|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 21, 2006 9:08:33 GMT -5
/ However you interpret it, the fact remains that one group cannot be "closer" to another group than the other group is to it, so the logic of your statement fails. my logic fails? Nay, my logic is supported by genetics / Show me the genetic evidence that shows WEAs closer by genetic distance to NEAs than vice versa-- a logical impossibility-- i e NY and Chicago. You're conflating two different concepts, origin and genetic distance. I'm ignoring phenotypical studies here except where they support the genetic evidence, and from what I've seen they do so, ala Dienekes.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 12:40:12 GMT -5
my logic fails? Nay, my logic is supported by genetics / Show me the genetic evidence that shows WEAs closer by genetic distance to NEAs than vice versa-- a logical impossibility-- i e NY and Chicago. You're conflating two different concepts, origin and genetic distance. I'm ignoring phenotypical studies here except where they support the genetic evidence, and from what I've seen they do so, ala Dienekes. Here you, based on autosomes
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 12:50:34 GMT -5
And here's another where the gentic evidence matches the phenotypic evidence.
You were already told, for the exact same picture not to post pictures wider than 800 pixels. This is the last warning that you will receive, if you continue to break forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 21, 2006 15:32:55 GMT -5
You do realize that the genetic tree you are posting is someone's interpretations of Cavalli-Sforza's findings ? This someone should explain without how and on which basis he /she has modified the original genetic tree. Unless she/he does it, this tree has very little scientific value. In any case this someone has made one very elementary mistake: In academic studies it's very important to get the publication dates of source studies right. Here the writer has anticipated the publification of Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree by 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 22, 2006 3:46:08 GMT -5
You do realize that the genetic tree you are posting is someone's interpretations of Cavalli-Sforza's findings ? This someone should explain without how and on which basis he /she has modified the original genetic tree. Unless she/he does it, this tree has very little scientific value. In any case this someone has made one very elementary mistake: In academic studies it's very important to get the publication dates of source studies right. Here the writer has anticipated the publification of Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree by 30 years. That plot isn't someone elses interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 22, 2006 6:37:53 GMT -5
It stated that the source is Cavalli-Sforza 1966 (sic) et al. with modifications. That means that either Cavalli-Sforza or the person quoting him has modified the original figure. Now, Cavalli-Sforza did tell us how he came to his conclusions. You haven't been able provide this information. Therefore it's difficult for anyone used to rigorous academic standards to take it as a legitimate figure.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 22, 2006 15:33:48 GMT -5
It stated that the source is Cavalli-Sforza 1966 (sic) et al. with modifications. That means that either Cavalli-Sforza or the person quoting him has modified the original figure. Now, Cavalli-Sforza did tell us how he came to his conclusions. You haven't been able provide this information. Therefore it's difficult for anyone used to rigorous academic standards to take it as a legitimate figure. I suggest you read over the full text before making any assumptions about the genetic tree posted in this study.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 23, 2006 19:58:04 GMT -5
/ Show me the genetic evidence that shows WEAs closer by genetic distance to NEAs than vice versa-- a logical impossibility-- i e NY and Chicago. You're conflating two different concepts, origin and genetic distance. I'm ignoring phenotypical studies here except where they support the genetic evidence, and from what I've seen they do so, ala Dienekes. Here you, based on autosomes / Please cite the study from which this illustration comes. Who are the "East Africans" here, specifically? Do you have a copy of Cavalli-Sfrorza's HGHG?
|
|