|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 1, 2014 21:13:24 GMT -5
It's an ad, man an, ad. It's not a scientific report. It was written to sell the DNA Tribes® SNP kit mentioned 30 times in that digest entry and then featured prominently from page 19 onward with the $39.99 price tag bottomline on page 22.
Ever seen that in an accredited report / study?
Why are you taking an overblown advertisment seriously? Absent Materials & Methods doesn't clue you in? You can't replicate this stuff because no detailed specimen lists etc.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 7:27:52 GMT -5
I am not sure what your problem is my brotha. We all know DNATribes is a private company. We all know they probably have their own agenda irregardless to how convoluted it is.
But an intelligent person will critically analyze their work rather than just rant. So let us break it down.
1. Yes. They are a private company 2. They do DNA Analysis so they have an extensive database 3. They have the means(computer nd software) to analyze large amounts data. 4. They do NOT perform aDNA analysis and they NEVER said that they do. 5. At best, they can match a specific genetic profile to a Geographic region in THEIR database. 6. As a result no peer review is required since they are NOT researchers. 7. They are INTERPRETING data just as anyone of us. But they have the advantage of the genetic profiles of geographic populations in their large database. 8. They can screw-up in the INTERPETATION of data just as us. But NOT the match.
The FACTS show that BOTH DNATribes database and the data from Lazaridis et al show that ALL Sub-Saharan Africans carry (a) “Asian/Chinese” SNP profile (b) European/Basque SNP profile. How it got their and/or the interpretation/explaination of the significanec is the puzzle. An intelligent person will understand that. Futhermore back-migration is a rediculous explanation and they(DNATribes) know that. Even Lazaridis is “waffling” on that back-migration hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 2, 2014 8:45:09 GMT -5
I know some of this is difficult to follow. But stick with it. It is not as simplistic as you think. High frequency does NOT equate to “origin”. Basques did not back-migate to Central Africa. South Chinese did NOT back-mugarte to Central Africa, Native American did NOT back-migarte to Africa. Sorry. Same applies to SLC24A5. Euroepans have a higher frequency , yes. But weren’t you the guy who argued for SLC45A2 instead. Now you are on the SLC24A5 bandwagon after I pointed it out to you that SLC24A5 is a better indicator of light skin. See “white West African thread” Anyways. You still did not fully undertand how it works. Frequency does not tell the full story. Analysis of the “promoter region” gives a strong indication of “origin”. Your simplistic mind would not grasp that. That is why Shriver suggested OOA left Africa with “light” skin. That is why L-Fox et al looked at the region for La Brana man, and that is why all aDNA disclosed thus far show Europeans were black until very recently. The gene entered Europe only about 4000Bc from Neolithic farmers(eg Stuttgart woman) who has genetic links with…….Africans. ….Hope you understand. Well why should this come as a surprise? If humanity originates in Africa, then all human populations are subsets of the African. Therefore, the people carrying those genes left Africa and settled in specific regions, where the population expanded.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 9:34:59 GMT -5
You understand. ALL OOA humans are a sub-set of AFricans. ALL!!
One correction.
QUOTE: Well why should this come as a surprise? If humanity originates in Africa, then all human populations are subsets of the African. Therefore, the people carrying those genes left Africa and settled in specific regions, where the population expanded GENE DRIFTED to higher frequency.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 9:40:49 GMT -5
Someof the scientist try to play off of the genes as "back-migration" admixture. Fortunately Not All. But pop culture necessitate calling the presence admixture.
Was it Lazaridis who said "all populations have European" genes. Now! Really! How idiotic is that statement? He saw the Hadza and Sandwe carrying "Basal Eurasian" markers which threw him a curve to lose his mind to make such an illogical statement.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 9:56:34 GMT -5
There are a few suprising things looking at the data. First, the relatively high frequency of African markers in Melanesians. The high frequency of Native American markers is expcted because the Melenesians are geographyically closer to SSA.
The other surprise is the apparent “split” within the “Click-Speaking” groups. Lazaridis data shows that. One group do not carry “Basal Eursian” while the other group does. Yoruba carry “Basal Eurasian” which means Yoruba’s probably split off from only one branch of the “click Speakers”.
Tishkoff dataset also shows a deep diverge within the click speakers. Maybe longer than OOA (.75kya).
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 2, 2014 18:03:07 GMT -5
Rant? What rant? You are the one ranting about DNAtribes "racialism."
I told you why it is as it is. Questioning my intelligence when you bank on non-science as if it is science and then wonder about what's written in the digest?
Question your own intelligence.
Critically analyze "work" that lacks sample lists and doesn't explain how it arrived at its conclusions? Gimme a break.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 19:48:18 GMT -5
To those who learn through pictures.... Here is DNAtribes.. Here is Lazaridis et al THEY ARE THE SAME!!! No peer reviewed needed. Both align with each other OOA/ANE/Basal Eurasian/Basque/Native American are found in SS Africans. The only difference is Lazaridis created sub-sets of click-speaking populations in Africa. While DNATribes grouped them together. This is not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 2, 2014 21:14:29 GMT -5
No but some of it is not really molecular biology sciene either.
Your comparison is lacking.
Your DNAtribes has 5 variables Your Lazaridis is K=3 not 5.
Yet you call that the same. Hmm, very in ter esting?
Thank heaven u r ^ reviewing rocket science (horrid cliche).
Granted, peer review's not needed to express an opinion. But a non-molecular biologists' opinion is just that, no better than any amateur like all of us here.
Touting an opinion and citing it as if it were a bona fide genetic report or study? Well it doesn't take astrophysics to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Jul 2, 2014 23:17:47 GMT -5
You understand. ALL OOA humans are a sub-set of AFricans. ALL!! One correction. QUOTE: Well why should this come as a surprise? If humanity originates in Africa, then all human populations are subsets of the African. Therefore, the people carrying those genes left Africa and settled in specific regions, where the population expanded GENE DRIFTED to higher frequency. Too bad this info will never be introduced into mainstream academics.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 3, 2014 4:25:20 GMT -5
If you did look at the Lazaridis et chart, and understood it at K5. Yes, they are exactly the same. If I remember correctly, K4 shows the Native American component. Both are the same. DNATribes dataset is an exact match to Lazaridis et al. SSA carries all the described componenets. ie Basque/BAsal Eurasian//ANE/Non-African/Native/American/South Chinese/Dravidian. It is idiotic and a fantasy to believe somehow these populations back-migrated to sub-saharan Africa. That is why you should ignore the "labels" used. Basque(DNATribes=Basal Eurasian(Lazaridis) etc. jUst look at the genetic material. The Lazaridis data shows Hadza/Sandwe carry MORE Basal Eurasian genetic material than even African Americans(who live among Euros). Sandwe/Hadza which has no contact with Europeans. If "I' can figure this out, trust me, they can also. Or did already. They are playing games. Your DNAtribes has 5 variables Your Lazaridis is K=3 not 5. Thank heaven u r ^ reviewing rocket science (horrid cliche). Granted, peer review's not needed to express an opinion. .
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 3, 2014 4:41:33 GMT -5
Peer reviewed. Pear reviewed. It doesn't matter. BOTH "indepedent" dataset came to the same observations. Fact is DNATribes has an authentic database just as Lazaridis et al.
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Jul 3, 2014 4:52:15 GMT -5
You understand. ALL OOA humans are a sub-set of AFricans. ALL!! One correction. QUOTE: Well why should this come as a surprise? If humanity originates in Africa, then all human populations are subsets of the African. Therefore, the people carrying those genes left Africa and settled in specific regions, where the population expanded GENE DRIFTED to higher frequency. Too bad this info will never be introduced into mainstream academics. it isn't?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 3, 2014 4:56:46 GMT -5
There is nothing to "gain" from making this information widely known. It will shatter the illusion of Europeans being the "center of the universe". Futhermore if you look closely at the charts and know geography the migration pattern is very clear. The ANE/Native American/South Chinese component increase to the East to Asia while the Basque/Basal Eurasian component increases North West to Europe. Central "source'' is the Great Lakes region or somewhere near there in the Sahara. Follow that up with the mtDNA haplogroup. Macro groups mtDNA hg-N(North West) and mtDNA hg-M(East). Same migration pattern. This is NOT rocket science.(wink). You understand. ALL OOA humans are a sub-set of AFricans. ALL!! One correction. QUOTE: Well why should this come as a surprise? If humanity originates in Africa, then all human populations are subsets of the African. Therefore, the people carrying those genes left Africa and settled in specific regions, where the population expanded GENE DRIFTED to higher frequency. Too bad this info will never be introduced into mainstream academics.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 3, 2014 7:13:11 GMT -5
Some of you may follow this genetic stuff. But as I said, another cluster that stands out is at K5. This is ANOTHER African, but different component from K2. Lazaridis calls it “pygmy”. Not sure why since Yoruba has highest frequency. But the point is this may represent a secondary or even tertiary wave of AMH from Africa. Why? It is seen at high fequency in the Onge, Meleneasians, Makrani, Balcochi and Southern Europeans such as Iberians, Tuscany, Sicilians and of course Bediouins 1 / 2 , Yemen etc. But absent in the Northern populations of Eurasia. Remember Otzi Alp Icemen carried that motif only found in Pygmies and another found in only North Africans, Iberians and East Africans. Look at the genetic profile of Otzi man which is posted on this forum also. This does not mean the Pygmies were migrating but their decendant populations. Eg Central and Northern Africans. This is not rocket science.
|
|