...
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] ^I think he's too new to understand the inside joke. Also, some people who said the same things as Doug in 2014-2016 have recently changed their position and are now acting like it's self-evident. So now it looks like Doug is an anomaly and that majority of the forum wasn't against it and dismissing it as racist. [/qb][/QUOTE]No Swenet, I am not calling it racist. I am saying the people who created the term didn't create it to link it to Africans. That is self evident in any papers or discussion of said papers. You are the one who seems to not see that or don't want to see that. I can't claim to know the intent of these authors but we know that European scholars have a long history of claiming European history and DNA as being "special and different" from Africans and OOA..... But go ahead and keep pretending that their papers which have little or no African populations in [b]ANY[/b] part of Africa means that the really meant that these populations were tied to Africa in some way. That is what I am rejecting. Your inane attempts to validate something that is invalid in the first place. But of course, the only way to show me wrong would be to show me where these people did otherwise and of course you cant. The only reason you aren't calling out this contradiction is because you have already made a claim that this is some sort of "superior understanding" on the part of the original researchers that somehow us lowly folks won't understand. But I understand English. And if they don't link those folks to Africa then no amount of "superior analysis" will make it be there. [QUOTE] The secrets of ancient DNA Over the past decade, modern DNA sequencing techniques have allowed scientists to recover strands of genetic material from decayed bones that have been infused with microbes over thousands of years. Now, those techniques are widely accessible and highly refined. It starts with how researchers pick their bones. If possible, they'll extract DNA from the petrous bone in the inner ear, a goldmine for genetic material that can yield roughly 100 times more ancient DNA than other parts of the skeleton. Then researchers use a process called in-solution hybridization, which uses special probes made from DNA or RNA that attach to the desired ancient human DNA, fishing it out of a soup of other genetic material from other organisms that accumulated in the decomposing bone. Techniques like these are making it easier than ever for us to sequence ancient DNA and reconstruct the human past. [b]Looking at ancient DNA from farmers, researchers found a marked genetic divide between the ancient peoples of the Fertile Crescent, a region that arcs across the Middle East from today's Egypt, through Jordan and southern Turkey, across Iraq, and down into western Iran. "Probably the biggest surprise news about this study is just how genetically different the eastern and western Fertile Crescent early farmers were," evolutionary geneticist Mark Thomas told BBC News. [/b]Farming arose simultaneously in these groups despite their genetic and geographic distance from each other. In other words, [b]we have solid proof that farming evolved twice, roughly at the same time in two communities that had almost no contact with each other.[/b] [b]The offspring of the two farming groups spread in different directions, too. The western Fertile Crescent farmers' progeny can be found throughout the Middle East and Europe. Meanwhile, the Iranian farmers from Zagros spread north to the steppes and south to India and Pakistan. Some also stayed put.[/b] There are strong genetic ties between the ancient Zagros farmers and a group of Zoroastrians living in Iran today. [b]What's clear is that most people in both groups of early farmers were part of great migrations and mixed with many other peoples along the way.[/b] [b]These ancient farmers also seem to share a common ancestral group known as Basal Eurasians, an ancient lineage that split off from other Eurasian groups roughly 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Unlike other early human groups in Eurasia, the Basal Eurasians didn't mate very often with Neanderthals—very little Neanderthal DNA made it into their population. But the Basal Eurasians seem to have mated with everyone else. We find traces of Basal Eurasian DNA in people across the continent.[/b] Still, we have yet to find the skeleton from an individual whose DNA is distinctly Basal Eurasian.[b] For that reason, Basal Eurasians are called a "ghost population." We can only see their genetic legacy in modern populations and have to guess at where they came from and how they reached so many parts of Eurasia.[/b][/QUOTE] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/welcome-to-the-age-of-ancient-dna-sequencing/ No Africans in that study. But don't worry, Swenet will tell us this is [b]really saying[/b] these folks are linked to Africans......... We aren't reading English correctly. :rolleyes: And yes, what I am saying is they are, but the way they did this analysis is to by filtering out so much "unwanted contamination" that they have basically removed most of the meaningful African relationships. Hence the illogical concept of "ghost DNA" and "ghost populations" and "magical development of farming" as opposed to a slow continuous process starting with OOA and repeated flows out of Africa with modern behaviors and toolkits that eventually led to the development of farming....... But hey, that is the simple answer. But whatever, maybe believing in ghosts is 'superior' science. [/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