS_MLBA_-1746 0.032857 20. Bell_Beaker_NLD_-1818 0.033529 (10-24-2023, 05:49 PM)DNA archi Wrote:(10-24-2023, 05:19 PM)Andar Wrote: Fatyanovo samples are of course mostly Z93* simply because they are from around 2500 B.C when Z94 was just born so you barely will find any Z94 anywhere. We have hundreds of samples from Bronze Age to Iron Age from Nitra/Unetice + the region around and not a single one was Z93. The chance for Sintashta or Abashevo coming from Central Europe instead Fatyanovo is zero. Published SVK_EBA with R1a-Z280 is Nitra and that region has hundreds of samples from cultures like Unetice. Also soon more Nitra samples will be published and they are just R1a-Z280 so i dont see the connection with Abashevo. Z93 is around 5000 years old so as old or older CWC but still zero west of Fatyanovo in 2200-2500 B.C If anything Abashevo is Fatyanovo + Catacomb and shifted east of Fatyanovo not west by any parameter.
10-24-2023, 06:18 PM
(10-24-2023, 05:56 PM)ph2ter Wrote: Distance Distant methods are completely unvalid for the nearest kinship, because they reflect any garbage, and not the real attitude of the ancestor-descendant-stratum. That is, they reflect distant kinship, how many components from the common ancestor are left in the population. Already many times I was convinced of this, it is even much worse than formal statistics. Why do you think they do not use it in genetic research? Why do they use formal statistics, not distances? That's because it is very noisy and does not show real intimacy, it can easily show the proximity to the substrate. Fatyanovo and Sintashta had a common local substrate from local EHG, an increase in which shows a distant method. (10-24-2023, 06:18 PM)DNA archi Wrote:(10-24-2023, 05:56 PM)ph2ter Wrote: Distance I know that distance is not the best method for establishing relations between populations, but in this case it is valid because Sintashta and Fatyanovo are populations with very similar ancestry. In G25 are more similar than I am to my sister. Local EHG substrates around Moscow and Chelyabinsk were similar?
10-24-2023, 07:00 PM
(10-24-2023, 06:10 PM)Andar Wrote:(10-24-2023, 05:49 PM)DNA archi Wrote:(10-24-2023, 05:19 PM)Andar Wrote: Fatyanovo samples are of course mostly Z93* simply because they are from around 2500 B.C when Z94 was just born so you barely will find any Z94 anywhere. We have hundreds of samples from Bronze Age to Iron Age from Nitra/Unetice + the region around and not a single one was Z93. The chance for Sintashta or Abashevo coming from Central Europe instead Fatyanovo is zero. All written is not true, and SVK_EBA : s11953 not from a Nitra of culture. But there is not only about Nitra culture, about a broader circle of local cultures. You give only your fantasies, I brought scientific data from David Reich, and you have nothing to object to just write a lie and refer to non-existent data. Once again, I brought scientific data, you did not bring it, brought only your beliefs. Abashevo is not at all Fatyanovo+Catacomb. Even in the Pepkin burial ground are central Europeans with the Western Mitodna, plus several non-native prisoners of the blacksmiths who came from the Southern Urals, which apply either to Poltavka or Catacomb of culture. Distances to previous populations. Distance to: Abashevo2 0.03139383 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:VLI067.merged 0.03253628 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279 0.03253628 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7279 0.03287256 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:HAN004 0.03354221 Corded_Ware_POL:N45 0.03420344 Bell_Beaker_CZE_early:TIS002.merged 0.03469965 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I15643 0.03471521 Unetice_CZE_preCDA002.A0101 0.03501148 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 0.03520759 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:VOR004 0.03560426 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:HAN002 0.03613266 Bell_Beaker_NLD:I5748 0.03686887 Bell_Beaker_England:I6774 0.03687476 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7208 0.03687476 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7208 0.03726069 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB_EBA:I13027 0.03737457 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:VLI017 0.03765512 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7209 0.03765512 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7209 0.03776965 Bell_Beaker_CZE_lateRU004 0.03800521 Corded_Ware_POL:pcw361 0.03801523 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL003.merged 0.03808169 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I13468 0.03871093 Unetice_CZE_preC:MIG010 