Eastern Hunter Gatherer ancestry fallacy

 Sorry, I had to continue from what we saw in the study in my previous message.  There was two f4-statistics evaluating the origin of populations.  It was misleading.  We simply can't determine origins by measuring the amount of one ancestral component, not by absolute values or by comparing to another population, because other admixtures has effect on other individual admixtures.  We can only measure ratios.  Let's assume that a Mesolithic population was 60% EHG and 40% WHG.  Then a new migration gave it 50% Steppe admixture.  The result after the process was 50% Steppe, 30% EHG and 20% WHG.  If we now compare the amount of EHG to any population with different admixing history we get wrong results.  I made a statistics showin EHG/WHG ratio of certain populations.  I use f3-statistics pop,WHG, Mbuti and pop,EHG,Mbuti.  I can't say that it gives absolutely right answers, but f3 is a well-known academic method.  EHG and WHG references can even overlap to some extent.  In any case, despite of the method the idea using the amount of one admixture proportion to evaluate origin of population is wrong whether it uses absolute or relative values in comparison to another population.