...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes
» 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 beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] The point I m making is both Doug and Beyoku already have their minds made up and neither can hear the other nor want to hear the other (putting data and methodology aside, Doug has an intelligent analysis and is well grounded from a sociological (i.e., university field Afrocentric) stance. AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup is no guarantee of no [i]individual's[/i] phenotype. [/qb][/QUOTE]Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper. . [/qb][/QUOTE]Wall of text. SMH. The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three. I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand. [/qb][/QUOTE]And in the following thread when the preview was given what did I say? That they probably had limited data and it wouldn't be that "groundbreaking". And of course I get challenged as if what I said didn't turn out to be correct..... Not to mention the limitation of African DNA to "Sub Saharan" Africa.... I mean some folks want to pretend things have changed but they haven't. Not that much. Otherwise why do folks spend so much time reading these reports if everything is so correct and unbiased? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry. When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean? It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics. [/qb][/QUOTE]But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA? [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually the question is what do they consider African. Sounds like what they are trying to do is limit "African" to being South of the Sahara. Otherwise, why is it relevant to ancient populations along the Nile, the Sahara or near the Red Sea? How on earth do we jump from SSA straight into Europe? Seriously how is that even making sense? That is why I don't buy into this false narrative of relationship to SSA as if that defines what is "African". [/qb][/QUOTE] http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=3 [/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