...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Cranio-facial studies - ancient Egyptians group with North Africans/ West Eurasians
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]That paper was talking about sub saharan affinities in the Byzantine population and spoke of Brace 2005 and the PN2 clade ...right? Sure, [b]so modern Austrians have this "sub sahran affinity" as well (they are E-M78 carriers at about 10%).[/b] It does not just stop at Egypt, or in the remains of those Byzantine populations, etc.[/QUOTE]I have a hard time understanding why you feel saying that is somehow compatible with your other views, ie, the ones where you try to establish a non-existent relationship between Kermatians/Naqadans and Europeans. You’re basically admitting that the only way Europeans and Nilotic (Nile-Valley) populations are related paternally, is via a marker that was introduced to Europe from Africa. Contrast that with the fact that Sub-Saharan African paternal markers are related to Egyptian paternal markers without needing admixture, ie, the PN2 clade. [QUOTE]I don't think you're in any position to tell a physical anthropologists who's right or wrong.[/QUOTE]I’m not telling you he’s wrong. What I did, was telling you where he WENT wrong, big difference. Being selective in the use of variables cannot be considered ''being wrong’’, because there is no wrong or right in that, because of what I said earlier: [b]you’re seeing the relationships between the used variables.[/b] With that being said, his work is rigged to show distorted relationships. His preposterous probability percentages are evidence for this: the modern European group is closer to the 5/8 African samples than any African sample, and the Indian sample is closer to 1/3 of the remaining others, than any African sample is. The only African samples that shows more ties with Africans before foreigners, is the Mesolithic Wadi Halfa sample, and the unidentified ''Nubia bronze'' sample (the closest samples to ''Nubia bronze'' are the X-group, which is then preposterously followed by India and Europe again, with Naqada only slightly closer than Europe). Totally preposterous, and inconsistent with the genetic data. You know what they say: you can judge the fruits of a method by looking at what it produces. [QUOTE]He used the Naqada, right? I'm pretty sure the Naqada and Badari are fairly similar...they are both pre-dynastic Southern Egyptians.[/QUOTE]Metrically, the Badari cultured people are characterized by a phenotype that is way more ''Southern’’ than that of the Naqadans. 50%+ or the Badarians group with equatorial African groups. Yes, I said equatorial Africans, and I don't mean Ethiopians and Somali's. [QUOTE]What do you care so much about the Sudanese? You mean the "Nubians" from Kerma..we can see where they place non metrically from the earlier study anyways.[/QUOTE]I was actually referring to A-group Sudanese, not to Kermatians in that cited bit. Kerma is not situated directly below the first cataract. Non-metric analysis involves different processes (eg, the selection and deletion of variables, to accommodate all the used groups) than metric analysis. Analysis of various kinds and osteological regions don’t give the same results. [QUOTE]Exactly what it said, the closest populations to the early Upper Egyptian Naqada, late Lower Egyptian Giza, and early "Kerma" samples were West Eurasians...even Somalis came out further.[/QUOTE]Like I said earlier, we already know that Africans are well capable of occupying the same multivariate space where Eurasians are positioned, due to African indigenous variability. What your job is, is prove that such positioning is based on phylogenetic ties. [QUOTE]where he took a few skulls from the Howells data base which were originally based on 57 variables...and then he reduced those variables down to 10-15 and claimed the Badari clustered with Bushmen and Zulus before of Northern Europeans.[/QUOTE]Those 11 and 15 variables (not 10-15) are well distributed over the entire cranium. Additionally, Keita’s work is much more in line with reality than Brace’s work, where African populations are concerned. Unlikely relationships are reduced, and much, much more in line with genetic data than Brace’s work under discussion. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3