I have a bad habit of using Caucasian and Middle Eastern interchangeably, in large because the 2 populations are intertwined/close enough that they are sometimes considered regional variants of a broader Iran-Caucasus genetic continuum rather than fundamentally separate populations. I know geographically this place belongs to both Europe and Asia, but - while possessing their own unique differences - modern Caucasian people like Georgians still cluster way closer to Middle Eastern populations than to Europeans. Many autosomal dna tests even lazily clump them together. Heck, my own results are miles closer to Georgians than to you Europeans.
The majority of the ancestors of CHG, Dzudzuana and Anatolian farmers came from further north prior to the LGM
I'm pretty sure that the bulk of their ancestry is pre-LGM even if their supposed roots are from the North. Otherwise you may as claim that modern Hungarians are of Asiatic stock, when they are genetically identical to their neighbors. To think of, you have Pajeets make this claim about themselves too. "We wuz originally Aryans from Europe, and it still makes up most of our genes!"
Although either way we shouldn't be bothered, we are bound to our ancestors rather than the land they first emerged from. It's the same to me whether my ancestors came from Europe or Asia, and i hope this holds true for you as well.
Middle easterners, north africans, turks, persians are all heavily descended from CHG
Reality check: CHG is most present in the proximity of Caucasus, outside it seldom even reaches a quarter. Most of the time the exaggarated CHG figures are due to models being unable to differentiate it from Neolithic Iranian impact. Don't try too hard, just Google dna results of other plebs. On my part, my CHG hovers around 10-15%. I mean come on, between Anatolian, Zagrosian, Hunter-Gatherer, etc, how much space does that leave us with for CHG?
Your map is probably calculating a very specific post LGM population
I already handed over my dna data to you, which i believe to be an excellent example for our case. Here are a few more results from some of the most popular calculators: Eurogenes:12.31% Gedrosia:13.48% PuntDNAL:9.3%
groups like natufian and taforalt have high contribution from europeans of the mesolithic and upper paleolithic
Why are so many of your claims in reverse? It's as if a Japanese person is telling me that East Asians have high amount of Jap contribution, and not the other way around. Do you see how many things are wrong with that statement? Your claims boil down to most of humanity originating in Europe, then migrating to the rest of the world and making up most of their genome, good Lord. For someone who loves following the mainstream academia, you sure contradict it a lot. Normally i can't blame you for your mistakes since your environment (greatest country on Earth) doesn't provide enough intellectual stimulation to push you ahead past a certain point, but this one example so flagrantly defies common sense. Ironically you are the greatest anti-racist on this platform, since according to you the 20 figures distance between a Moroccan and Spaniard is merely illusory since they are both mostly of European stock (no need to provide a major paper, just trust me!)
And I believe the major “innovations” to homo species were coming from homos living in colder climates
Except cold isn't the only pressure to innovate, and plenty of innovations first emerged in warm areas. There might have been instances where Northerners brought high civilization to Southerners, but there's no reason to believe this was the rule. In fact it was the latter who brought it to the former in our recorded history. You make interesting theories Hel, though unfortunately they often don't go beyond being "fascinating what if's".
The elites who ruled ancient egypt had levantine roots which were ultimately heavily derived from CHG
To claim that your average Egyptian/Mesopotomian/Assyrian etc was of largely Near Eastern stock while the ruling elites were of Caucasus requires immense evidence! We don't need "reasonable theories" (which are subjective anyway), we need genetic findings. But good luck with that.
A couple of tips by the way: I like to check my arguments with AI after i type them, you could do the same. And you should work on your prose, i see you are excited to have an opportunity to share the fruits of your extensive researches but it can become really painful winnowing and organizing your thoughts. "Each word is a sin which must justify its existence" is a good advice to start with.
Eliack 0 points 12 hours ago
I have a bad habit of using Caucasian and Middle Eastern interchangeably, in large because the 2 populations are intertwined/close enough that they are sometimes considered regional variants of a broader Iran-Caucasus genetic continuum rather than fundamentally separate populations. I know geographically this place belongs to both Europe and Asia, but - while possessing their own unique differences - modern Caucasian people like Georgians still cluster way closer to Middle Eastern populations than to Europeans. Many autosomal dna tests even lazily clump them together. Heck, my own results are miles closer to Georgians than to you Europeans.
I'm pretty sure that the bulk of their ancestry is pre-LGM even if their supposed roots are from the North. Otherwise you may as claim that modern Hungarians are of Asiatic stock, when they are genetically identical to their neighbors. To think of, you have Pajeets make this claim about themselves too. "We wuz originally Aryans from Europe, and it still makes up most of our genes!"
Although either way we shouldn't be bothered, we are bound to our ancestors rather than the land they first emerged from. It's the same to me whether my ancestors came from Europe or Asia, and i hope this holds true for you as well.
Reality check: CHG is most present in the proximity of Caucasus, outside it seldom even reaches a quarter. Most of the time the exaggarated CHG figures are due to models being unable to differentiate it from Neolithic Iranian impact. Don't try too hard, just Google dna results of other plebs. On my part, my CHG hovers around 10-15%. I mean come on, between Anatolian, Zagrosian, Hunter-Gatherer, etc, how much space does that leave us with for CHG?
I already handed over my dna data to you, which i believe to be an excellent example for our case. Here are a few more results from some of the most popular calculators:
Eurogenes:12.31%
Gedrosia:13.48%
PuntDNAL:9.3%
Why are so many of your claims in reverse? It's as if a Japanese person is telling me that East Asians have high amount of Jap contribution, and not the other way around. Do you see how many things are wrong with that statement? Your claims boil down to most of humanity originating in Europe, then migrating to the rest of the world and making up most of their genome, good Lord. For someone who loves following the mainstream academia, you sure contradict it a lot. Normally i can't blame you for your mistakes since your environment (greatest country on Earth) doesn't provide enough intellectual stimulation to push you ahead past a certain point, but this one example so flagrantly defies common sense. Ironically you are the greatest anti-racist on this platform, since according to you the 20 figures distance between a Moroccan and Spaniard is merely illusory since they are both mostly of European stock (no need to provide a major paper, just trust me!)
Except cold isn't the only pressure to innovate, and plenty of innovations first emerged in warm areas. There might have been instances where Northerners brought high civilization to Southerners, but there's no reason to believe this was the rule. In fact it was the latter who brought it to the former in our recorded history. You make interesting theories Hel, though unfortunately they often don't go beyond being "fascinating what if's".
To claim that your average Egyptian/Mesopotomian/Assyrian etc was of largely Near Eastern stock while the ruling elites were of Caucasus requires immense evidence! We don't need "reasonable theories" (which are subjective anyway), we need genetic findings. But good luck with that.
A couple of tips by the way:
I like to check my arguments with AI after i type them, you could do the same.
And you should work on your prose, i see you are excited to have an opportunity to share the fruits of your extensive researches but it can become really painful winnowing and organizing your thoughts. "Each word is a sin which must justify its existence" is a good advice to start with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJzmSYtHdc0