...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Berbers are primarily not African ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: [QB] This is some inserting observance by The Explorer on specimen. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Recapitulating some personal observations posted elsewhere: [i]The authors started out with 31 EpiPaleolithic specimens, and they tell the reader that they were left with working with 26 specimens after eliminating certain named specimens for one reason or the other, which was then reduced to first 24 and then 23 specimens. Yet, we come to learn that even those 23 specimens were reduced further down to just 21 specimens that were used in the final analysis. In the above, the authors named yet another two specimens, both alleged to be closely related to one specimen retained in the final analysis; the names of the three related specimen were given above as follows; Taf V-5, Taf V-7 and Taf V-20. One of these, we are not told specifically which one, was to have been considered in the final analysis, while the other two [again, we are not told which two of the three closely related specimens] would have been eliminated from the study. Perhaps a relatively minor issue, it is of note that Taf V-5's and Taf V-20's fragment sequences start earlier and end earlier than that of Taf V-7, with the former's sequences between positions 16054 and 16317 having been compared against those of the Cambridge Reference Sequence, while the latter's was read from 16081 and 16404; what if mutations in positions prior to 16081 in Taf V-7's case and after 16317 in either Taf V-5's or Taf V-20's case were different from those of either Taf V-5 or Taf V-20, and V-7 respectively; could there be mutations here that could drastically alter what the authors would call the "most likely haplogroups" that these specimens' markers fall into? Something to ponder, but at any rate, along with the earlier named three contaminated specimens, the aforementioned two closely-related specimens would have amounted to five specimens being eliminated, reducing the 31 specimens down to 26. However, the authors provide the reader with a table consisting of 23 individual specimens, and all three of those closely related individuals were in it! What they did not tell the reader, nor did they identify them by name or tag, and hence, possibly leaving an unsuspecting reader scratching his/her head, is that five more specimens were excluded from the study, which were not included in the aforementioned table. These undeclared left-out specimens are namely; Taf VI-9, Taf XVII-18, Taf XIX-7, Taf XXI, and Taf I—missing specimens not named! The reader is not offered explanation on why these were not made part of the study, and so left on his/her own, to wonder what might have been wrong with them. They could have been damaged, degraded or contaminated; any or a combination of any of these could have affected sequences of those specimens. Had the authors therefore eliminated those aforementioned specimens with inconsistent and therefore dubious sequences, they would have been left with fairly small amount of individual DNA material to work with, and even then, the results would not be unequivocal, given that a good deal of their overall sample size would have been purged from the final analysis; the integrity of the so-called "good" DNA would have been put to question as well. Through it all, the authors could not even get themselves to firmly assign the sequences into a specific haplogroup set.[/i] [/QUOTE]"This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP" [QUOTE] [i]Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed.[b] The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa.[/b] The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. [b] Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.[/i] [/b] [/QUOTE]--Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4) [CODE] Geography Founder Analysis Migration Time (ka) % of L3 Lineages (SE) East Africa 58.8 74.0 (0.5) 1.8 20.1 (2.6) 0.1 5.9 (2.5) Central Africa 42.4 75.0 (2.7) 9.2 24.1 (2.8) 0.1 0.9 (0.2) North Africa 35.0 7.4 (2.7) 6.6 67.0 (4.0) 0.6 25.7 (3.1) South Africa 3.2 86.7 (4.3) 0.1 13.3 (4.3) South Africa (southern)1.8 83.4 (3.7) 0.1 16.6 (3.7) [/CODE][IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlPkBvI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1nhGEbGkNpQ/s1600/Fig.3.PNG[/IMG] [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/14kl9uu.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3564/rosabrehm02.gif[/IMG] [/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