So this settles it

>and are you this guy?
No.

>Post a genetic map
Pic related is a strawberry one. "Genetic map" is a term for a mapping of elements (genes, markers, etc.) to relative locations on chromosomes in terms of genetic mapping units (centimorgans) related to recombination rates. Sometimes they're also called (genetic) linkage maps.

tl;dr: misusing technical terms will make autismos screech at you

That's really boring

It's pretty interesting, both because it provides a very useful view of genetics which was fully available to us in the pre-genomic era - arguably more useful than the post-genomic view for many applications, and in any case most assemblies of larger genomes construct their representations of chromosomes based on linkage maps anyway.

It's also interesting because recombination isn't that well understood and the relationships of genetic maps to the physical reality of the chromosomes can be surprising at times. Though I may be biased since some of my research is related to this.

But it's not directly related to population genetics / genomics that this thread is about.

This is using obsolete models of showing African biodiversity. It's simplifying it and makes it seem as though Yoruba and Mandenka are representative of all africans.

It doesn't take into consideration the North Africa, Ethio-somali, Nilo-Saharan and Ethiopic clusters.

>This is using obsolete models

Lol no, the Ancient Egyptian sample is from a study published like two months ago

Also I said Caucasians, not Africans

>useful view of genetics which was fully available to us in the pre-genomic era - arguably more useful than the post-genomic view for many applications, and in any case most assemblies of larger genomes construct their representations of chromosomes based on linkage maps anyway
Can I get a second opinion on whether this is technobabble? It reads like technobabble.

No that study does the same thing. It only uses Yoruba as a group for Africans, we know this is a simple model to utilize given the complex evolution of African peoples.

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393
nature.com/articles/srep09996
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005397

The clustering of your data is obsolete. African genetics especially of the Eastern Sahel shows that, it gives a now unsupported idea of African populations given it's limited scope and I feel given all the revolutionary research on African genetics over the past few years being outright ignored it seems rather intentional.

No one cares about Africans and they are irrelevant anyway

actually this is the real genetic makeup of caucasians:

25% - cave beast
25% - neanderthal
25% - created by big head scientist jakub
25% - satanic devil dna
25% - mayonnaise

um you forgot 25% divine spark

>pure Anatolian/European people destroyed by IE mongrels
So sad.

It's just jargon to an extent.

To stretch the the "map" analogy somewhat...

We started out making our "maps" as lists of landmarks and the travel time between (= genetic maps) them and we've been doing that for a very long time.

Recently we've acquired the technology to cheaply make aerial photos (= high throughput sequencing) which allowed us to make much more complete and "accurate" maps (= reference genome assemblies).

But what we end up doing tends to be mostly navigating between landmarks which means the former approach is often more useful. Not to mention we assembled most of those aerial photos into complete maps based on our prior knowledge of the relative landmark location, so it's not like newer technology made the old style "maps" useless.

(Again, little to do with population genetics)

They also got Phoenician'D in South Europe

Except this test is obfuscating DNA evidence of the region in question

...

I'm very confused. What do the colours mean?

Your IQ must be very low

Green: Western/Scandinavian hunter gatherer (Mesolithic)
Light blue: Caucasus hunter gatherer (Mesolithic and Neolithic)
Blue: Neolithic Anatolian farmer
Brown:Natufian farmer (Neolithic Levant)
Orange: Siberian Mongoloid
Red: Black nigger from West Africa

>Green: Western/Scandinavian hunter gatherer (Mesolithic)

And 40% of Native Americans since it fails to make the distinction between ANE and WHG

No, ANE isn't even in the picture

EHG is 75% ANE.

Is there a basic intro to stuff like that I could read?

"No"

Mostly just southern Spain but yeah

Sardinia and Sicily too

Reminder that race is a social construct.

There is only one race: the human race.

Not really since those maps use these data

Kinda but they use yoruban as the representative sample. The authors of the paper claim that subSahran (maybe more precisely West subSahran) African ancestry was negligible in ancient Egyptians (of the north).

Yorbuans are a good representative sample if you're not interested in fine scale ancestry analysis

Eh mostly southern Sicily and Sardinia wasent really a lot of influence they just traded with them

>got Phoenician'D in South Europe

What about light red?

>North Africa, Ethio-somali, Nilo-Saharan and Ethiopic
>black

pls

Not really, they clearly had a genetic impact in them and founded several colonies in those isles

>genetic impact
Yeah in southern Sicily and on average like 4%

No, look at this

>these data

You think a bunch of colors equals DNA?

Let me explain how ADMIXTURE works. It does use DNA data, what else did they use?

