...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Was the Maghreb really predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 yrs?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug: This is about the expansion of R1 lineages in Western Europe which are generally dated to being after the last glacial maximum, ie 19,000 years ago.[/QUOTE]According to what hard evidence? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug: Hence, the goal of claiming that North Africa was Eurasian 30,000 years ago is to turn logic on its head because by the same logic, Eurasia was primarily African 30,000 years ago. So it doesn't make any sense to say such a thing.[/QUOTE]This is weak logic disguised as common sense. When put into context it becomes apparent how dubious it really is. Its like saying that intermarriage between Mexican expats and Siberian locals would be the same as local Siberian unions, just because Amerindians descend from Siberians 12kya. And I'm just being nice with this Amerindian/Siberian analogy, because its much less extreme than the complexities implied in backflow of Eurasian AMHs into Africa (think archaic human geneflow in the Eurasian AMH genome, much longer divergence times than 12kya, etc. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't know why you are having a hard time with this. If someone is going to label genetic lineages 30,000 years ago in Africa as Eurasian, based on those lineages having been in Eurasia less than 10kya years or so, then what does that make the parents of those lineages that hit Eurasia and had also only been there for 10kya or so if those lineages came from Africa? Doesn't that make them African? Therefore if you disagree with calling the lineages arriving to Eurasia from Africa as African, then you should also disagree with calling lineages likewise in Africa as Eurasian. It is a nonsensical characterization of the lineages at such an early point in time when humans had only not to long ago left Africa. Sure there were splits in lineages but in all reality you still are talking about a relatively close branch on the family tree. Too close to try and make it seem as if there was a big difference between them on any real level. Those people all still looked like black Africans is my point. And labeling them as Eurasian is just a way of trying to downplay that fact, with the larger agenda being downplaying the fact that all these folks ultimately had features from and derived from Africa not too long before that. [/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