...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
DNA studies if black amazigh im Morocco
» 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] @Doug The way I see it, is that there is affinity due to admixture and affinity due to phylogenetic relatedness. The former involves plain admixture, the latter has to do with how long ago ancestral populations split off. The affinity you're talking about between the Sahel and the Maghreb is affinity due to admixture. The affinity between, say, Afro-Caribbeans and African Americans is phylogenetic affinity. African Americans and Afro Caribbeans don't need admixture to be closely related. They are already closely related whether they intermix or not. The same doesn't apply to Sahelian populations and Maghrebis. While Sahelian populations like the Tibbou may be related to Berbers, the two genetic components in their genome (mostly 'Nilo-Saharan-like' and 'Berber-like') have no close relationship. The source populations they're made up of are structurally different (i.e. they have completely different allele frequencies and certain patterns in their genomes). This is why scholars use proxies when they want to understand Berber populations. They're not interested in sampling the entire Sahara. They just want to sample the source populations that can model populations in the Sahara. You want them to go the extra mile and also sample admixed population in the Sahel that carry ancestry from the source populations. That's just redundant. Why would they want to do that? It would be nice if they did from our point of view, but it's not a requirement for what they set out to do. [/qb][/QUOTE]That wasn't my point at all. What I am saying is that if you are going to claim 'mixture' as the basis of modern populations in North Africa, then you should sample ALL the relevant populations to see all the different forms of admixture that exist. The point being that North Africa has always been populated by indigenous African groups, carrying various lineages and therefore, the key is identifying these ancient African populations and then distinguishing those from the immigrants, in this case Eurasians. My using these proxies they always give more weight to those populations with higher amounts of Eurasian admixture which they then go on to conclude has always been a primary component of admixture in ALL North Africans which is absolutely false. And then on top of that they try and extrapolate the ancestry of all other North Africans based on this biased sample set which is again flawed. There is no way you are going to come up with an accurate population history with such flawed sample sets. But that is assuming that the goal is an accurate population history. My argument is they don't want an accurate population history, they just want to promote the idea that North Africans have always been separated from other Africans by Eurasian admixture and by proposing that the founding lineages in North Africa came from Eurasia, which is all false. [/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