...
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 Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out).[/QUOTE]Even if dropped terms like EEF and Basal Eurasian, you'd still be salty. If I dropped these terms today and said that ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples, you'd still chimp out. You're just using Lazaridis' labels as a pretext to complain. There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what? Still going to do a butthurt conspiracy speech about Lazaridis' terminology even though I'm not even using it in the posts you're supposedly addressing? Everyone knows that the real reason you're salty is because the data doesn't support your version of events: the supposed colonization of the Levant by fictitious 22ky old Nile Valley farmers whose affinities you're more comfortable with. :rolleyes: [/qb][/QUOTE]Stop clowning yourself. If that is what you wanted to say then just say it. I am not one bit salty. I just don't like folks hiding behind words to pretend to mean one thing when they mean something else. The only version of events I disagree with is the idea that African DNA lineages suddenly disappeared after migrating out of Africa or that Africans suddenly stopped migrating into nearby parts of Eurasia after OOA. That is blatantly false and this whole aspect of Basal Eurasian and EEF is the problem because it is an excuse to filter out the African data. But according to you that is "objective" language. So why isn't it "objective" language to say that all Eurasian OOA populations were Africans up until some specific DNA lineages began to arise in Eurasia? Because at this point those models of "neanderthal mixture" as justification for splitting OOA populations in the Levant from Africa aren't holding up. And certainly if it is "objective" to skew data by hiding the African component then it is just as "objective" to model African biological history by hiding Eurasian components.... But of course you won't address that double standard. [/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