User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Calling out resident Slavs of ABF11 days old

  1. #51
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Polako's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    9,318
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282
    mtDNA
    H7
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Phenotype
    Barbarian
    Religion
    Crop Circles
    Poland

    Default

    Yamnaya and all other Bronze Age Steppe groups were heavy in R1a and R1b, which means they were paternally Eastern European.

    They acquired their "Mediterranean" admixture from women from nearby farmer groups that came from the Balkans and the Caucasus.

    Today most admixture from Yamnaya and related groups is found among Northern and Eastern Europeans. The least in Europe is found among Southern Europeans.

    Not really sure why you're quoting Dienekes? He's stopped blogging on this topic for a reason.

    Here's a freely available review of latest ancient DNA results. It's not that difficult to understand.

    Tracing the peopling of the world through genomics

    This paper references sources that are freely available online.
    Last edited by Polako; 2017-03-21 at 00:09.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Polako For This Useful Post:

    ageladakos (2017-03-21), Pioterus (2017-03-21), Semitic Duwa (2017-03-21), thetick (2017-03-21)

  3. #52
    Established Member
    Mein Führer! I can walk! ageladakos's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,285
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Yamnaya and all other Bronze Age Steppe groups were heavy in R1a and R1b, which means they were paternally Eastern European.

    They acquired their "Mediterranean" admixture from women from nearby farmer groups that came from the Balkans and the Caucasus.
    I was wrong about Med = PIE
    in reality Med ⊂ PIE

    Which does explain why ancient Greeks looked as they did; it is because the proto-Hellenics included Med looks even before coming to the Helladic space and mixing with the pre-Hellenics.
    It explains why the Minoans looked like ancient Greeks, why Med phenotypes can be found in all IE-speaking peoples, but also why the people who have the most of Yamnaya ancestry don't look primarily Med.

    Minoan toichographies below







    Pity that these genetic stuff are completely worthless when it comes to non-genetic things like language

    Anyway, thank you Polako!
    Last edited by ageladakos; 2017-03-21 at 11:13.
    brb

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to ageladakos For This Useful Post:

    Targum (2017-03-21)

  5. #53
    Established Member
    Mein Führer! I can walk! ageladakos's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,285
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Well only if you have a Mediterrean tribalist bias or something
    Actually this discussion revealed to me several things and made me appreciate the "Mediterranean Tribalism" way more than I used to!
    brb

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to ageladakos For This Useful Post:

    Targum (2017-03-21)

  7. #54
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    11,141
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1a2b2-L147+ CMH-6
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Ecofascism, Radicalism
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    Actually this discussion revealed to me several things and made me appreciate the "Mediterranean Tribalism" way more than I used to!
    Okay? Revealed what exactly, if I may ask?

    This discussion was about Poles and Scythians, and you and others came in and accused Poles and other Slavs of claiming Scythians because they lack a glorious past during antiquity. Then you started quoting Dienekes after I tried explaining to you, based on the Haak et al. 2015 paper, that northern and eastern Europeans have the most Yamnaya/PIE ancestry, and as such, while modern Slavics are not the Scythians, they're closer to them genetically than for example Spaniards. You then went autist mode by posting pictures of ancient Greek sculptures, which is beside the point anyway, because we're discussing genetic similarities and haplogroups, not nose and jaw shapes.

    I then pointed out to you that Dienekes is wrong on this topic and why, and that just because he has the same ancestry as you, doesn't make him an infallible authority on PIE homeland questions.

    Polako has also been wrong on some of this stuff, mainly the question of R1a being native to Poland. I and many others were wrong on R1b being native to the Near East. That we were wrong on this stuff is understandable, because we didn't have enough ancient DNA data (none really), and based on the limited genetic information that was available at the time, a compelling case could be argued that R1a was native to Poland based on modern R1a diversity in Poland, and most people were wrong many times over on R1b (for example, that R1b was native to Spain due to its high frequency there). However, being wrong on haplogroups is totally understandable because it's still difficult to know where exactly haplotype mutations were bred; it'll always be uncertain to some degree).

    Dienekes on the other hand, was totally wrong on the PIE question, not as a matter of limited data or because of ignorance, but because he was basically a tribal warrior and tried to place the PIE urheimat as close to Greece as possible (or in a Mediterranean region, such as Anatolia or Armenia). He did this in spite of overwhelming linguistic evidence and having studied and read various Indo-European topics and even books. He was even arguing against the linguistic evidence (as in linguistic paleontology, as championed by J. P. Mallory) which he did have a fairly good understanding of, and he instead favored nonsensical solutions such as linguistic comparisons based on flawed methods (I can't remember what the methodology was called right now, I think it was by Gray & Atkinson, Swadesh method or something). Anyone who seriously understands the linguistic evidence and how strong evidence it actually is for a specific region and time in prehistory, and argues for inferior linguistic models based on vocabulary comparisons and so on, either is not particularly intelligent, or intellectually dishonest (as in, that person has some ideological agenda, you know, Mediterranean tribalism).

    Anyway, look, if you haven't read any serious academic/scholarly books on the Indo-European homeland, you don't understand why Dienekes is a fraud on PIE related topics. Dienekes is not some intellectual giant on this topic. We who have done our homework on PIE studies can see through the weakness and flaws in his arguments. It's absurd that you're even challenging us to argue against him; there's nothing to argue against, Dienekes' credibility was destroyed when Haak et al. released their study in 2015, which showed that north and east Europeans carry more ancestry from a certain tribe, and that this ancestry can be traced back to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which is exactly the region that has most convincingly been argued to be the proto-Indo-European homeland for more than a century now.

    End of debate. No one takes Dienekes seriously now on anything Indo-European.

    And this is also why I've personally had enough of these genome bloggers. No one cares about these personalities and their ideological agendas. Just because someone starts a blog and posts there instead of on a forum, does not make him some sort of omniscient authority and/or knowledge guru that's impossible to argue against. All it means is that bloggers are either too snobby to post on a forum, want attention, or want to control the comment section when they're debating.

    That said, if Poles/Slavs have an inferiority complex because they feel some connection to the Scythians, maybe you can argue a serious case for that, but there's no question as far as I'm concerned, that they have more genetic connection to the Scythians than Greeks and other south Europeans do. Does this make Poles/Russians special or superior? No. All it means is that they're closer to ancient Indo-Iranians, just as modern Greeks are genetically closer to for example the ancient Romans or what the heck, even the ancient Babylonians, than Poles are.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2017-03-21 at 23:38.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    MnM (2017-03-21)

  9. #55
    Established Member
    Mein Führer! I can walk! ageladakos's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,285
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    This discussion was about Poles and Scythians, and you and others came in and accused Poles and other Slavs of claiming Scythians because they lack a glorious past during antiquity.
    Yes, Poles in this forum claim anything because their ethnic group is only 1000 years old.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    That said, if Poles/Slavs have an inferiority complex because they feel some connection to the Scythians, maybe you can argue a serious case for that,
    Are you even serious? What connection could they possibly feel?
    Steppes VS forests, Iranic VS Slavic, 4000 years earlier, Hunter-gatherer VS modern agriculturalists... Do you feel a connection towards Australopithecus? but why not? after all he is our ancestor!

    They have nothing in common beyond some distant ancestry... and it is more than obvious that they use the Scythians, or the proto-IE or anything to get some sense of importance and feed their inferiority complexes.

    See the Norwegians who are supposed to be the most Yamnaya.
    Do you see any Norwegians making idiotic bullshit claims? NO

    Do you even see any non-complexed Pole in the real world (not on forum) claiming any of these bullshit? NO
    Most Poles i have met were pretty cool people and this is exactly why i don't like to talk about Ethnic groups, because to limit the stupidity of few i end up saying harsh things about the many.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Then you started quoting Dienekes after I tried explaining to you, based on the Haak et al. 2015 paper, that northern and eastern Europeans have the most Yamnaya/PIE ancestry, and as such, while modern Slavics are not the Scythians, they're closer to them genetically than for example Spaniards. You then went autist mode by posting pictures of ancient Greek sculptures, which is beside the point anyway, because we're discussing genetic similarities and haplogroups, not nose and jaw shapes.

    I then pointed out to you that Dienekes is wrong on this topic and why, and that just because he has the same ancestry as you, doesn't make him an infallible authority on PIE homeland questions.

    Polako has also been wrong on some of this stuff, mainly the question of R1a being native to Poland. I and many others were wrong on R1b being native to the Near East. That we were wrong on this stuff is understandable, because we didn't have enough ancient DNA data (none really), and based on the limited genetic information that was available at the time, a compelling case could be argued that R1a was native to Poland based on modern R1a diversity in Poland, and most people were wrong many times over on R1b (for example, that R1b was native to Spain due to its high frequency there). However, being wrong on haplogroups is totally understandable because it's still difficult to know where exactly haplotype mutations were bred; it'll always be uncertain to some degree).
    Yes, because IF you can find Mediterranean phenotypes in every IE peoples, it implies that there is a connection between IE and the phenotype.
    It didn't make sense for me that populations like e.g. the Polish are the most similar genetically to the Yamnaya, because it would imply that either the Ancient Greeks should have been more "polish looking" or that the polish should be more ancient Greek looking.

