...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by capra: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: 166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue) ... 10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10... [/QUOTE]They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them. [/qb][/QUOTE]The afrocentrics will either try to pass off these DNA results as non-natives to Egypt, or try to find faults with the samples or analysis. Having failed that, some of these vermin are now running to twitter to attack and accuse the scientists who conducted this DNA study as being some sort of "racists". Observe the tweet below - https://twitter.com/TS_Africology/status/851184803474939905 [/qb][/QUOTE]Yawn. Another irrelevant post by eurocentricloontart. [IMG]http://www.sympato.ch/smileys/Ooh.gif[/IMG] Likely people wonder how such relatively small sample set is used for proximity of entire ancient Egypt. [/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