quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There's your answer questioner
"iGENEA without producing any proof"
and Clyde presents it as if it was proven
You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.
If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.
.
Your typical backward reasoning is that someone can make up a theory about anything and if someone can't disprove it it is therefore true.
Science doesn't work like that. You have to prove something to be true. You can't just make up a theory and then assume because somebody can't or doesn't want to disprove it the theory is true.
So somebody says blue elephants exists. Then somebody else says "no they don't" Then you say " have you checked the entire world to verify that? And they say no And then Clyde says that's proof blue elephants exists because somebody couldn't prove they don't. You do that constantly
This shows YOUR backward thinking. The Egyptians have the DNA.
The Egyptians could have easily provide the DNA proving that IGENEA was wrong. They have not provided any DNA to dispute the IGENEA's claim.
King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269. .
No, you understand nothing about burden of proof
If someone has a theory the burden of proof for the theory does not lie on the rest of the world to disprove it
The burden of proof is on the claimant to list primary data in detail and describe applying scientific method in detail and only then is the theory qualified to be reviewed by other researchers. The scientific method requires the method is described in detail so that other researchers can test the theory by the same method and see if they can reproduce a particular result.
No IGENEA did not provide those details, nor did they detail their method. They claimed to be able to read blurry data from a computer screen filmed in a video from a documentary. Other people who watched the video said much of it was too blurry to read and there was not enough data to predict haplotype. Did they show a series of screen shots of this unreleased data? No, they didn't even do that. What they did is hardly proper data sourcing
By far highest concentration of R1b in Africa is of the clade V88 in the Chad basin area that also includes part of Cameroon. -although this is less than 1% of Africans
M269 in Africa is much rarer and you find some low frequencies in berbers and in coastal African countries who have had historical contact and low levels of mixture with Europeans
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There's your answer questioner
"iGENEA without producing any proof"
and Clyde presents it as if it was proven
You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.
If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.
.
Your typical backward reasoning is that someone can make up a theory about anything and if someone can't disprove it it is therefore true.
Science doesn't work like that. You have to prove something to be true. You can't just make up a theory and then assume because somebody can't or doesn't want to disprove it the theory is true.
So somebody says blue elephants exists. Then somebody else says "no they don't" Then you say " have you checked the entire world to verify that? And they say no And then Clyde says that's proof blue elephants exists because somebody couldn't prove they don't. You do that constantly
This shows YOUR backward thinking. The Egyptians have the DNA.
The Egyptians could have easily provide the DNA proving that IGENEA was wrong. They have not provided any DNA to dispute the IGENEA's claim.
King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269. .
No, you understand nothing about burden of proof
If someone has a theory the burden of proof for the theory does not lie on the rest of the world to disprove it
The burden of proof is on the claimant to list primary data in detail and describe applying scientific method in detail and only then is the theory qualified to be reviewed by other researchers. The scientific method requires the method is described in detail so that other researchers can test the theory by the same method and see if they can reproduce a particular result.
No IGENEA did not provide those details, nor did they detail their method. They claimed to be able to read blurry data from a computer screen filmed in a video from a documentary. Other people who watched the video said much of it was too blurry to read and there was not enough data to predict haplotype. Did they show a series of screen shots of this unreleased data? No, they didn't even do that. What they did is hardly proper data sourcing
By far highest concentration of R1b in Africa is of the clade V88 in the Chad basin area that also includes part of Cameroon. -although this is less than 1% of Africans
M269 in Africa is much rarer and you find some low frequencies in berbers and in coastal African countries who have had historical contact and low levels of mixture with Europeans
Your comments lacks any congruence. IGENEA announced that King Tut's DNA was R1b. No one has presented any evidence disputing this claim the lack of counter evidence proves that your comments have no foundation.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Your comments lacks any congruence. IGENEA announced that King Tut's DNA was R1b. No one has presented any evidence disputing this claim the lack of counter evidence proves that your comments have no foundation.
You still don't understand science and have been using fallacies in logic for your entire life
Announcing something is not proof.
And if you announce something and nobody disproves it that is also not proof.
_______________________________________
Argument from ignorance argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three)
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
As described in Schreuder's Vision and Visual Perception:[2]
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproved to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives.
A false dilemma may take the form >>
If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
or
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproved and (b) false things can never be proved. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.
— Duco A. Schreuder, Vision and Visual Perception
To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proved, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proved and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results. The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.
Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification. .
.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.
If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.
.
. IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.
they are not published , so stop the nonsense
iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear
when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ That is a logical fallacy called Argument from ignorance
Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.
lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results. The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.
Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification. .
.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.
If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.
.
. IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.
they are not published , so stop the nonsense
iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear
when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ That is a logical fallacy called Argument from ignorance
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case.
There are two types of Argument from ignorance
Again
Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or
b)a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
^ those are both wrong "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a true statement which is a criticism of proposition b) which claimed a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. In other words lack of evidence for X is not evidence against X.
However your method is an illustration of the first wrong proposition a)
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
that is very clearly what you have here >
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ This is a type of Argument from ignorance The truthful criticism of it is>
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of existence"
iGENEA did not present evidence. They just said they claimed to have seen it on a computer monitor in a documentary but they presented no screen captures, no figures, no method.
