...
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] Lol. Doug is beyond incompetent. I'm starting to think Doug is a troll. This all started when Doug said I was trying to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa. I posted evidence on evidence demonstrating shared drift between early farmers and some Africans. Doug's response? He ran away from the issues at hand. Now all of a sudden Doug's only problem is with Lazaridis' terminology. I never said I supported their terminology (I simply used it in order to discuss the underlying concepts), so this is just more evidence that Doug is a cognitively challenged troll. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug: Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.[/QUOTE]^Here is Doug's original pretext for having a problem with what I said. He was clearly talking about the genetic affinities of EEF and how this supposedly presents a problem for relating this population to Africa. Somewhere along the line he started lying about what the conversation is about and retreated to what he thought was a more defensible position. but he just ended up looking like a shape shifting turd. [/qb][/QUOTE]If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point. You didn't define the term but you keep pretending that somehow you can use it outside of its original context as if you are the original author of the term when you aren't. You keep trying to post data as if it supports your point but it doesn't. That is why you posted that half baked study on East Africans that had to be updated because of "mishandling of data". So what you are trying to do is say that any Eurasian ancestry in East Africa from around the Neolithic is EEF. But here is the problem. EEF covers a wide range of populations all of whom are not the same. Swiss and Germans are included in EEF along with Anatolians and Levantines. So which of these populations would have introduced EEF into East Africa? And how can you tell from the data that has been provided that this relationship is not mostly or partly the result of African DNA that was also part of "Basal Eurasian" ancestry in the Levant and EEF? You simply make no sense. If EEF and Basal Eurasian are defined by leaving Afrian DNA out then what you are calling "EEF Like" could simply be the residual DNA of African DNA lineages that spanned Africa and Eurasia. Like I said mixture is a two way street and any time folks start promoting models and terminology that imply one way mixture between Africa and Eurasia I have a problem with it. I especially have a problem with hypocrites that have no problem with proposing a pristine and pure biological history of Eurasia free of African DNA but constantly keep playing up and promoting the smallest amount of Eurasian DNA in Africa. That doesn't mean that mixture didn't occur it means how and when that mixture occurred and where and when it happened or who was involved is often mislabeled or distorted because of terminology and methodology. Africans were already moving towards agriculture in Africa long before the neolithic and some of these patterns of survival eventually had an impact in the Levant during the Neolithic. Leaving out that African component in the Neolithic simply is a distortion of the facts. Bottom line EEF and Basal Eurasian are describing the genetic impact of the Neolithic on Europe which blatantly proves that Europeans have had substantial genetic influence from populations in the Levant (hint: Syria and the origin of "Europa") and that genetic influence included African DNA as well. HOWEVER, nobody to date has shown that the spread of agriculture in Africa was accompanied by a similar wave of genetic influence. That is another reason why I am against using EEF and Basal Eurasian in an African context. Not to mention any DNA from the third intermediate of Egypt is far too late to prove anything about what happened in the early dynastic or predynastic which would be closer to the Neolithic. Which makes labeling populations long after the Neolithic as EEF and Basal Eurasian questionable. [/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