What "jump", Y-DNA isn't aDNA, they're separate entities, Y-DNA is the paternal lineage, aDNA is your total DNA.>but it is not ludicrous and unfounded in anywhere bar your G25s claim of roughly a third
Now it's all clear, you're just agitated because of the input, not that there's AN input, and this isn't a claim, this is a genetic fact.>DNA being further diluted to the range the study presents
No, it doesn't because the G25 runs were based on MODERN SCALED AVERAGES. If anything, the Slavic input would've been higher at any point in the past, and since you've mentioned Greek-speakers from Anatolia, Sicily, and even Armenians being settled on the peninsula, that would show in the study, and the populations that were supplanted by the new arrivals would cluster APART from one another, whereas they're suspiciously clustering closely to Maniots, who was, up until very recently, isolated, stop using shit-tier studies to soothe your pride.>reasonable
It's a revisionist study, nothing" reasonable" about it>>11593436
The sources are social studies from each country involved, Huff. Post just made the map according to the results.>>11593474
I've said that Slavic DNA is ancestral because it appeared in the 6th and 7th centuries, and was introduced by the invading men, but the thing is, the study claims that it includes all populations from the peninsula, which should be heterogeneous because they were supplanted by Greek-speakers from every part of the Mediterranean from as early as the 8th, 9th, and even 10th centuries, yet they all suspiciously cluster closely, specifically to Maniots, who were an isolated group up until very recently. In other words, the study only used samples of Maniots and portrayed them as if they were from other populations as well.