So you have no idea how to present a scientific theory. Somebody just announces something, says "trust me" and if you like the theory you accept it. That is your whole life
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.
they are not published , so stop the nonsense
iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear
when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ That is a logical fallacy called Argument from ignorance
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case.
There are two types of Argument from ignorance
Again
Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or
b)a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
^ those are both wrong "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a true statement which is a criticism of proposition b) which claimed a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. In other words lack of evidence for X is not evidence against X.
However your method is an illustration of the first wrong proposition a)
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
that is very clearly what you have here >
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ This is a type of Argument from ignorance The truthful criticism of it is>
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of existence"
iGENEA did not present evidence. They just said they claimed to have seen it on a computer monitor in a documentary but they presented no screen captures, no figures, no method.
So you have no idea how to present a scientific theory. Somebody just announces something, says "trust me" and if you like the theory you accept it. That is your whole life
Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.
lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results. The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.
Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification. .
.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.
If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.
.
. IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.
screen shots don't test a theory.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.
show us the screen shots so we know you're not lying
Again
an Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in logic. It asserts that
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or
b)a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
^ those are both wrong
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.
^ This is a type of Argument from ignorance of type a)
a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or
^ This is wrong and this is your method
Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.
lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.
The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results. The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.
Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.
Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.
The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.
Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification. .
.
Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.
In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.
In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.
If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.
.
. IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with the numbers in this Clyde Winters chart I think they are misinterpreted and greatly inflated.
But let's say they are true.
At top it says that the frequency of M269 in Africa is 5.2%
R-M269 is most common in western Europe, 34% (Lucotte.et.al.2015) reaching frequencies of 90% or more in Spain, Ireland and Wales.
So what Clyde is saying here is that the average European is about 7-8 times more likely to be genetically similar to Tutankhamen than an African.
That is why I'm the true afrocentric of the forum and his Afrocentric card is being revoked due to the promotion of Eurocentric misinformation
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with the numbers in this Clyde Winters chart I think they are misinterpreted and greatly inflated.
But let's say they are true.
At top it says that the frequency of M269 in Africa is 5.2%
R-M269 is most common in western Europe, 34% (Lucotte.et.al.2015) reaching frequencies of 90% or more in Spain, Ireland and Wales.
So what Clyde is saying here is that the average European is about 7-8 times more likely to be genetically similar to Tutankhamen than an African.
That is why I'm the true afrocentric of the forum and his Afrocentric card is being revoked due to the promotion of Eurocentric misinformation
Granted R-M269 in western Europe, has a frequency of 34%.The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .
.
Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon dwarfs the area of Western Europe.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
. . Granted R-M269 in western Europe, has a frequency of 34%. The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe; the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .
.
Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon dwarfs the area of Western Europe.
R-M269 is found globally in Africa.
Altered and unattributed charts are not allowed in this forum - lioness .
[ 02. October 2017, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ This chart shows populations used for comparison in >
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 Miguel González, 2012
^^ This chart from the same article show the results of their analysis of 112 Equatorial New Guineans
Looking at the percentages at right about 80% are haplogroup E
In the R section we find V88 clades 8.04%
and M269 8.93%
Equatorial Guineas's population is about 1.3 million
9% of 1,300 000 = 117,000
IM269 in the region is easily explained by the well-reported European arrivals to this territory within the last five centuries. A Spanish Equatoguinean is a person of Spanish descent who are residents born or living in Equatorial Guinea. Many Spanish Equatoquineans are of mulatto, or multiracial, ancestry R-V88 in the region is believed to be several thousand years older.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^ This chart shows populations used for comparison in >
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 Miguel González, 2012
^^ This chart from the same article show the results of their analysis of 112 Equatorial New Guineans
Looking at the percentages at right about 80% are haplogroup E
In the R section we find V88 clades 8.04%
and M269 8.93%
Equatorial Guineas's population is about 1.3 million
9% of 1,300 000 = 117,000
IM269 in the region is easily explained by the well-reported European arrivals to this territory within the last five centuries.
A Spanish Equatoguinean is a person of Spanish descent who are residents born or living in Equatorial Guinea. Many Spanish Equatoquineans are of mulatto, or multiracial, ancestry R-V88 in the region is believed to be several thousand years older.
LOL. Stop making stuff Up. R1b was carried by Kushites in Anatolia and ancient Europe . See:
quote: . A GENETIC CHRONOLOGY OF AFRICAN Y-CHROMOSOMES R-V88 AND R-M269 IN AFRICA AND EURASIA
*Clyde Winters
ABSTRACT There is a global distribution of Y-Chromosome R-M343 subclades across the African continent. The major subclades are R-M269 and R-V88. The V88 subclade is the oldest clade to separate from R-M343.
The V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across a wide geographic area from Iberia, eastward to Germany and Samara. This would place carriers of relatives of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of V88 and M269 in Africa and Neolithic Europe suggest that, the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Africans, not Indo-Europeans, because these cultural complexes and the people who practiced these cultures originated in Africa.
Like most Eurocentrists you like to make stuff up to make it appear that Europeans have deeply influenced Africans.
Full genome analysis of the Zoutseeg slaves from the Caribbean Island of St Martin dating back to the 17th-century indicates that they carried R1. This illustrates that Africans were already carrying R1 when they made contact with Europeans. . -Clyde I don't want to have to suspend you if you keep putting up the chart at the top of this post but without it's proper title and source listed on it --lioness
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic