|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Feb 21, 2014 22:06:18 GMT -5
So they used the Multi Regional Theory - Asian Origin of AMH to remove SLC24A5 mutation from Africa and place it in Asia(middle East). The MRT was popular back in the 1980s. The early stages of genetic studies. Of course almost all researchers place AMH in Africa first.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Feb 22, 2014 0:06:49 GMT -5
C11(their nomenclature) is the genetic region that contains the marker for light skin. After admitting that they then used a hypothetical model using the D region as a better indicator of the light skin gene. As I said no other researchers do that. This is their hypothesis- Quote:
===============================================================
"Taken together, these results establish that the 147-kb FOUNDER haplotype containing A111T was B6 + C11 + D4
And
subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006)."
=========================================================================
In other words D4/B6 should be used to determine origin of C11. They combined C11 with B6 and D4 claiming this is the ‘founder” haplotype. From there they showed D4/B6 originated OUTSIDE Africa therefore concluding C11 ALSO originated outside Africa. They then used “hokey” method to explain its presence in Africa. But to Brada point, it is not through back-migration. Their explanation…..? – Richards et al 2006 is cited.. ^^Excellent roundup and analysis. The one about the over-representation of Europeans is an eye-opener also. Thanks for clarification. WHich Shriver study are you referencing above? I see 2 or 3 floating around. XYYMAN: In other words they are using uniparental markers on origin of AMH in Asia based upon genetic work from the 1980’s to explain the SLC24A5 mutation in the Middle East to Africa. The old Orientalist multi-regional theory. AMH originated in Asia and entered Africa as data from the 1980’s show!!! Wow! Talk about wacky!^Stone cold bruh.. I am beginning to see some of the manipulation going on. Its like Cavalli-Sforza in the 1990s who reached back to an obsolete 1960s Encyclopedia Britannica reference saying Ethiopians were "whites with black skin"! Then using that as "supplementary support" to bolster his own skewed DNA claims. TOP 3 studies list ^^So what would you say are the top 3 studies showing that European light skin is a recent occurrence, if you had to list them?
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Feb 23, 2014 13:20:52 GMT -5
"African Origin of Light skin" -- so where are these white skinned Africans? Can you show a photo? Or are you playing semantics? By "light" do you just mean light brown? Does any deny there are light brown skinned Africans? Nope. But take a look at any anthro-map, and you will see true light i.e. white skin is absent from Africa: Brace 2000
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Feb 23, 2014 13:27:50 GMT -5
djoser-xyyman if white skin arose in Africa, where are white skinned Africans today? Are you saying they magically disappeared?
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Feb 23, 2014 13:46:36 GMT -5
djoser-xyyman if white skin arose in Africa, where are white skinned Africans today? Are you saying they magically disappeared? maybe they went to europe
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Feb 23, 2014 19:40:32 GMT -5
So you agree with me. Now you are catching on. Anymore questions.... ask? ========= Djoser xyyman- "African Origin of Light skin" -- so where are these white skinned Africans? Can you show a photo? Or are you playing semantics? By "light" do you just mean light brown? Does any deny there are light brown skinned Africans? Nope. But take a look at any anthro-map, and you will see true light i.e. white skin is absent from Africa: Brace 2000
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on May 24, 2015 4:14:31 GMT -5
Awesome analogy, on: Baltimore and Philadelphia. Body and head.
|
|
|
Post by grandcrusader on Jul 7, 2015 22:13:29 GMT -5
Here is another example of the extent some researchers will go to lie and misrepresent conclusion in the interest of…. what? They have concluded that an area OUTSIDE the actual gene is a better indicator than the gene itself on where that said gene originates. This is a first. . If they go strictly by the gene’s haplotypes then they will have to concluded light skin originated in SSA. Just as Shriver et al concluded. This is analogous to a murder investigator discovering a room soaked in blood with a headless body in Philadelphia and concluding the murder took place in Baltimore because the head was found in Baltimore. Here they are trying to remove the origin of light skin outside Africa and place it in the Middle East somewhere . They admitted light skin did NOT evolve in Europe irregardless of the fact Europe has the highest frequency and is "fixed". Just as Shriver et al. These researchers saw the same data pattern as Shriver but tried to razzle dazzle and place the origin of light skin outside Africa in the Middle East or near India. They try to do this by focusing on a region FAR away from the gene C11/SLC24A5/ A111T allele ie D4(Baltimore). The data is consistent with Shriver et al on the origin of light skin in Africa. It also supports the SEGREGATING of haplotypes surrounding SLC24A5 in Africans just as was discussed in the La Brana man paper. At least Shriver was honest enough to admit an African origin of light skin. Read on So where do you say Light Skin originates?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 13, 2015 17:23:29 GMT -5
It is not what "I say" , it is what the researchers "say". As of 2014/2015 , Lazaridis et al as an example , the Neolithics brought in light skin to Europe beginning about 5000bc.
So the question to ask is who were the "Neolithics" and where did they come from.
|
|