...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Mummy Genetics Study May Be Prelude To Widespread Genome Mapping Of Ancient Egyptians
» 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] To be honest, I didn’t expect others to be reading this, I was just enjoying putting a smackdown on Explorer as usual. To make things more easy to follow for those who are reading this, I will tone it down a notch. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation][/QUOTE]Already answered this question. BTW, if you don’t see me responding to some of the things you keep reiterating, it’s because they’re already dealt with, and it’s your turn to refute what I said, rather than asking for another round of answers. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good? [/QUOTE]See above. Already answered. Amnesia is not an excuse. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: You are obviously milking time to obscure your frivolous allegation about the SLC24A5 genes--found in said African--being "non-African".[/QUOTE]Call it what you want. I still expect you to explain what San SLC24A5 has to do with the Ethiopian counterparts, if you’re going to bring San into this, since the virtue of the San having it (even if indigenous), won't make it so that Ethiopians have it because of the same reason. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: There's an obvious reason, but you are notoriously absentminded: you treated the SLC24A5 gene as "non-African". Hence, the overdue of your demonstration as to how the gene in either the San or Ethiopians serve as such.[/QUOTE]As expected, your reason(ing) doesn’t make sense. You keep trying to simplify matters, and taking them out of their context, to make what I’m saying seem unreasonable. In the context of 1) the questionable component of Ethiopians isolated by Pagani et al, 2) the similarly aged (~3kya) subfamily Ethio-Semetic languages are rooted in, together with the youngest Semitic languages (which is indicative of backflow), the SLC24A5 alleles in San clearly have a different history compared to Ethiopians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: You are right, I can't refute[/QUOTE]I agree. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: your own source has been reapplied to penetrate that very point into your blockhead[/QUOTE]Pagani et al was reapplied to corroborate the point that uniparental lineages already pointed out, namely, that Ethiopians have Eurasian ancestry? Thanks for admitting that Ethiopians indeed have West Asian ancestry. LMAO. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Good. Since, we've now establish that you are not saying the above, then explain why you attribute a "Semitic origin" to Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool, when you obviously have no material groundwork to base it on?[/QUOTE]Leaving aside the fact that this post doesn’t follow out of my previous post (me saying that you were lying when you claimed that I said ’’that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can’’), this post flies in the face of the fact that you just admitted that you posted Pagani et al as corroboration of the relatively old discovery that Ethiopians share more Eurasian uniparentals with Levantines, than Yemenites. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.[/QUOTE]A familiar habit of yours: substituting arguments with a non-reply semi-insult when you get your nose slammed in the facts, and there is no way out. Again: [i]In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?[/i] --Swenet Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok. You are coming clean on the fact that you are not in possession of an actual quote to the effect of your fairy tale allegation.[/QUOTE]Everyone can see that you’re, to this moment, clamping desperately to the assumption that South Arabian speakers can stand in for Yemenites. This assumption only makes sense if you dumb enough to think they’re the same, duh. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: even though it busts your myth about a south Arabian origin[/QUOTE]Lie. I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: still renders them "Eurasian". Demonstrate how so! [/QUOTE]I was saying that their **genetic component**, which comprises of only a part of their genome, would still be Eurasian, given the other arguments that were posted, not that Ethiopians in general were rendered Eurasian, you dumb phuck. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: you are too stumped to even recognize that our whole exchange[/QUOTE]You addressed the part where Pagani said that this genetic component became a part of the Ethiopian genome 3kya? Where? [/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