posted
If you want to know the genetic make up of a MODERN population, why would you use ancient DNA to assess the amount of mixture they have? That's actually implying that populations remain static for thousands of years with very little change. It would make better sense to compare modern to modern and ancient to ancient
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea is that if you have all the ancient DNA data you can identify specific population clusters. Then from those populations you can determine how they relate to any modern population. But in reality they don't have all the ancient DNA data to be able to identify all the population clusters, so many times the studies are skewed one way or another based on the data they do have.
It is not about mixture in the modern sense of mixture as opposed to mixture of ancestral population clusters from different regions. And this is also based on the fact that ancient humans did not move around as quickly or often as they do today because of technology.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The idea is that if you have all the ancient DNA data you can identify specific population clusters. Then from those populations you can determine how they relate to any modern population. But in reality they don't have all the ancient DNA data to be able to identify all the population clusters, so many times the studies are skewed one way or another based on the data they do have.
It is not about mixture in the modern sense of mixture as opposed to mixture of ancestral population clusters from different regions. And this is also based on the fact that ancient humans did not move around as quickly or often as they do today because of technology.
I understand where you're coming from, but most of the ancient DNA samples consist of small sample sizes of mostly less than 10 samples, to me that's no representative enough to make any broad conclusions about those ancient DNA samples.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: If you want to know the genetic make up of a MODERN population, why would you use ancient DNA to assess the amount of mixture they have?
As usual complaining about something with no example,
no quote of the thing you are complaining about is given
So we are supposed to imagine or guess this stuff being complained about and then react to it
That's lazy. Me, Doug, many others don't make threads like this, we do the work and post an example or examples with links
instead of vague boogeymen described
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: If you want to know the genetic make up of a MODERN population, why would you use ancient DNA to assess the amount of mixture they have?
As usual complaining about something with no example,
no quote of the thing you are complaining about is given
So we are supposed to imagine or guess this stuff being complained about and then react to it
That's lazy. Me, Doug, many others don't make threads like this, we do the work and post an example or examples with links
instead of vague boogeymen described
Nah, this was the exact same kind of silly trolling you have done here for YEARS
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's called using sources and references (if not quoting somebody else in the forum)
being scholarly instead of mainstream straw man banter off the top of the head
> Look into into it
you are the one that's trolling
There are lots of threads like this >>
"_____________centrics are stupid, they think that______________________"
No quotes, no examples and we are supposed to all get on the bandwagon, slap each other on that back and say "yeah, they sure are stupid"
It's a ritual, no examples given, we are supposed to imagine the boogeymen and say " boogeyman bad , he's a bad man" grow up
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: If you want to know the genetic make up of a MODERN population, why would you use ancient DNA to assess the amount of mixture they have?
As usual complaining about something with no example,
no quote of the thing you are complaining about is given
So we are supposed to imagine or guess this stuff being complained about and then react to it
That's lazy. Me, Doug, many others don't make threads like this, we do the work and post an example or examples with links
instead of vague boogeymen described
It's not being "whiny" he has a point. Not only are there only a few samples but even modern populations are lacking in samples. Plus in order to properly account admixture one must know about the history of a region and what type of population movements occurred. You can't just assume that the population living in an area today is the exact same as it was thousands of years ago. Now that doesn't mean there was entire population replacement but that doesn't mean there were no population changes either.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter how many samples we have...people will still be arguing. We are now at over 10,000 samples worldwide. Most of hose samples are from Western Europe and they still arguing over who invented Indo-European languages.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still some of us have retained traces of earlier populations in our DNA. When new groups replaced the older ones some of the DNA from the older groups survived and came to be a part of the new group. As here in Scandinavia, we have traces all the way back to the old hunter gatherers who migrated here when the ice receded. Then we have a small part from the early European farmers and a big chunk from the steppe people. Samis and other people in Northern Scandinavia have also an Ural element. Yes we, like most Europeans have even retained a small portion Neanderthal DNA. But Europe is not totally uniform, several peoples have migrated, mixed, replaced each other and so on.
Ancient DNA is rather crucial for our understanding of which ancient peoples once lived here. Without it we would not know about introgressions from archaic people, or about how ancient peoples mixed and/or replaced each other.
Here are two simplified diagrams that show the proportions of the different genetic heritage of Swedes. The first show a generalized view of the DNA from a modern Swede
The second shows the remains from two graves from around 2500 BC which show that the genetic composition at that time (late neolithic) already reminded about the genetics of modern Swedes.
Translation: Bönder = farmers Jägare = hunter gatherers Yamnaya = steppe people with roots in the Yamnaya culture
The graphs are from the Swedish TV program "The first Swedes"
In other places ancient DNA show us a more complex picture than we had before, like in Britain which were repopulated after the Ice age by at least two different peoples.
Dual ancestries and ecologies of the Late Glacial Palaeolithic in Britain Nature Ecology & Evolution 2022 Link to article
Or the Gravettian culture in Paleolithic Europe which consisted of at least two genetically different peoples
Right now there are a couple of big ongoing projects here in Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe, where they try to combine archaeology, genetic studies and isotope studies (like Strontium analysis) to map mobility in Neolithic Europe and in Bronze age Denmark.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic