New BS study on the origins of Europeans

A new study has been released claiming Indo-Europeans originate from Anatolian Farmers, media outlets are publishing it falsely as "proof" the Indo-Europeans did not expand out of Eastern Europe and conquer Europe Iran and India (the paper never actually challenges this).

Meanwhile genetics experts are ripping into the study for what they see as flawed methodology, little to no evidence and willful ignorance to essentially regress the debate over Indo-European origins through appeal to authority bias.

eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/08/dear-iosif.html?m=1

eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/08/dear-iosif-2.html?m=1

Attached: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-XgUBYtssdJ.jpg (2573x1463, 693.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
pastebin.com/gpPSFEqK.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Europeans being the product of Anatolian Farmers, the Indo-Europeans and western hunter gatherers has been known for quite some time now.

Where do you think Europeans originated from then?

You fo, read what I wrote again. The study is claiming Indo-Europeans themselves come from farmers from the Southern Arc based on flimsy DNA hypotheticals, while the DNA evidence pretty clearly shows they are indigenous to the East European steppes and Forests.

Attached: alaidin20on20the20left20-20adnan20stash_uOnLbu.width-800.jpg (800x505, 83.16K)

I know where Europeans come from. They are a mixture of EEFs (who are differentiated from modern middle easterners by higher WHG DNA btw), WHGs and Indo-Europeans, with WHG and Indo-European DNA getting higher the further North in Europe you go. The most impactful of all those ancient races on us was the Indo-Europeans, since we speak their language and are in large part descended from their culture. What this study claims which is false is that Indo-European culture and the advancement in technology it brought with it originates from the same place the Israelites, Egyptians, Elamites and Babylonians did, which is false.

This needs more coverage

All of these studies largely rely on studies that have been disproven for nearly a decade. The bar for academics is lower than its ever been. Particularly in the field of computing. These new waves don't read enough papers.

If we're talking about the Ice Age, it would be impossible for Europeans to live on or under a 1 mile high ice sheet, so you can disqualify most of Northern Europe.

The Fjords were formed in this process, which would also explain why you do not see any archeological evidence in Scandinavia. Civilization in Northern Europe was impossible at this time, so modern day Europeans may have migrated from *somewhere else*.

>Their new study claims the ancient Anatolian languages were not Indo-European, but that the ancient Anatolian and Indo-European languages are “twin daughters of a Proto-Indo-Anatolian language,” which originated around the Caucasus among Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers.

>Note the conspicuous removal of “European” from the new moniker.

“the link connecting the Proto-Indo-European–speaking Yamnaya with the speakers of Anatolian languages was in the highlands of West Asia, the ancestral region shared by both.” - Iosif Lazaridis et al
— science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247

_

Their argument is as follows:

Proto-Indo-European ancestry has not yet been discovered in ancient Anatolia [untrue, by the way].

Proto-Indo-Europeans and ancient Anatolians both had Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, therefore…

Proto-Indo-European languages originated in the Caucasus among Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers and spread to Europe and Anatolia via separate migrations.

Attached: ANEKEK.jpg (384x512, 120.44K)

There are some major plot holes in their argument…

Linguistic:

- They seem to have completely ignored all linguistic evidence. For example, PIE language shows that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were not familiar with agriculture, which was common throughout the Harvard-proposed West Asian homeland of “Indo-Anatolian.”

- Most Indo-European Anatolian languages were found in the West of Anatolia, the opposite side to the proposed entry point of “Indo-Anatolian.”

- For some reason, “Indo-Anatolian” (Indo-European) languages did not survive in their own homeland, but the Caucasian languages (e.g. Kartvelian) did.

- There is a complete lack of Indo-European languages in the Middle East until Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrants arrive, which we know because ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were literate.


- People with the most CHG ancestry today (Georgians) speak Caucasian languages, not Indo-European languages.


- Both the Mycenaeans and Minoans had additional Caucasian-related and supposedly “Indo-Anatolian”-speaking ancestry but only the Mycenaeans, who also had PIE steppe ancestry, spoke an Indo-European language.


- Caucasian influence on the steppe predates the (real) Proto-Anatolian language by 2000-3000 years. We know this because Caucasian ancestry in PIE comes from a source with 100% Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, but by the Eneolithic (5000-6000 BC), all Caucasian populations had significant additional admixture from Neolithic Anatolians and Iranians.


- PIE culture was extremely patriarchal and the only West Asian ancestry in confirmed PIE peoples (Sredny Stog, Yamnaya, Corded Ware, etc.) came from female Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers. Did these bride-kidnapped women really impose their language on Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer men?

