Search results

It's not that CHG descended directly from Iran_N, it's that it descends from a population that was similar to Iran_N and then mixed with EHG, but because it's a ghost population we say it was Iran_N + EHG, because that's the closest mix.

???

Because of this:

Ther's no way to model Iran_N without basal eurasian, it whould be like modeling Arabs without Natufian 🤦‍♂️, but here's the modeling, from the same study.

I know y'all don't want to go to the previous page, so I'm going to put it here, too! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full

I've already done it, just go to literally the previous page (6), to get it!

Levant_N is 70% Natufian and 30% Barcin. CHG is 70% Iran_N and 30% EHG, and you comparing distances with G25 is not going to change that, G25 is not the best model to work with very ancient groups like that, together.

Maybe what they were talking about us direct WHG admixture, because the admixture present in the middle east is the one already in ANF.

Idk, but maybe it's not even needed.

And what happens when you put EHG there?

Ok whatever then... you can do whatever you want.

What was the bullshit?

Not similar enough, since the results are completely different.

Were you surprised by that or not, what were you expecting? (genuine question)

With EHG, because it is lacking it! Target: Jgab602-EU Distance: 3.6583% / 0.03658315 54.8 Anatolia_N 19.6 EHG 10.0 WHG 8.8 CHG 3.4 Arabian_HG_Simulated 3.4 Iran_N

Forgot to put it in there, but here it is https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.full

1st, CHG doesn't have med (whatever that is) and barcin is indeed what I said.

CHG is Iran N + EHG. Barcin is 1/3 WHG, 1/3 Levant N, 1/3 Iran N (ROUGHLY)

Everything out of Africa is a neanderthal admixed basal eurasian or basal eurasian, this way of looking at things doesn't make any sense, WHG is a paleolithic european component, just like natufians are to the levant.