...
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 Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by Tukuler: Take an X-lax pal. You're full of **** with strawmen running out you mouth like diarrhea just inventing all kinds of nonsense. You can't cut and paste any actual words of mine alleging what you say I said. But when you got no raw data to support your claim the only thing you can do against the raw data that was poste is to smear the poster, debaters dirty trick #1. [/QUOTE]Yeah yeah yeah. I see what you’re trying to do. Trying to drag me down the tit for tat path so your blatant fabrications go unnoticed. As for the facts, here they are: 1) You have yet to demonstrate that the Maghrebi component identified by Sanchez-Quinto et al is independent of backflow. 2) Your excuse for not having done so by now, despite me asking for it 5+ times, is because you say you interpret the authors’ label of this component (“Maghreb”) as support for your claim that this component is African, independant of backflow. 3) You were told that the authors explicitly iden- tified this entire component as being Near Eastern in origin, and hence, that your interpretation that the authors’ use of “Maghrebi” must mean that they 1) see this component as independent of backflow and 2) that their view aligns with your own view that Berbers are primarily African, has no merit, whatsoever, and is simply a deceptive fabrication on your part. 4) In response to this damning passage you came up with a face-saving excuse that supposedly justifies preferring an ambiguous label over the authors’ written explanation of that genetic component’s origin (SMDH). Your excuse is that authors often provide conflicting accounts on the origin of ancestry. But this then begs the question, how you know that your “Magreb means African” interpretation is the right one out of the two accounts. How? 5) You were told that the aforementioned excuse has no merit either, because you’re already aware of the fact that that is a 10+ year tradition of considering Maghrebi-specific markers, both uniparental and autosomal, autochthonous to the Maghreb while at the same time considering whoever brought it there, colonists from the Near East. 6) Your reply to the above is a full-fledged rant full of empty accusations and fabrications which, considering the fact that they’re so over the top and false (e.g. “you deny E-M81 is East African”), can only be meant to manipulate and divert attention away from the fact that my latest post left you with no room for an on-topic reply, without making some sort of concession that you've been reaching left and right, like Bob Dole in mid-air when he fell of that stage. Question: Since the literature routinely identifies Maghrebi-specific ancestry as both autochthonous and the result of backflow (e.g. Rosa et al 2011, Maca-Meyer 2003, Henn et al 2012, etc), how did you come to the conclusion that Sanchez-Quinto et al doing the same, somehow indicates that they voiced support for your claim that this component can be counted as "African"? [/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