#416177

Anonymous
Quote:
The genes mirror geography is the same map that was used in the Sorb study just displayed somewhat differently. As can clearly be seen by the fact that the locations of all of the countries are the same.

First of all care to explain what does YG- or Yugoslavia concretely represent? This study is from 2008 yet Yugoslavia broke apart as a country in the early 1990s- more than a decade ago since the study has been published. Secondly a "Yugoslav" could be anything from an albo in Kosovo to a Slovenian.
Thirdly if Yugoslavia represents Serbs only then what does RS represent? Since RS is the official country code of Serbia, like RU is for Russia, PL is for Poland, SL is for Slovenia, HR is for Croatia etc….. Yugoslavia at the time this study was carried out did not exist. 

I explained pretty much attaching the copies of papers published in European Journal of Human Genetics.

Sample for reference populations were taken from population Reference Sample (POPRES) and  Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) projects. Both projects are widely used in scientific studies.

The graph in the study on Lusatian Sorbs was taken from 'Genes mirror Geography within Europe' (2008) Novembre et al. which was cited around 285 times in other scientific studies. There may be 285 other papers in which the graph was likely referenced. It's a popular study co-authored by John Novembre who published extensively on the subject among other thing such as working on ADMIXTURE software.

Moreover, the study was specific to the population of Lusatian Sorbs. And you should take your concerns to whoever provided the samples to the projects and the editorial board of European Journal of Human Genetics permitting to publish the study.

Finally why hasn't any other DNA test ie Polako, Dodecad, Macdonald etc…. ever found an ethnic Serb to cluster with Greeks and Albos? According to this study one would expect that about 1/3 or so of Serbs would fall into the Greek cluster.

You should be directing your questions to Polako, Dodecad and MacDonald.

This is what we have:

– German researchers sampling 997 Lusatian Sorbs reducing the sample to 178 with each subject having 4 Lusatian sorbs granparents and all subjects being unrelated.
– A graph from another scientific study being utlised in many scientific studies on which German researchers placed Lusatian Sorbs.

Do you want me to delete one of the few studies on Lusatian Sorbs because of your concerns over the graph?

PS I explicitly stated in the first post of the thread, that this topic is not to prove a point or pick up a fight. I would like to compile a list of published literature on the subject. If you don't like the results in one publication, then find another one.