Study produces first detailed genetic map of Britain

Walter Hinteler
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 08:29 am
I don't know much enough about that specific theme to have a decent own opinion - you certainly are better educated about this, farmerman.

But it would have been a lot easier, if all these people had posted regularly on facebook!
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 08:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yeh. If the samples would have congregated on FB or some other web base location, the connections between haplogroup and source areas would have been neat. I think theres probably a book in the works, like the ones that a guy named Doug Palmer hd done in decoding "haplogroups and routes of migration" We hbve lots of info on the "Out of Afric" nd into the sino/Indo-European boundaries but the Western European migration is smothered over by ICE an ICE FREE trvels
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 09:08 am
I didn't mean those countries specifically. I was just posing an example whereby some external population mingled with some other population before the genetic "labeling" occurred.

The main point I was trying to make had more to do with how the other countries listed in the report seem to be considered as "pure" samples.
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 09:10 am
farmerman wrote:

I disagree. I submit that these DNA studies predate the common culture designations associated with Neolithic and recent, and, instead, derive from the genetic sense of these being mere "populational haplogroups" to which we LATER assigned cultural designations.
Yes. That's what I was trying to say. But you said it better.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 06:21 pm
Yes, if the implication was about "pure" populations, i agree with that completely. What i find most interesting is the extent to which (it appears) that the old resident populations were not much affected by the invasive groups. A lot of that is understandable. The Danes, for example, for most of a century, controlled half of what we would call England, and for a generation, controlled all of it. But in both cases, they did not even rise to the dignity of 10% of the population, and they needed the old base population reasonably content and productive. We don't know for earlier groups, but that was probably always the pattern--a conquering group did not exterminate the people they conquered, and needed at least their acquiescence in the new dispensation. Happy peasants, perhaps not, but at least contented peasants if they wanted the system to work; they needed their labor to generate wealth.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 10:40 pm

R1a and R1b men were known as the Battle Axe Culture. They were the first to ride into battle on horses without women, driving deep into new territories, killing all the men, stealing the women and land. They were very successful.
0 Replies

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2023 at 03:25:59