|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 9, 2010 10:53:08 GMT -5
Firstly lets make it clear that while only 2% of the GENOMES found among Eurasians are of Neanderthal or archaic origin, in regard to estimated ancestry Eurasians are 100% African.
The tiny Neanderthal presence in non-Africans are all scattered therefore useless and in that sense had no impact on the evolution of the human populations outside Africa, therefore it's not negative nor positive.
It does not equate to the "racial" differences seen among Humans.
"Stocky, thick-browed and heavy-boned, the Neanderthals last shared a common ancestor with the African precursors to modern humans some 500,000 years ago. The Neanderthals populated the Near East and Europe until they vanished from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago. Thegene maps produced by the DNA analysis of the bones found Neanderthal genes scattered randomly among non-Africans, Paabo says, indicating they don't account for any racial differences between modern-day Africans and anyone else. "
Neanderthal admixture, 2%, didn't positively or negatively affect modern non-Africans. In regard to civilization being influenced, as in to the fact that some retarded Eurocentrics have posted, one would have to explain why both indigenous Australians, who don't have the most material civilied culture, and the Chinese, who were some of the most earliest in regard to civilization, both share the same amount, 2%.
The Scientist have already stated that the admixture had no effect on evolution.
Basically non-Africans commited bestiality with primitive non-human Neanderthals and didn't get nothing in return.
"The evidence doesnt indicate that Africa is not the ultimate home to mankind, it's rather implicating that after the ancestors of non Africans left Africa they might've intermingled with Neanderthal. The scientists also clearly state that it appears randomly and there was no exchange of any advantageous evolutionary beneficial traits from Neanderthal pretty much nothing more than a genetic relic."
"The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected...[..]..The Neanderthal DNA appears in the modern human genomes randomly, suggesting it offers no evolutionary benefit and is merely a genetic relic."
Also to defute any theories that some humans are more then 4% Neanderthal...
"It's easy for me to accept the idea that there was a very small amount of gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans. We're talking about one to four percent, four percent maximum. I don't see any problem with that." - Dr.Klien, one of the authors.
Meaning the gene-flow may have happened only once to twice in early modern life outside of Africa, but due to the small population at that time it was able to continue to linger on. The genes don't increase beyond 4%, therefore the reason why all non-Africans share the same amount, 2%. If that wasn't true they would have had detected that mush earlier and again in the new study, most likely in the French sample.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 14:41:36 GMT -5
The actual scientific study is available for free for now Richard E. Green et al A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome Science 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710 - 722 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021Abstract: Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other. Exerpts: . . . . A challenge in detecting signals of gene flow between Neandertals and modern human ancestors is that the two groups share common ancestors within the last 500,000 years, which is no deeper than the nuclear DNA sequence variation within present-day humans. Thus, even if no gene flow occurred, in many segments of the genome, Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other. However, if Neandertals are, on average across many independent regions of the genome, more closely related to present-day humans in certain parts of the world than in others, this would strongly suggest that Neandertals exchanged parts of their genome with the ancestors of these groups. . . . . A special challenge in analyzing DNA sequences from the Neandertal nuclear genome is that most DNA fragments in a Neandertal are expected to be identical to present-day humans. Thus, contamination of the experiments with DNA from present-day humans may be mistaken for endogenous DNA. ... We employed a number of technical improvements, including the attachment of tagged sequence adaptors in the clean-room environment, to minimize the risk of contamination and determine about 4 billion bp from the Neandertal genome.
. . . . Paleontological samples. We analyzed a total of 21 Neandertal bones from Vindija Cave in Croatia that are of little morphological value. From below the surface of each of these bones, we removed 50 to 100 mg of bone powder using a sterile dentistry drill in our Leipzig clean-room facility. All samples were screened for the presence of Neandertal mtDNA by PCR, and three bones were selected for further analysis. . . . . Sequencing library construction. A total of nine DNA extracts were prepared from the three bones (table S4) using procedures to minimize laboratory contamination that we have developed over the past two decades.... DNA sequences with a significantly better match to the primate genomes than to any of the other sources of sequences were further analyzed. Mitochondrial DNA contamination from modern humans was estimated by primer extension capture using six biotinylated primers that target informative differences between human and Neandertal mtDNA, followed by sequencing on the GS FLX platform. Extracts that contained more than 1.5% hominin DNA relative to other DNA were used to construct further libraries. These were similarly analyzed to assess the percentage of hominin DNA ...
. . . . Estimates of human DNA contamination. We used three approaches that target mtDNA, Y chromosomal DNA, and nuclear DNA, respectively, to gauge the ratio of present-day human relative to Neandertal DNA in the data produced. To analyze the extent of mtDNA contamination, we used the complete mtDNA from each bone to identify positions differing from at least 99% of a worldwide panel of 311 contemporary human mtDNAs, ignoring positions where a substitution in the sequences from the Neandertal library could be due to cytosine deamination. For each sequencing library, the DNA fragments that cover these positions were then classified according to whether they appear to be of Neandertal or modern human origin. For each bone, the level of mtDNA contamination is estimated to be below 0.5%
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 15:16:31 GMT -5
Estimates of human DNA contamination. Because prior to this study no fixed differences between Neandertal and present-day humans in the nuclear genome were known, we used two alternative strategies to estimate levels of nuclear contamination. In the first strategy, we determined the sex of the bones. ... In the second strategy, we take advantage of the fact that sites where present-day humans carry a high frequency of a derived allele (i.e., not seen in chimpanzee) while Neandertals carry a high frequency of the ancestral allele (i.e., matching the chimpanzee) provide information about the extent of contamination. ... In summary, all three measurements of human mtDNA contamination produce estimates of less than 1% contamination. Thus, the vast majority of these data represent bona fide Neandertal DNA sequences.
. . . . Average DNA divergence between Neandertals and humans. ... The numbers of transversions on the human lineage, as well as those on the lineage from the Neandertal-human ancestor to the chimpanzee, were used to estimate the average divergence between DNA sequences in Neandertals and present-day humans, as a fraction of the lineage from the human reference genome to the common ancestor of Neandertals, humans, and chimpanzees. For autosomes, this was 12.7% for each of the three bones analyzed. For the X chromosome, it was 11.9 to 12.4%. Assuming an average DNA divergence of 6.5 million years between the human and chimpanzee genomes, this results in a point estimate for the average divergence of Neandertal and modern human autosomal DNA sequences of 825,000 years. We caution that this is only a rough estimate because of the uncertainty about the time of divergence of humans and chimpanzees. . . . . Additional Neandertal individuals. To put the divergence of the Neandertal genome sequences from Vindija Cave into perspective with regard to other Neandertals, we generated a much smaller amount of DNA sequence data from three Neandertal bones from three additional sites that cover much of the geographical range of late Neandertals: El Sidron in Asturias, Spain, dated to ~49,000 years B.P.; Feldhofer Cave in the Neander Valley, Germany, from which we sequenced the type specimen found in 1856 dated to ~42,000 years B.P.; and Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucasus, Russia, dated to 60,000 to 70,000 years B.P.. DNA divergences estimated for each of these specimens to the human reference genome show that none of them differ significantly from the Vindija individuals, although these estimates are relatively uncertain due to the limited amount of DNA sequence data. It is noteworthy that the Mezmaiskaya specimen, which is 20,000 to 30,000 years older than the other Neandertals analyzed and comes from the easternmost location, does not differ in divergence from the other individuals. Thus, within the resolution of our current data, Neandertals from across a great part of their range in western Eurasia are equally related to present-day humans.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 15:26:49 GMT -5
Five present-day human genomes. To put the divergence of the Neandertal genomes into perspective with regard to present-day humans, we sequenced the genomes of one San from Southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese, and one French from Western Europe...
Autosomal DNA sequences of these individuals diverged 8.2 to 10.3% back along the lineage leading to the human reference genome, considerably less than the 12.7% seen in Neandertals.
... the divergence of the Neandertal genome to the human reference genome is greater than for any of the present-day human genomes analyzed. . . . . Distributions of DNA divergences to humans. To explore the variation of DNA sequence divergence across the genome, we analyzed the divergence of the Neandertals and the five humans to the reference human genome in 100 kilobase windows for which at least 50 informative transversions were observed. The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans. However, the overall divergence is greater for the three Neandertal genomes. For example, their modes are around divergences of ~11%, whereas for the San the mode is ~9% and for the other present-day humans ~8%. For the Neandertals, 13% of windows have a divergence above 20%, whereas this is the case for 2.5% to 3.7% of windows in the current humans.
Fig. 3 Divergence of Neandertal and human genomes. Distributions of divergence from the human genome reference sequence among segments of 100 kb are shown for three Neandertals and the five present-day humans.
Furthermore, whereas in the French, Han, and Papuan individuals, 9.8%, 7.8%, and 5.9% of windows, respectively, show between 0% and 2% divergence to the human reference genome, in the San and the Yoruba this is the case for 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. For the three Neandertals, 2.2 to 2.5% of windows show 0% to 2% divergence to the reference genome.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 9, 2010 15:42:59 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the entire study, there's a big difference in stating humans are related to neanderthals, meaning share a Common ancestor, and inferring that "some" humans descended from neanderthals, I don't see this pointed out in the study.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 15:45:06 GMT -5
A screen for positive selection in early modern humans. Neandertals fall within the variation of present-day humans for many regions of the genome; that is, Neandertals often share derived single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) alleles with present-day humans. We devised an approach to detect positive selection in early modern humans that takes advantage of this fact by looking for genomic regions where present-day humans share a common ancestor subsequent to their divergence from Neandertals, and Neandertals therefore lack derived alleles found in present-day humans (except in rare cases of parallel substitutions) (Fig. 4A) [Fig 4 is too large to post so find it here] We identified SNPs as positions that vary among the five present-day human genomes of diverse ancestry plus the human reference genome and used the chimpanzee genome to determine the ancestral state.
...
The region with the strongest statistical signal contained a stretch of 293 consecutive SNP positions in the first half of the gene AUTS2 where only ancestral alleles are observed in the Neandertals.
The widest region is located on chromosome 2 and contains the gene THADA, where a region of 336 kb is depleted of derived alleles in Neandertals. SNPs in the vicinity of THADA have been associated with type II diabetes, and THADA expression differs between individuals with diabetes and healthy controls. Changes in THADA may thus have affected aspects of energy metabolism in early modern humans.
Mutations in several genes in Table 3 have been associated with diseases affecting cognitive capacities. DYRK1A, which lies in the Down syndrome critical region, is thought to underlie some of the cognitive impairment associated with having three copies of chromsome 21.
Mutations in NRG3 have been associated with schizophrenia, a condition that has been suggested to affect human-specific cognitive traits.
Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism, as have mutations in AUTS2. Autism is a developmental disorder of brain function in which social interactions, communication, activity, and interest patterns are affected, as well as cognitive aspects crucial for human sociality and culture. It may thus be that multiple genes involved in cognitive development were positively selected during the early history of modern humans.
One gene of interest may be RUNX2 (CBFA1). It is the only gene in the genome known to cause cleidocranial dysplasia, which is characterized by delayed closure of cranial sutures, hypoplastic or aplastic clavicles, a bell-shaped rib cage, and dental abnormalities.
Some of these features affect morphological traits for which modern humans differ from Neandertals as well as other earlier hominins.
For example, the cranial malformations seen in cleidocranial dysplasia include frontal bossing, i.e., a protruding frontal bone. A more prominent frontal bone is a feature that differs between modern humans and Neandertals as well as other archaic hominins.
The clavicle, which is affected in cleidocranial dysplasia, differs in morphology between modern humans and Neandertals and is associated with a different architecture of the shoulder joint.
Finally, a bell-shaped rib cage is typical of Neandertals and other archaic hominins.
A reasonable hypothesis is thus that an evolutionary change in RUNX2 was of importance in the origin of modern humans and that this change affected aspects of the morphology of the upper body and cranium.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 15:47:53 GMT -5
It's always necessary to examine an actual report versus a press release. I hope these exerpts from the actual report prove helpful in understanding what Green et als study is actually about versus the previously speculations. The team of scientists involved in the study have concluded that Homo sapiens do partially descend from Homo neanderthalis since 1 to 4% of the Eurasian human genome derives from the Neanderthal genome. A genome being all the DNA in a species' chromosomes and mitochondria, i.e., all the genes (exons) plus all the non-coding DNA (introns) altogether. Thanks for posting the entire study, there's a big difference in stating humans are related to neanderthals, meaning share a Common ancestor, and inferring that "some" humans descended from neanderthals, I don't see this pointed out in the study.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 16:04:46 GMT -5
Neandertals are closer to non-Africans than to Africans. To test whether Neandertals are more closely related to some present-day humans than to others, we identified SNPs by comparing one randomly chosen sequence from each of two present-day humans and asking if the Neandertals match the alleles of the two individuals equally often. If gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans ceased before differentiation between present-day human populations began, this is expected to be the case no matter which present-day humans are compared. The prediction of this null hypothesis of no gene flow holds regardless of population expansions, bottlenecks, or substructure that might have occurred in modern human history.
The reason for this is that when single chromosomes are analyzed in the two present-day populations, differences in demographic histories in the two populations will not affect the results even if they may profoundly influence allele frequencies. Under the alternative model of later gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans, we expect Neandertals to match alleles in individuals from some parts of the world more often than the others.
