In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date.
Whom did Ethiopians supposedly "inherit" from? When, where, and against what backdrop?
quote:Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record.
Let me clue in your dumbass. I did not vouch for accuracy of the source's dates.
I'd say bringing to light, the tendency of lactose tolerant polymorphism to occur on convergent evolutionary backgrounds is quite relevant. It's understandable that the empty volume of your head obscures the all too obvious.
quote:This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
Deja vu. How was it done? and again, tell me in your own words, how solid dating on DNA under selection is achieved.
quote: --that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind
Run by me, what is "mindless mumbo jumbo", and how you've arrived at this context-free analysis.
quote: since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations.
Your fuckhead buys into the precision of "said methods" in attaining a magic introduction of Ethiopian mtDNA 3ky ago, but somehow the said methods cannot discern between the "split" from a supposed Levantine source, and the "admixture" event. If said methods cannot differentiate between two demographic events, then they should not be able to date them either; naturally, such common sense eludes you, because you talk through your ass.
quote:Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al.
What haplogroups/haplotypes are you dating, and based on what molecular specifics?
quote:Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya.
As a matter of fact, older ages for what you dismiss as "Eurasian" in mtDNA gene pool would refute that magic date of 3kya, as you associated that date with the origin of the said Ethiopian gene pool. Secondly, it nullifies the claim that said "Eurasian" component is signal of "introduction of Ethio-Smetic language", which Pagani et al. were obviously trying to capitalize on.
Besides, did I not request you produce how the solid dating had been achieved by Pagani et al., in your own words, and why you say it is accurate? Of course I did. You have a habit of evading, by dancing around like a fag--to use your own words but more appropriately, in the hopes to bore readers to death, and then, rehash your quackery on a different page or topic.
quote: Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute.
I've been waiting on you for the details of this method for ages; one cannot refute that which has not been established.
quote: Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself.
Pagani et al. are not here debating; you are, dummy. I have to take it up on the idiot who cited them, albeit without actually understanding the study.
Not that it is relevant here, but I have in fact "taken it up" with Pagani et al.
quote:--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted
Naturally, Ethiopian supposed "Eurasian" component finding its closest associations with northern Africa as opposed to either the Levant or the Arabian peninsula is not relevant to you, which begs the question of why you are even discussing genetics (clearly over your head), but it is obviously relevant to geneticists, and to the topic of supposed introduction of Ethio-Semitic from southern Arabia.
quote:since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted.
Now you are just using comments like this as a blanket for coping out. You aren't even touching the molecular notes I posted, quite simply, because you can't.
One thing is undeniable, as your last post shows: you are very talented at senseless crying; if only, the talent extended to delivering relevant answers and substance.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same thing applies to this thread. I DARE you to contradict anything I'm saying here with actual demonstrations. You can't, troll, and you know it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you say so. In the real world, however, level-headed posters will realize:
--that your vague comments about the independent origins of LP associated alleles do not even begin to address or contradict the post they're targeting. To the contrary, such a view is rather compatible with my posts. In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date. Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record. This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
--that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind, since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations. They will simply pick up on the former event, not the latter. Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al. Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya. Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute. Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself. No stalling, troll, do it right here! Bring into question the results obtained by Pagani et al, that left you butt hurt since the first page of this thread. Do it right here, for everyone to see.
--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted, since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted. It wouldn't be more random if you were to randomly post a news article about the VMAs in response to my post.
Note this one in particular:
quote:Your fuckhead buys into the precision of "said methods" in attaining a magic introduction of Ethiopian mtDNA 3ky ago
--The Explorer
^The supertroll's head is veiled in complete darkness. She thinks the 3ky date was obtained by calculating haplogroup TMRCAs, and so, her confusion is making her see contradictions where there are none.
And this:
quote:If said methods cannot differentiate between two demographic events, then they should not be able to date them either
--Explorer
^Here babygirl shows how little she knows about the topic of genetics. By contradicting what I said, she's suggesting that haplogroup and haplotype TMRCAs necessary confer information about the date when a haplogroup introgressed into a distant population that inherits the haplogroups/types later on. Hence, her profoundly stupid remarks about the TMRCAs of some non-L mtDNAs in Ethiopians not fitting the 3kya date--as if that's a contradiction to the 3kya date obtained by Pagani et al.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know the deal, right, babygirl? Actual demonstrations of where the above is wrong, or you'll get ignored. No longer will I entertain your trolling, lies, non-replies, troll bait and deliberate misinterpretations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic