...
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 the lioness,: [qb] Swenet I'm trying to understand the Doug position. Iosef Lazaridis came out with an article called "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans" So if the topic is present day Europeans and their ancestors, why is Doug, who dislikes Europeans anyway, so hell bent in finding some Africaness in them? It's sort of like what that character xyyman says. Is this like a new thing? [/qb][/QUOTE]Half of the time I was just addressing Doug's original point, which was that I'm supposedly wrong for relating EEF groups to Africans. The two reason Doug gave initially for why I supposedly can't relate them to Africans is that they were 1) a mixed and 2) a "theoretical" population. You'd have to ask Doug about his many fringe beliefs. But I have a feeling if you ask him, he will just go into one of these holes and pop up elsewhere. [IMG]https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-12-2015/CPuNNj.gif?w=1400[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE]No Swenet, I said it is wrong to use those terms because they are based on 'filtering out' African populations. I have been saying this since multiple threads ago but folks keep trying to "reinterpret" my words as if I can't speak for myself. If these scientists were TRULY trying to link Basal Eurasian and EEF to Africa, then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa, like Tukulur and other "amateurs" are doing. That is the point. But they didn't. In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters. But sure, you will keep spinning this no matter how much those studies blatantly contradict you. How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison? If they filtered out the African component, how on earth can you claim it has a relationship to Africa in any meaningful sense? This is ridiculous. Yet it is the amateurs trying hard to make this nonsense seem applicable to African DNA history. Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians.... Hmmmm. I am sure nobody is going to comment on that. Too much like hypocrisy. Not to mention how can you compare something to Africa with all the African DNA elements that would be useful for such a comparison removed in the first place? Totally silly and backwards logic. Not to mention the reason they came up with the "Non African" branch of the human family DNA tree is because they really thought that mixture with Neanderthals was the basis of the split between Africans and all other populations in the world. The problem is they cant find where that happened, especially not right after OOA in the Levant. So that is where "Basal Eurasian" comes in, which is a "ghost population" because they are still trying to find something that defines the split between Africans and all other populations. If it isn't neanderthals they will use Basal Eurasian. But really at that point it is simply African as Africans are Basal to all other humans genetically and splitting them off at the earliest timeframe of OOA into some "other" population is a contradiction of logic. So Eurasian genes can stay Eurasian no matter how many later mutations ocurred and generations after migrating to other places, but African genes magically disappear after leaving Africa...... Right. And just so people understand the context of this discussion about semantics and the hypocrisy of some folks on this thread and in the scientific community in general here is another post talking of the exact same thing from last year where I asked Swenet where the "split" ocurred between Africans vs Non Africans in a DNA sense. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway. I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a [i]subset[/i] of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.[/QUOTE]I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking [/QUOTE]I was asked a question and instead of going with the choices I was given I answered it on my own terms. The sentence after it gives a clarification as well: in subsets of samples like Nea Nikomedea and the Natufians I can find matches with typically predynastic Egyptian phenotypes that I can't find as easily or at all among the populations that were mentioned. And I'm not the only one: [QUOTE]Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of the body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing [b]in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians[/b], and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) and hence also falciparum malaria from Greece (perhaps also Italy) and Anatolia to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and Africa.[/QUOTE]—Angel 1972 ^He hit the nail on its head as far as the source of the earliest EEF, but may have dropped the ball in the end of the quote. [/qb][/QUOTE]Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged. He said: [QUOTE]I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.[/QUOTE]Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early [b]European[/b] Farmers with some African mixture on top. Yes that is what was said. Now he tries to backtrack and claim we are asking for too much when we challenge him. And this isn't necessarily about trying to insult anybody it is making sure we have clarity and understanding when we talk. And that ties in perfectly with the overall theme of the thread, where Swenet believes that "his way" of describing populations and affinities is more clear and consistent than simple terms like black or white and African/Non African. Yet we see his way of explaining things is just as incoherent and flawed as anything. But he refuses to admit that you cant pretend that there are some clear non overlapping values that have to be clearly delineated for the sake of clarity. Calling a population African versus Non African in terms of affinities and genetic lineages is a perfect example. It establishes key markers and mileposts on the journey of human evolution. But to him he thinks this is "racial obsession". No, it is clearly delineating the process by which humans evolved on the planet and ascribing appropriate labels to intermediate populations on the way to humanity on the way we see it today. The point being that every population, in the first wave of OOA migration, even as much as 10,000 years after leaving Africa was still primarily physically African in appearance and genetic lineages, even with the random DNA variations identified with drift and natural selection. And my reason for saying this is in the fact that most of these populations stayed in tropical/subtropical areas as they migrated out. Later waves of OOA populations are the ones who eventually moved north into areas formerly covered by ice giving rise to the Eurasians we see today. When I say genetic mutation, I am referring to random changes to DNA codes. However there is a distinction in science made between mutation and other forms of changes to the genetic code. It is more along the line of mutation indicating some kind of negative change... as in "mutant". Either way, it is still a reference to random genetic changes that occur in each and every individual born on earth. Genetic drift and founder effect exist on top of this fundamental process. [QUOTE] In summary DNA provides the instructions for the cells that make up our body Everyone’s DNA is somewhat different; variations in our DNA make us unique Some DNA variations are inherited from our parent/s, some appear from birth while others are acquired throughout life DNA variations that have no adverse effects on our cells and occur frequently in the population are called polymorphisms DNA variations that do affect the function of the protein made from a gene and occur less often are called mutations [/QUOTE] http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/FactSheetVariationsinCode [/QUOTE] http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=8;t=009335;replyto=001862 In fact, the only issue I have is with people being consistent in the sense of using terminology, especially when they are challenging other folks to have a certain standard of consistency that they don't apply to others..... [/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