We restricted this analysis to biallelic SNPs where two present-day humans carry different alleles and where the Neandertals carried the derived allele, i.e., not matching chimpanzee. ... We performed this test using eight present-day humans: two European Americans (CEU), two East Asians (ASN), and four West Africans (YRI), ... ... The greater genetic proximity of Neandertals to Europeans and Asians than to Africans is seen no matter how we subdivide the data: (i) by individual pairs of humans (Table 4), (ii) by chromosome, (iii) by substitutions that are transitions or transversions, (iv) by hypermutable CpG versus all other sites, (v) by Neandertal sequences shorter or longer than 50 bp, and (vi) by 454 or Illumina data. It is also seen when we restrict the analysis to A/T and C/G substitutions, ... ... ... analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans, whereas they share equal amounts of derived alleles when compared either to individuals within Eurasia or to individuals within Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 16:18:35 GMT -5
Non-Africans haplotypes match Neandertals unexpectedly often. ... A prediction of Neandertal-to-modern human gene flow is that DNA sequences that entered the human gene pool from Neandertals will tend to match Neandertal more often than their frequency in the present-day human population. To test this prediction, we identified 166 "tag SNPs" that separate 12 of the haplotype clades in non-Africans (OOA) from the cosmopolitan haplotype clades shared between Africans and non-Africans (COS) and for which we had data from the Neandertals. Overall, the Neandertals match the deep clade unique to non- Africans at 133 of the 166 tag SNPs, and 10 of the 12 regions where tag SNPs occur show an excess of OOA over COS sites . . . . . ... analysis shows that some old haplotypes most likely owe their presence in present-day non-Africans to gene flow from Neandertals. However, not all old haplotypes in non-Africans may have such an origin.
For example, it has been suggested that the H2 haplotype on chromosome 17 and the D haplotype of the microcephalin gene were contributed by Neandertals to present-day non-Africans. This is not supported by the current data because the Neandertals analyzed do not carry these haplotypes. . . . . The extent of Neandertal ancestry. To estimate the proportion of Neandertal ancestry, we compare the similarity of non-Africans to Neandertals with the similarity of two Neandertals, N1 and N2, to each other. Under the assumption that there was no gene flow from Neandertals to the ancestors of modern Africans, the proportion of Neandertal ancestry of non-Africans, f, can be estimated by the ratio S(OOA,AFR,N1,Chimpanzee)/S(N2,AFR,N1,Chimpanzee), where the S statistic is an unnormalized version of the D statistic. Using Neandertals from Vindija, as well as Mezmaiskaya, we estimate f to be between 1.3% and 2.7%. To obtain an independent estimate of f, we fit a population genetic model to the D statistics in Table 4 and SOM Text 15 as well as to other summary statistics of the data. Assuming that gene flow from Neandertals occurred between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, this method estimates f to be between 1 and 4%, consistent with the above estimate.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 16:30:36 GMT -5
Implications for modern human origins. One model for modern human origins suggests that all present-day humans trace all their ancestry back to a small African population that expanded and replaced archaic forms of humans without admixture.
Our analysis of the Neandertal genome may not be compatible with this view because Neandertals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than to individuals in Africa. Furthermore, individuals in Eurasia today carry regions in their genome that are closely related to those in Neandertals and distant from other present-day humans.
The data suggest that between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals. Thus, while the Neandertal genome presents a challenge to the simplest version of an "out-of-Africa" model for modern human origins, it continues to support the view that the vast majority of genetic variants that exist at appreciable frequencies outside Africa came from Africa with the spread of anatomically modern humans.
A striking observation is that Neandertals are as closely related to a Chinese and Papuan individual as to a French individual, even though morphologically recognizable Neandertals exist only in the fossil record of Europe and western Asia.
Thus, the gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans that we detect most likely occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans.
This may be explained by mixing of early modern humans ancestral to present-day non-Africans with Neandertals in the Middle East before their expansion into Eurasia. Such a scenario is compatible with the archaeological record, which shows that modern humans appeared in the Middle East before 100,000 years ago whereas the Neandertals existed in the same region after this time, probably until 50,000 years ago. ... the actual amount of interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans may have been very limited, given that it contributed only 1 to 4% of the genome of present-day non-Africans. Fig. 6 Four possible scenarios of genetic mixture involving Neandertals.
Scenario 1 represents gene flow into Neandertal from other archaic hominins, here collectively referred to as Homo erectus. This would manifest itself as segments of the Neandertal genome with unexpectedly high divergence from present-day humans.
Scenario 2 represents gene flow between late Neandertals and early modern humans in Europe and/or western Asia. We see no evidence of this because Neandertals are equally distantly related to all non-Africans. However, such gene flow may have taken place without leaving traces in the present-day gene pool.
Scenario 3 represents gene flow between Neandertals and the ancestors of all non-Africans. This is the most parsimonious explanation of our observation. Although we detect gene flow only from Neandertals into modern humans, gene flow in the reverse direction may also have occurred.
