...
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] And notice how Doug deliberately avoided the considerable shared drift [URL=http://i63.tinypic.com/uwri0.jpg] of East Africans with Stuttgart, to the exclusion of most other SSA populations[/URL]. Instead of replying to [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=7#000341]this post[/URL], Doug deliberately picked the convenient post to respond to, talking about "no mas, no mas". He's trying to end the discussion before his fallacies get exposes because he knows I'm just going to keep pummeling him with EEF and North African shared drift. [/qb][/QUOTE]That is you making such claims Swenet based on data you pulled which may or may not be out of context. That has absolutely nothing to do with Basal Eurasian and EEF being defined partly as a result of "less Neanderthal mixture" which implies African genetic ancestry with Africans being explicitly defined as not being mixed with Neanderthals..... Again, this isn't an issue with Stuttgart. The issue is that the original Eurasians came from Africa and had waves of mixture with later populations of Africans at various points in time, including some African mixture during the Neolithic, which makes the concept of Basal Eurasian and EEF which filter our these African relationships flawed. As for Stuttgart, that is you making these observations so don't drag me into your home made research. I don't need to validate your theories and that has nothing to do with my point so no I am not avoiding it. You should fully qualify your own position and stop playing games. What is the full data set that is represented by that chart? What do the colors mean and what paper does this chart come from? Does that paper agree with your position? I find it odd you keep pulling these snippets of data from one or two different studies but don't post all of the data. Then you try and run around like you have dropped such gems of knowledge. I always post full references not just a single chart or picture. That is useless and means nothing. It is you who keep using these antics to avoid the issue being discussed. And the point being why are you so worried about Eurasian mixture in Africa but don't have any problem modeling Eurasian history and leaving African mixture out. Why don't you worry about that contradiction first before coming at me again. Mixture is a two way street. The problem is these studies such as those related to Basal Eurasian and EEF keep modelling the interaction between Europe and Africa by [b]downplaying[/b] the African mixture and African basis of Eurasian populations and then over emphasizing Eurasian mixture in African populations. So you can't have it both ways. And this is exactly why I have problem with basal Eurasian and EEF as they are defined AND your attempts to model African biological history around Eurasian DNA. Why can't you do what the Europeans do and model African DNA history without Eurasian input? That is better way of modelling which African populations were involved in various parts of Africa at different points of time. Not to mention that almost all scholars claim humans originated in East Africa in the first place. And likely exited Africa from there. So I don't get your point. How does daddy become the child son? That is not possible unless you are using backwards data. And that is what I am saying. Of course Africans have always existed all over Africa so Sub Saharan means nothing in this discussion. And here let me fill in the details on your little charts: [QUOTE] Tracing the migrations of anatomically modern humans has been complicated by human movements both out of and into Africa, especially in relatively recent history. Gallego Llorente et al. sequenced an Ethiopian individual, “Mota,” who lived approximately 4500 years ago, predating one such wave of individuals into Africa from Eurasia. The genetic information from Mota suggests that present-day Sardinians were the likely source of the Eurasian backflow. Furthermore, 4 to 7% of most African genomes, including Yoruba and Mbuti Pygmies, originated from this Eurasian gene flow.[/QUOTE] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/820?sid=c9734109-ea3d-4fd0-bb83-21c6f0bcfb33 Which had to be corrected by the way, which just proves my point and shows you are just being silly. [QUOTE] In the Report “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa,” the results were affected by a bioinformatics error. A script necessary to convert the input produced by samtools v0.1.19 to be compatible with PLINK was not run when merging the ancient genome, Mota, with the contemporary populations SNP panel, leading to homozygote positions to the human reference genome being dropped as missing data (the analysis of admixture with Neandertals and Denisovans was not affected). When those positions were included, 255,922 SNP out of 256,540 from the contemporary reference panel could be called in Mota. These changes are reflected in the corrected Fig. 2B, fig. S6, and table S5. Tables S6 and S7 have been removed from the corrected Supplementary Material, because there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti. The conclusion of a migration into East Africa from Western Eurasia, and more precisely from a source genetically close to the early Neolithic farmers, is not affected. However, the geographic extent of the genetic impact of this migration was overestimated: The Western Eurasian backflow mostly affected East Africa and only a few Sub-Saharan populations; the Yoruba and Mbuti do not show higher levels of Western Eurasian ancestry compared to Mota. Hence, the title and abstract of the published paper did not accurately represent the geographical extent of the admixture, and both have been corrected accordingly. The authors acknowledge Pontus Skoglund and David Reich for detecting these problems.[/QUOTE] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6275/aaf3945 And my point is since you don't get it, is that these researchers have just changed their methodologies in order to say [b]UP FRONT[/b] that they are not including African gene flow into Europe as part of modeling Eurasian population history. Therefore they cannot be called out on "missing data". But that still calls into question why they go through so much effort to weed out African DNA ancestry in Eurasia. That is an issue to me. Yet at the same time they are constantly playing games with African DNA data to try and overemphasize Eurasian ancestry in ancient African populations. Not to mention "West Eurasians" also have heavy African mixture in the first place.... [/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