    My mistake was assuming a relative homogeneity of looks (genotype) based on the assumption of a small population and the IE language. I assumed that Mediterranean had to be the original IE phenotype.
    I was wrong in that, because the Yamnaya were a product of mixture.
    The Mediterranean phenotype is indeed connected to the PIE but not in the way, and not for the reasons i believed that it was. (This is what i came to understand)

    so i tried to find an explanation, and i did found one.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Then you started quoting Dienekes after I tried explaining to you, based on the Haak et al. 2015 paper,
    You don't like Dienekes? Ok, how about Haak et al. 2015 that you used?

    If you had read Haak et al, 2015, you would have noticed the abstract of the paper which is exactly what Dienekes is saying...

    "By ~6,000-5,000
    years ago, a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry had occurred throughout much of
    Europe, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not
    only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but from a population of
    Near Eastern ancestry
    ."

    Haak et al, 2015 says that the Yamnaya were MIXED and had some Near Eastern ancestry

    According to Haak et al. the PIE (assuming connection to Yamnaya) already had mediterranean phenotypes within their group. If IE spread from the Yamnaya, then IE spread the Mediterranean phenotype too.

    You either did not understand, or you wasn't aware of this and you tried to argue about something completely different. I do not argue against scientific papers, but if my logic shows something, i investigate further.

    I even bothered reading about the statistical tools (f3) that Dienekes used to support his argument despite that i simply don't give enough fucks...
    I care more for the Sumerians, or the ancient Judeans, or the Incas or anything actually interesting than for some random barbaric dudes living in the steppes, hunting wild animals and eating roots of trees ... even if those dudes gave me my language.

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Dienekes on the other hand, was totally wrong on the PIE question, not as a matter of limited data or because of ignorance, but because he was basically a tribal warrior and tried to place the PIE urheimat as close to Greece as possible (or in a Mediterranean region, such as Anatolia or Armenia). He did this in spite of overwhelming linguistic evidence and having studied and read various Indo-European topics and even books. He was even arguing against the linguistic evidence (as in linguistic paleontology, as championed by J. P. Mallory) which he did have a fairly good understanding of, and he instead favored nonsensical solutions such as linguistic comparisons based on flawed methods (I can't remember what the methodology was called right now, I think it was by Gray & Atkinson, Swadesh method or something). Anyone who seriously understands the linguistic evidence and how strong evidence it actually is for a specific region and time in prehistory, and argues for inferior linguistic models based on vocabulary comparisons and so on, either is not particularly intelligent, or intellectually dishonest (as in, that person has some ideological agenda, you know, Mediterranean tribalism).

    Anyway, look, if you haven't read any serious academic/scholarly books on the Indo-European homeland, you don't understand why Dienekes is a fraud on PIE related topics. Dienekes is not some intellectual giant on this topic. We who have done our homework on PIE studies can see through the weakness and flaws in his arguments. It's absurd that you're even challenging us to argue against him; there's nothing to argue against, Dienekes' credibility was destroyed when Haak et al. released their study in 2015, which showed that north and east Europeans carry more ancestry from a certain tribe, and that this ancestry can be traced back to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which is exactly the region that has most convincingly been argued to be the proto-Indo-European homeland for more than a century now.

    And this is also why I've personally had enough of these genome bloggers. No one cares about these personalities and their ideological agendas. Just because someone starts a blog and posts there instead of on a forum, does not make him some sort of omniscient authority and/or knowledge guru that's impossible to argue against. All it means is that bloggers are either too snobby to post on a forum, want attention, or want to control the comment section when they're debating.

    End of debate. No one takes Dienekes seriously now on anything Indo-European.
    You are BIASED towards Dienekes, you don't like him and you find everything that he does to be flawed.

    Yes, Elias, End of debate.
    Maybe you are right and the rest of his blog posts are shit, but what difference does it make for this exact post?
    Dienekes is right, because he says exactly the same thing as Haak et al. do

    And no, i do not support dienekes because he is Greek, i do not share neither his views or his passions.
    Last edited by ageladakos; 2017-03-22 at 01:28.
    brb

  10. #56
    Established Member
    Mein Führer! I can walk! ageladakos's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-12-20
    Posts
    4,285
    Gender

    Default

    And btw, a fun fact for you phalocratic paternalism-worshiping dudes...

    Genetic scientists say children inherit intelligence from their mothers.

    Surprise!
    brb

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to ageladakos For This Useful Post:

    Targum (2017-03-22)

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Muslim Slavs vs. Christian Slavs
    By Karhunkynsi in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 2014-10-24, 16:10
  2. Balkan Slavs: Closer to Northern Slavs or to Albanians and Greeks?
    By TrollHunter in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 2014-08-16, 04:46
  3. Classify this Spaniards from Resident evil 4
    By MrIK123 in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-11-04, 06:18
  4. Classify this Virginia resident from Colombia
    By Maroon King in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 2011-09-06, 21:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<