...
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 Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Doug said the term early European farmer is okay, just as long as you don't say EEF. But these terms mean the same thing. Imagine how salty and confused someone has to be to resort to these contortions and backflip gymnastics. [/qb][/QUOTE]Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers [b]in a European context[/b]. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia. But the study of EEF is not focusing on that and therefore those [b]AFRICAN RELATIONSHIPS[/b] are not being considered and are left out on purpose. But of course, rather than you seeing that as a deliberate omission, you will sit here and pretend to have discovered something everyone already knew: that there was an African component within the early farmers of the levant and that African genetic component got carried into Europe with farming. But whatever. If it isn't obvious the folks behind the terms EEF and Basal Eurasian are implicitly filtering African dna ancestry out of those meta populations it is because you don't want to admit that these are flawed theoretical frameworks. [/qb][/QUOTE]So, because an African origin is not considered (which is a complete lie, BTW), I can't co-opt the concept and discuss it strictly in terms of the affinities of the ancestry in question? You're not even making sense as usual and you're lying when you say an African origin wasn't considered. Do you even hear yourself talk? You keep going on these confused rants but it always boils down to non-sequitur toddler logic. I can't use the concept because of biases on the part of those who introduced it? If everyone in science started throwing tantrums about widely used terms, everything would grind to a standstill. How old are you to keep repeating these dumb ass arguments as a barrier to conversation? Because that's all you're trying to do: impede conversation and understanding. You're too incompetent to even try to dispute more substantive matters as evidenced by your butthurt evasiveness around the purple component and the many patently false things you've said in your opinionated posts. You known damn well why you want to run away from the discussion. It's a dead end for you. You were caught red-handed trying to say Basal Eurasian "was never really in Africa". So explain the purple component then. You never did because you're all talk and no substance. You're full of bs and you know it. So of course you want to retreat to a more defensible position and claim your only issue is with the terminology. But no one believes you. You're just flip flopping and shape shifting as usual. [/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