>Have a genotype matrix of common variants
>Filter variants that are too close in LD (Linkage Disequilibrium) to each other
>ADMIXTURE uses the genotypes and infers ancestral clusters governed by the number of clusters the user specifies. This example uses K=16
>What is reported for a given population (French,Egyptian, etc) is an average composition of ancestry. If you count the number of colors it should be 16
>This is basically what 23andMe, FamilyTree and all those others use
>Even GEDmatch uses clustering and likely ADMIXTURE or another variant of the technique like STRUCTURE
Please educate yourself
genetics.ucla.edu/software/admixture/admixture-manual.pdf

See this

>Turkey
GREEK'D

ADMIXTURE spits out information which ranges from completely random to surprisingly accurate. It's not some cornerstone of modern genetics. There's more sophisticated methods available for researches if they are needed.

It's funny how Turkey has barely any Turkik DNA id any

>published in 2009
>cited by over 1000 papers

When is it completely random? Care to elaborate or are you going to pull things out of your ass.

I can answer it for you. It's completely random if you include a large population of individuals with high IBD among them (that's means they are related).

Sure it's no CRISPR or bwa aligner, but show me a paper published in Nature or Science that did not include ADMIXTURE analysis for population genetics, especially ancient genomes.

If you supply the program with good reference population samples, basically anything from HapMap/1000 Genomes, you're going to get results that make sense.

Attached is my own ADMIXTURE analysis on myself (red star) and my mother-in-law (blue arrow). I'm mix between south Europe and Mediterranean Middle East, her background comes from the British Isles. The analysis looks good and gives me about the same anctrey results as 23andMe.

Here's the citation record from google scholar

these models can change all the time, just a year ago you would have a single ENF cluster swooping up all "farmer" ancestry, yet here we are a year later with vastly divergent farmer populations showing pretty important substructure present

You nailed it.

>these models can change all the time, just a year ago you would have a single ENF cluster swooping up all "farmer" ancestry,
The models don't change all too much. What changes are the sample sizes, more samples == more accurate results.

Ancestry analysis has changed little in the SNP space since HapMap around 2010. Any source a /pol/tard throws that uses data before then is old. Some of the models improve, but it's incremental, unless a new technique like machine learning is used.

>not knowing how science works
again the models do not change much unless a new technique is used. And even then only the accuracy and/or performance of the method increases slightly. Scientists have been using the same models for aligners, SNP callers, and other tools for decades. What changes are the techniques (snp genotyping vs. whole genome sequencing), which ultimately allow for more data to be processed.

More data == accurate results.

no doubt about that but the interpretations of the best fitting results can still lead to very different ideas, that's what should be avoided, which is one of the reasons why for instance you still have many people believing there was just a single farmer population that spread from Iberia to Iran, with all the consequences of such interpretation

what OP posted, although certainly a better picture from a year ago, is hardly conclusive

>When is it completely random?

When an ancient sample is too old or the K is too low.

It's one tool, not the tool.

>with all the consequences of such interpretation
Yeah the interpretation is subjective.

I actually made that image earlier this week and posted it to the thread "Are Middle Easterners are White?". I had to download the pdf supplement, convert to PNG in photoshop. I'm a PhD student in genetics, I've worked with the 1000 Genomes on structural variants, but I tend to focus on Autism genetics.

>the K is too low.
Who would supply a K=2?
K=3 shows Africa/East Asia/Europe split and is not informative.

Typically when authors show K=2 they include 2 ... 12

cringe

Also Greeks have large SHG ancestry while Turks don't have it, and Turkish "Iranian" component is larger than Greek one
I love it when people who posses an iq of 20 try to discuss genetics. it's really cute, it's like watching a retarded deformed puppy trying to jump on a stair.

>SHG

Scandinavian hunter-gatherer

AKA people who not even Scandinavians descend from.

You're looking for the words EHG and WHG.

??? are you fucking retarded?
That was not my point. My point was the genetic differences.

>Also Greeks have large SHG ancestry

Only a complete retard would write those words.
I doubt even 1 part in a billion of the Greek genome comes from SHG.

>herp derp i have low iq and i'm blind
that light green block in greek autosomal dna is not your mother's dildo.

It's mostly from the Yamna and also Slavs who carried Baltic Hunter Gatherer admixture like other Corded Ware pops.
Nothing to do with the SHG.

Not really Sards have about the same about Greeks have despite having really low Yamnaya admixture

Greece isn't Sardinia. The farmers there weren't mixed with HGs.

can't you fags see the green one is also the WHG one or am I missing something? SHGs were basically WHG + some ANE, same shit on that admixture run
the source for Sardinians will be certainly better modeled with WHGs than with high ANE groups like EHGs