Further exposing the dishonest fraud.
Following up on my earlier post from today, let’s consider more about Durocher. Laughably, Durocher is so excited about admixture in Southern Europe that he cannot even write a coherent English sentence:
This is in line with other studies finding their Europeans in the far south tend to be closer genetically to their North African or Middle-Eastern neighbors.
That can be interpreted in two different ways. First, it can mean that if one were to compare Northern, Eastern, and Southern Europeans to North Africans and Middle Easterners, then the Southern Europeans are going to be “closer genetically” to North Africans and Middle Easterners than Northern or Eastern Europeans are. That’s of course true and expected given clines of gene frequencies (we will for the moment ignore what the results would be if we were to substitute “Siberians and East Asians” for “North Africans and Middle Easterners”). Second, it can mean that Southern Europeans are “closer genetically to their North African or Middle-Eastern neighbors” than they are to other Europeans, which is of course false, and Durocher must know it is false. Genetic kinship analysis – unfortunately only performed at this time by private entities because population geneticists ignore such studies – shows it be false, and Fst, which is performed by population geneticists, shows the same. Unless Durocher believes that Southern Europeans are predominantly North African and Middle Eastern (and I do not believe that even he would have the temerity to push that lie), then obviously it is false.
But there’s more. The study that Durocher cites was already discussed at this blog, see here (emphasis added).
Note that Germans are being used as the European component representative for the admixture analysis, and despite that, Northern and Central European populations are still getting percentages ascribed to “Saharawi” and “Qatari” components. Given clinal gene frequencies, it is not surprising that Southern European populations are modeled as having North African and Near Eastern ancestral components compared to Germans, but what to make of, for example, such ancestry in Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, and the Irish? I presume that Der Movement does not believe that such populations have any modern admixture from North African or Near Eastern sources. Therefore, the findings for those populations are artifacts from the modeling, ancient admixture, or both. If that is so, then any “real” modern admixture in the Southern European populations has to be whatever small percentages in excess of that found in Northern and Central Europe, and even there, the clinal gene frequency issue has to be considered. The same principles hold for the modeling in the preprint discussed above.
Durocher is aware of my work and of this blog, and yet he continues to promote his lies. That tells you what you need to know about his character, or the lack thereof.
See this.The relevant table from the paper was put up as a comment on his own post, but Durocher ignores it. 100% dishonest fraud.
By the way, this blog has already discussed, years ago, the possible political and social implications of greater genetic heterogeneity in Southern Europe; so Durocher trying to imply that such insights are novel on his part is another lie.