Distance to: Abashevo1 0.02813706 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:VLI067.merged 0.03045104 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:HAN004 0.03203232 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279 0.03203232 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7279 0.03252655 Unetice_CZE_preCDA002.A0101 0.03367979 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:NAU002 0.03447010 Bell_Beaker_CZE_early:TIS002.merged 0.03448045 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I15643 0.03480659 Corded_Ware_POL:pcw361 0.03499272 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 0.03566329 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7207 0.03566329 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7207 0.03571028 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB:I13028 0.03613141 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:KO7001.A0201 0.03640490 Unetice_CZE_preC:I7198 0.03683382 Bell_Beaker_England:I6774 0.03732619 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:VOR004 0.03746874 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:VLI017 0.03776492 Corded_Ware_POL:N45 0.03789466 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB_EBA:I13027 0.03858254 Unetice_CZE_C:I4884 0.03864790 Bell_Beaker_NLD:I5748 0.03877109 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:CAH005.B0102 0.03887643 Unetice_CZE_EBA_R1a-Z280:I14193 0.03901870 Unetice_CZE_preC:ROU001.A0101
10-24-2023, 07:21 PM
(10-24-2023, 06:40 PM)ph2ter Wrote:Individual variations of the genome that are perfectly visible on PCA and Admixtures are still higher than the distance. Particularly bad method of distances in average, when the population is compared in average, in this case, it does not show the degree of kinship in general, because the concept of variation disappears and everything depends on the homogeneity of the compared population, the average in the hospital, but the ancestors do not necessarily live in a homogeneous population and the middle It may not be where the members of this population are located. For example, the average may turn out to be very far from the members of this population, and any of this population, and vice versa, this sample may turn out to be the closest relative of a part of this population, that is, to come from part of this population, the population has been divided, but it is not closely related to another part.(10-24-2023, 06:18 PM)DNA archi Wrote: Distant methods are completely unvalid for the nearest kinship, because they reflect any garbage, and not the real attitude of the ancestor-descendant-stratum. That is, they reflect distant kinship, how many components from the common ancestor are left in the population. Already many times I was convinced of this, it is even much worse than formal statistics. Why do you think they do not use it in genetic research? Why do they use formal statistics, not distances? That's because it is very noisy and does not show real intimacy, it can easily show the proximity to the substrate. Fatyanovo and Sintashta had a common local substrate from local EHG, an increase in which shows a distant method. Your sister just shows all this.
10-24-2023, 07:51 PM
10-24-2023, 08:49 PM
(10-24-2023, 07:51 PM)ph2ter Wrote:(10-24-2023, 06:18 PM)DNA archi Wrote: ... Fatyanovo and Sintashta had a common local substrate from local EHG, an increase in which shows a distant method. This is not true, local substrates always exist, the Sintashtans married local, like the Fatyanovans. Anthropologically Sintashtans are very different from the Fatyanovans , having very little in common with them, or because of the difference in origin or because of the local substrate. That is why archaeologists never considered the fact that Sintashta is at least somehow related to Fatyanovo, there is nothing in common between them, especially it is seen the naked eye, it is clear that these people have nothing in common with each other, Sintashta cannot come from Fatyanovo, these are simply very dissimilar people People. But Abashevo is somewhat similar to Sintashta. And it is amazing that modern genetics fully confirmed the opinion of archaeologists and anthropologists. The fact that their substrate was somewhat different is nothing, since it was much closer to each other than to other Europeans. WSHG is like EHG, for distant methods. And your PCA is about nothing, the Sintashta are simply inside all the rest of the CWC. So it does not prove that they come from Fatyanovo, at all. From here I am concluding, oh, it will be bad for you to all when the IBD methods will become the norm, will you also say everything that contradicts science? You are already contradicting it.
10-24-2023, 09:31 PM
(10-24-2023, 08:49 PM)DNA archi Wrote:(10-24-2023, 07:51 PM)ph2ter Wrote:(10-24-2023, 06:18 PM)DNA archi Wrote: ... Fatyanovo and Sintashta had a common local substrate from local EHG, an increase in which shows a distant method. I didn't write that at Sintashta substrate was nonexistent, only that this substrate was not EHG. WSHG is not like EHG. It is more like Botai. Why do you think that Sinstashta and Fatyanovo have nothing in common? What is so different? It is obvious that PCA is not about nothing. IBD has its own limitations which I mentioned already. It is a genealogical tool. I do not contradict current scientific methods. You are spreading nonsense.
10-24-2023, 10:31 PM
This is very exciting, I am looking forward to this study.
Looks like this Fatyanovo connection (or lack thereof) is discussed beginning around 2:30 in the long-ass video Archi linked, for anyone who speaks Russian (which I do not).
10-24-2023, 11:12 PM
(10-24-2023, 09:31 PM)ph2ter Wrote: Why do you think that Sinstashta and Fatyanovo have nothing in common? What is so different? You are exactly what you write nonsense. Your allegations that this is only a genealogical tool complete anti-scientific nonsense. Sintashta and Fatyanovo are not literally in everything, they have common only one thing that they are autosomal CWC, but in this they are similar to each other as all the rest of the CWC and everyone else is similar to them. Do you think that they do not understand what PCA is? Here they show the same samples on PCA and show that they are not distinguishable there, since this is a very rude tool since each population has very large variations. And your methods on the average in this matter are completely erroneous, these are the very first Sintashtans in distances. But not in average. Remember in such cases your average method is completely error. Here is the correct method: Distance to: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0943 0.02738203 Starounetice_CZE_EBA_R1a-Z280:I11158 0.02963589 Corded_Ware_DEU:I1532 0.03039598 Unetice_CZE_preC:BNL002.C0101 0.03102224 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB:I13028 0.03150154 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB_EBA:I13025 0.03156030 Bell_Beaker_CZE_earlyRU002.A0101 0.03251495 Unetice_CZE_C:I4884 0.03285804 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I7958 0.03302860 Bell_Beaker_England:I2450 0.03322159 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:VOR004 0.03362449 Unetice_CZE_preC:ROU003.A0101 0.03373658 Bell_Beaker_England:I6777 0.03385930 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX196 0.03428309 Unetice_CZE_C:KO1007 0.03462536 Bell_Beaker_England:I2443 0.03467730 Unetice_CZE_preCDA002.A0101 0.03487242 Corded_Ware_POL:N45 0.03517720 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279 0.03517720 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7279 0.03548311 Bell_Beaker_England:I2454 0.03548539 Unetice_CZE_EBA_R1a-Z280:I14193 0.03597499 Unetice_CZE_C:MIB001.A0101 0.03625956 Corded_Ware_CZE:I13467 0.03651354 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:VLI029 0.03665112 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 Distance to: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065 0.03390566 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL003.merged 0.03493921 Bell_Beaker_Rhine-Main:I5836 0.03531882 Unetice_CZE_preC:VLI039.A0101 0.03939982 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX194 0.03989595 Bell_Beaker_CZE_early:TIS002.merged 0.04008188 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I13471 0.04021404 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:I20784 0.04032618 La_Tene_CZE_IA:I17316 0.04036754 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:KO7001.A0201 0.04041958 Single_Grave_DNK_Gjerrild_low_res:Gjerrild_id5 0.04103165 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:VLI067.merged 0.04106267 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX199 0.04139699 Unetice_CZE_preC:KO1011 0.04158502 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3601 0.04179714 Battle_Axe_SWE:ber1M 0.04201181 