Scenario 4 represents old substructure in Africa that persisted from the origin of Neandertals until the ancestors of non-Africans left Africa. This scenario is also compatible with the current data.
. . . . Although gene flow from Neandertals into modern humans when they first left sub-Saharan Africa seems to be the most parsimonious model compatible with the current data, other scenarios are also possible. For example, we cannot currently rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population of present-day non-Africans was more closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral population of present-day Africans due to ancient substructure within Africa (Fig. 6). If after the divergence of Neandertals there was incomplete genetic homogenization between what were to become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans, present-day non-Africans would be more closely related to Neandertals than are Africans. In fact, old population substructure in Africa has been suggested based on genetic as well as paleontological data.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 16:32:34 GMT -5
In conclusion, we show that genome sequences from an extinct late Pleistocene hominin can be reliably recovered. The analysis of the Neandertal genome shows that they are likely to have had a role in the genetic ancestry of present-day humans outside of Africa, although this role was relatively minor given that only a few percent of the genomes of present-day people outside Africa are derived from Neandertals.
Our results also point to a number of genomic regions and genes as candidates for positive selection early in modern human history, for example, those involved in cognitive abilities and cranial morphology.
We expect that further analyses of the Neandertal genome as well as the genomes of other archaic hominins will generate additional hypotheses and provide further insights into the origins and early history of present-day humans.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 9, 2010 17:14:15 GMT -5
After reading the rest of the study, I now realize that the authors are discretely lending credence to the multi-regional hypothesis, which is not the general consensus of the scientific community.
And further since, his Null hypothesis is between 1-4%, it fall below the 5% threshold which would render it false.
This looks suspicious to me
"...this results in a point estimate for the average divergence of Neandertal and modern human autosomal DNA sequences of 825,000 years. We caution that this is only a rough estimate because of the uncertainty about the time of divergence of humans and chimpanzees."
First, because the date is longer than previous studies, that pointed to around 300,000~400,000 years ago, secondly because these dates are calculated using random mutations.
I still believe modern humans "replaced" Neanderthals and did not breed with them, all of the current evidence point to a single common ancestor out of Africa. They didn't present any evidence at all to prove that MtDNA from Neanderthals is present in Modern Europeans.
They have been up to this for a long time using haplogroup D, so we should not be surprised. The frequency of D is lower in Africans than non-Africans, and even LOWER in West African than East Africans, and I noticed that they didn't use East Africans in the sample.
At one point they were suggesting that some Neanderthals had red hair and freckles, and that Europeans probably "inherited" this from them. But studies on the MC1R gene of Neanderthals was NOT present in modern humans.
The controversy is likely to continue for decades to come.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 9, 2010 17:24:00 GMT -5
So far I can make no sense out of this statement because it appears oxymoronic saying "Neanderthal share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans" while simultaneously saying "they share equal amounts of derived alleles when compared either to individuals within Eurasia or to individuals within Africa."I guess email to the correspondents (Green, Reich, and Paabo) is in order unless somebody here can explain away what looks like a contradictory statement. ... analyses of present-day humans consistently show that Neandertals share significantly more derived alleles with non-Africans than with Africans, whereas they share equal amounts of derived alleles when compared either to individuals within Eurasia or to individuals within Africa.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 9, 2010 20:22:27 GMT -5
I repeat. . . Quote Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome to the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthal's==== They point they are trying to make is that they are DIFFERENT ie better, than sub-saharans. , , , if the data is reliable. BUT that only applies to 4% of them and Asians AND Paupauns. Did they sample ANY north Africans? What about the other 96% of Europeans. Plus , Did any NOT have African ancestry.. . which is their ultimate wish!!!
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 9, 2010 20:31:59 GMT -5
Two other things stand out.
1. they sampled only ONE from each group. Yet they say only 2 in 50 Europeans carry the Neanderthal gene set. Is it a coincidence that the ONE Frenchman has the Neanderthal gene set. LOL!!!! How can they make such a conclusion with out sampling more Europeans or other groups in the world. What about Native Americans?
2. Don't they do these studies in duplicate. At least with King Tut. Hawass/JAMA mentioned that TWO labs did testing. many but not all the results could of been replicated.
Conclusion: as I said above, all hype to "prove" they are different ie better.
This is for the NONE thinking populace ie trailer park high school drop out nordicist stormfront type.
The study was "crafted' for these people to post on their website. They don't hear 2in50 Europeans carry the gene set. They hear ALL Europeans carry the gene set.
Don't believe me?. . . . Check out the title of the repoert. . . . . .
|
|