Attached: FS5j_EpWIAAxE2W.jpg (1200x856, 262.23K)

Archaeological:

- PIE expansions into the European Balkans align perfectly with the proposed date of the (real) Proto-Anatolian language, 3000-4000 BC:

>4500-4100 BC, Suvorovo Culture in Ukraine & Romania
>4000-3200 BC, Cernavoda Culture in Romania & Bulgaria
>3300-2700 BC, Ezero Culture in Bulgaria with affinities to Troy I (Early Bronze Age) in Northwestern Anatolia

- There is no evidence of Indo-European culture south of the Caucasus before PIE-type genetics arose in Europe during the Eneolithic (5000-6000 BC).

Genetic:

- Harvard Lab only published a handful of samples from Western Anatolia during the Bronze Age, the most obvious entry point for Indo-European peoples. This is by no means a representative sample size.

- Their method of “proving” the lack of PIE ancestry in Anatolia was a terrible four-way admixture model that used Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers as a source instead of Yamnaya.

- They should have used an admixed Yamnaya + Early European Farmer sample from the Balkans, which would accurately represent the genetic makeup of Proto-Anatolians.

- It takes 7 generations (150-200 years) of ethnic/racial intermixing for autosomal DNA to get “washed out” to less than 1%. So, if Indo-European languages were spread in Anatolia via elite conquest, rather than mass migration, PIE ancestry could have been diluted pretty quickly, while the language and culture remained.


- That being said, clear PIE ancestry has been found in a Bronze Age sample from Kaman-Kalehöyük, which was not mentioned in the study. Moreover, low amounts of EHG ancestry was detected in Anatolia in this study.


- Haplogroup I2a1b1a2 was found in Bronze Age Western Anatolia. This haplogroup was common among Bulgarian Yamnaya and the aforementioned Ezero culture, situated on the doorstep of Anatolia. Fascinatingly, the study also neglected to mention this fact.

Attached: 3551408_orig.jpg (396x395, 29.3K)

>A new study has been released claiming Indo-Europeans originate from Anatolian Farmers
That's an old theory that has been disproven from every imaginable angle and replaced by Marija Gimbutas' "Kurgan Theory" aka the Pontic-Caspian steppe origins theory. Even Joseph Green(((BERG))), an original proponent of out-of-anatolia, has admitted it is wrong.

What's more, is that genetic models using data from the study itself even show obvious Yamnaya-related ancestry in Northwest Anatolia

pastebin.com/gpPSFEqK.

These models clearly demonstrate that the samples from Northwest Anatolia (where the Proto-Indo-European derived I2a haplogroup was found) all have obvious Proto-Indo-European or “Yamnaya-related” ancestry. This is the case when using both “deep” ancestry sources (as was done in the recent Harvard Lab paper) or more contemporaneous ancestry sources.

So, why on earth did the Harvard Lab not publish an admixture model using a Yamnaya-related sample? Because doing so would prove that these Northwest Anatolians had Yamnaya-related ancestry? This is bad science verging on academic fraud. How did this get past ~100 authors and a peer review team without being corrected?

Attached: qNCA2nb.jpg (2242x1456, 444.72K)

I don't really understand the point of contention. Anatolia is on the doorstep of Eastern Europe, they're so geographically close and have been inhabited for so long that any significant distinction is sortof moot, yes? It's like saying there's a significant difference between a Bavarian and a Saxon.

I should add, in antiquity and over time. Obviously a modern Turk is different than a Macedonian and so on.

It seem just another academics that rechant their work to fit (((their backers))) wills
Ful of (((self-contradictory))) statements

genomic analyses is a giant clusterfuck

in 300 years there's going to be a geneticist trying to figure out how all Africans are actually white, because that one white guy got 400 Nigerians pregnant.

Attached: Biotech_dr_l.png (100x100, 11.8K)

Almost all domestic animals and white people come from around the base of Ararat just like the Bible says . Go figure.

There is! Saxons are ingavonic and Bavarians are Istvaeonic.

>I don't really understand the point of contention. Anatolia is on the doorstep of Eastern Europe, they're so geographically close and have been inhabited for so long that any significant distinction is sortof moot, yes?
The genetics and cultures of Anatolia and Eastern Europe, both ancient and contemporary, are worlds apart. Claiming IEs originated from Anatolia is an enormously edgy claim. DNA even shows most Indo-Europeans sans the Greeks and Armenians spread from the Corded Ware culture of Northern Europe, which could not have descended from Yamnaya because it has different haplogroups.

Attached: 0219_-_DUv8tx3.jpg (613x556, 37.58K)

You're a dumbass.

sensationalist articles are a thing, the actual article, albeit garbage, another
they do NOT even dispute in the article that 100% of living IE languages derive from the steppe, with 99% of the important ones from Corded ware
they are just trying to (desperately) resurrect some kind of "out of MENA" hypothesis when dealing with the absolute most divergent branch of the IE family, Anatolian, totally extinct anyway
plus this is actually linking Indo-Hittite to CHG/Caucasus movements, not Anatolian farmers