First Britons

[1798]

...that you post gedmatch percentages in an attempt to support rehashed cyclic arguments and logical fallacies.

That is clear.

The Eurogenes K15 calculator is accurate enough for me.I have learned all I need to know about my ancient dna lines from it.

[N21163]

It is important to let people know the truth.

...that you post gedmatch percentages in an attempt to support rehashed cyclic arguments and logical fallacies.

That is clear.

[1798]

Sounds like you're throwing a tantrum.

I saw what you were referring to, and it had nothing to do with what GST said.

Anyway, HG classifications have previously been discussed at length, why bring it up again and again and again??



I don't believe anyone was talking about 'wipe-out' theories.

It is important to let people know the truth.

[N21163]

This is my thread and I was referring to the autosomal dna of the HG people in the Isles.

Sounds like you're throwing a tantrum.

I saw what you were referring to, and it had nothing to do with what GST said.

Anyway, HG classifications have previously been discussed at length, why bring it up again and again and again??

Why people still think that the autosomal dna of a region can be wiped out or replaced beats me, after all that has been written by genetic scientists.

I don't believe anyone was talking about 'wipe-out' theories.

[1798]

Clearly you didn't read any of what GST stated.

Why are you talking about autosomal DNA when he was discussing mtDNA?

WHG, has been discussed at length with you in the past.

Is this another attempt for you to rehash the same cyclic arguments?

This is my thread and I was referring to the autosomal dna of the HG people in the Isles. Why people still think that the autosomal dna of a region can be wiped out or replaced beats me, after all that has been written by genetic scientists.

[N21163]

So you are stating that U5 which originated in the Iberian refuge went east after the LGM and came back in the BA. How can that be proved? Anyways, WHG is autosomal dna.

The 8000 ybp ancient remains from Lochsbour was used as a proxy for WHG and I compared my result to It.
Lochsbour K15
Population
North_Sea 34.51%
Atlantic 23.86%
Baltic 33.51%
Eastern_Euro 7.33%

Lochsbour K7
Population
ANE 7.35%
ASE 0.49%
WHG-UHG 88.70%
East_Eurasian 3.09%
West_African -
East_African 0.36%

Clearly you didn't read any of what GST stated.

Why are you talking about autosomal DNA when he was discussing mtDNA?

WHG, has been discussed at length with you in the past.

Is this another attempt for you to rehash the same cyclic arguments?

[1798]

Quoting some text from the Eurogenes ANE K7 blog page:




With multiple waves of migration that we don't yet and may never fully understand, K7 is not a very precise indicator of the survival of western European hunter-gatherers.

mtDNA haplogroup U5 is typically thought of as a European hunter-gatherer haplotype, but much of the U5 in Europe today is derived from eastern European U5 that migrated to western Europe from the east during the Bronze and Iron ages, in what Jean Manco calls the "revenge of the hunter-gatherers". There is no doubt that higher fractions of western European hunter-gatherers survived in the periphery of northwestern Europe, but their average contribution based on mtDNA is quite low. So you need to reconcile the uncertainty in K7 results with the fact that we see mostly farmer and steppe migration mtDNA in Europe today.

So you are stating that U5 which originated in the Iberian refuge went east after the LGM and came back in the BA. How can that be proved? Anyways, WHG is autosomal dna.

The 8000 ybp ancient remains from Lochsbour was used as a proxy for WHG and I compared my result to It.
Lochsbour K15
Population
North_Sea 34.51%
Atlantic 23.86%
Baltic 33.51%
Eastern_Euro 7.33%

Lochsbour K7
Population
ANE 7.35%
ASE 0.49%
WHG-UHG 88.70%
East_Eurasian 3.09%
West_African -
East_African 0.36%

[GST]

My Eurogenes K7 show that I have 64% WHG/UHG dna not 5%.

Quoting some text from the Eurogenes ANE K7 blog page:

Western European/Unknown Hunter-Gatherer (WHG-UHG): this essentially looks like a West Eurasian forager component, and includes the forager-like stuff carried by Neolithic farmers (Oetzi the Iceman has 40% of it).


Some of you might be wondering why this test doesn't offer an Early European Farmer (EEF) cluster. But the answer to that should be obvious by now. EEF is not a stable ancestral component. It's actually a composite of at least two ancient components, including the so called Basal Eurasian and WHG-UHG. If it really was a genuine ancestral component, like ANE, then I'm pretty sure I'd be able catch it with ADMIXTURE. But I can't.

Indeed, a really important thing to understand about the Lazaridis et al. study is that it doesn't actually attempt to estimate overall WHG-UHG ancestry in Europeans, but rather the excess WHG-UHG on top of what is already present in the EEF proxy Stuttgart.

Also worth noting is that this K7 can be a bit noisy. That's mainly because it's very difficult to correctly assign proportions of ancient ancestry to present-day samples.

With multiple waves of migration that we don't yet and may never fully understand, K7 is not a very precise indicator of the survival of western European hunter-gatherers.

mtDNA haplogroup U5 is typically thought of as a European hunter-gatherer haplotype, but much of the U5 in Europe today is derived from eastern European U5 that migrated to western Europe from the east during the Bronze and Iron ages, in what Jean Manco calls the "revenge of the hunter-gatherers". There is no doubt that higher fractions of western European hunter-gatherers survived in the periphery of northwestern Europe, but their average contribution based on mtDNA is quite low. So you need to reconcile the uncertainty in K7 results with the fact that we see mostly farmer and steppe migration mtDNA in Europe today.

[1798]

No one has claimed that they were entirely wiped out, but they were mostly replaced by Neolithic and Bronze age immigrants. Based on mtDNA haplogroups probably less than the 5% of modern Irish mtDNA is typical of Mesolithic European mtDNA.

My Eurogenes K7 show that I have 64% WHG/UHG dna not 5%.

[GST]

Have you got evidence that shows that the Mesolithic and Neolithic Irish were wiped out?

No one has claimed that they were entirely wiped out, but they were mostly replaced by Neolithic and Bronze age immigrants. Based on mtDNA haplogroups probably less than the 5% of modern Irish mtDNA is typical of Mesolithic European mtDNA.

[MMaddi]

So finally you are coming around to the idea that people living in Ireland today are descended from the Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples.

Some are, but I think the consensus is that, while northern Europe has more Mesolithic European DNA than southern Europe, most of the DNA in modern Europeans comes from the Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations into Europe. And that includes the British Isles.

I never claimed that Mesolithic European DNA was wiped out in any part of Europe. I don't recall that anyone else made that claim either. That's why you misrepresent the views of others when you post otherwise - your "straw man" argument.

Who knows? Maybe some day you'll come around to admitting that a good deal, if not most of modern European DNA came into Europe during the Bronze Age. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[kevinduffy]

So finally you are coming around to the idea that people living in Ireland today are descended from the Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples.

Are there any DNA samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples to compare to the modern Irish population?

[1798]

I'm calling "straw man" argument on 1798, one of the many times he's resorted to putting words in the mouths of other posters to suit his arugment. Or perhaps he actually believes that someone wrote what he's claiming.

So finally you are coming around to the idea that people living in Ireland today are descended from the Mesolithic and Neolithic peoples.

[MMaddi]

You and others.

I'm calling "straw man" argument on 1798, one of the many times he's resorted to putting words in the mouths of other posters to suit his arugment. Or perhaps he actually believes that someone wrote what he's claiming.

[1798]

Who is making that claim?

You and others.