[falaki]

This article is conflating language and ancestry. The seed of the confusion is in Reich’s research but the WSJ journalist blows it up to preposterous levels. Take India as an example. Most of the population is speaking some variant of an Indo-European (Indo-Iranian to be more precise) language but only a minority is genetically traced to Indo-European steppe people [1]

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/where-did-india-s-pe...

[rayiner]

You also see this in places like Egypt. Nearly everyone speaks Arabic, but only a minority of their DNA is from the Arabian peninsula.

[DiogenesKynikos]

Which is not a difficult phenomenon to understand.

The most common ancestry in the US is German, not English, but English is still the dominant language. Language isn't DNA.

[rufus_foreman]

>> This article is conflating language and ancestry

From the article:

"DNA detectives, including at Reich’s lab, analyzed DNA samples from the remains of around 450 prehistoric individuals taken from 100 sites in Europe, as well as data from 1,000 previously known ancient samples"

Ancestry, not language.

"Reich’s award-winning lab at Harvard has one of the largest ancient DNA databases in the world and uses proprietary gene-analysis software co-developed by Nicholas Patterson, a British mathematician who once worked as a codebreaker for U.K. intelligence services."

Ancestry, not language.

"DNA evidence shows that the proto-Yamnaya population migrated from the Volga region to Anatolia"

Ancestry, not language.

"In many places, indigenous male DNA disappears upon the arrival of the Yamnaya, while indigenous female DNA is traceable in the following generations"

Ancestry, not language.

"Within years of their arrival, some 99% of the indigenous people disappeared, according to Reich’s analysis of DNA samples from the time"

Ancestry, not language.

I rate your claim that "This article is conflating language and ancestry" as false, and I award you no points.

[falaki]

This article's confusion is where it states "half the human beings alive today are descended from the Yamnaya." He thinks because half of the world population speaks an Indo-European language, and because the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European languages were the Yamnaya culture (as Reich's research suggests), then half of the world population are descendants of the Yamnaya culture.

Is the logical error clear now?

[raincom]

Archive version of the above science.org article "Where did India’s people come from? Massive genetic study reveals surprises Analysis confirms Iranian influx, but also finds genes from Neanderthals and a mysterious human ancestor": https://archive.is/Wd4tP

[dyauspitr]

That article says nothing about the percentage genetic component of the Indo European step people in the Indian population. It does mention a high genetic similarity to Iranians.

[falaki]

And interestingly Iranians are mostly not the descendants of the so-called Indo-Iranian steppe nomads (genetically). But they speak various Iranian languages.

[g8oz]

This research specifically incorporated DNA analysis. As is made clear if you actually read the article. I fail to see where the conflation happens.