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:HAL001 0.04219393 Bell_Beaker_England:I4950 0.04264292 Corded_Ware_POL:pcw361 0.04268547 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:NAU001 0.04272718 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:HAN002 0.04275626 Corded_Ware_RUS_Fatyanovo:NIK008AB 0.04288128 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7209 0.04288128 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7209 0.04289262 Unetice_CZE_preC:I7200 0.04292325 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 Distance to: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1024 0.03125221 SVK_EBA:S11953 0.03224227 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX191 0.03393793 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL003.merged 0.03429430 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:VLI067.merged 0.03430599 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB_EBA:I13027 0.03466416 Battle_Axe_SWE:ber1M 0.03535989 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I13468 0.03583451 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 0.03607379 Unetice_CZE_preC:ROU004.A0101 0.03621679 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:VLI017 0.03632906 Unetice_CZE_preC:VLI039.A0101 0.03687542 Unetice_CZE_C:I4884 0.03692333 Unetice_CZE_EBA_R1a-Z280:I14193 0.03726811 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB:I13028 0.03746305 Unetice_CZE_preCDA002.A0101 0.03748665 Unetice_CZE_CMI010.merged 0.03776173 Unetice_CZE_preC:MIG010 0.03779194 Corded_Ware_Balticlinkaigalis241 0.03812827 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7279 0.03812827 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7279 0.03822488 Bell_Beaker_NLD:I4073 0.03823265 Unetice_CZE_preC:BNL006.A0101 0.03843074 Bell_Beaker_England:I4950 0.03844639 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:BNL004.A0101 0.03868564 Bell_Beaker_England:I6774 Distance to: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1053 0.02681786 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I13468 0.02781788 Battle_Axe_SWE:ber1M 0.02812165 SVK_EBA:S11953 0.02882614 Corded_Ware_CZE_early:VLI067.merged 0.02926689 Unetice_CZE_preC:ROU004.A0101 0.03092003 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL003.merged 0.03206444 La_Tene_CZE_IA:I17316 0.03224371 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5519 0.03259941 Unetice_CZE_preCDA002.A0101 0.03260574 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:KO7001.A0201 0.03267094 Unetice_CZE_preC:BNL005.A0101 0.03294355 Corded_Ware_CZE:I7280 0.03294355 Corded_Ware_CZE_late:I7280 0.03342129 Bell_Beaker_England:I4950 0.03354755 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX194 0.03371299 Unetice_CZE_preC:I7199 0.03379379 Unetice_CZE_preC:VLI039.A0101 0.03423733 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I14189 0.03427522 Bell_Beaker_NLD_LNB_EBA:I13027 0.03450025 Battle_Axe_SWE:NEO51 0.03460603 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I13471 0.03470721 Unetice_CZE_CMI010.merged 0.03471490 Unetice_CZE_EBA:I11159 0.03473099 Unetice_CZE_preC_R1a-Z645:CHL008 0.03516464 Corded_Ware_SWI:MX199 Code: Distance to: RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089 It can be seen that Fatyanovo in all the well-known samples of Sintashta is a rarest guest for distances. Тhe closest relatives for the Sintashta of the famous data are Czech CWCs and the subsequent populations of the Czech Republic. It's just that the Czech Republic is small, and Fatyanovo is large, so it seems to you on your cards that the Fatyanovo ancestors of Sintashta. (10-24-2023, 11:12 PM)DNA archi Wrote:(10-24-2023, 09:31 PM)ph2ter Wrote: Why do you think that Sinstashta and Fatyanovo have nothing in common? What is so different? Of course that you will find many CW samples closest to Sintashta than Fatyanovo simply because of statistics. This is the law of big numbers. It happens when you have 20 samples from Fatyanovo and 200 samples from Czech Republic and when the samples from Czechia have elongated spread from Yamnaya to Unetice: |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|