CMD please read my latest post to Pain because I have addressed all of his and your concerns as well as teach a little about the limitations on the accuracy DNA to reach a long way, accurately into the past.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ancient Migration-Coming to America
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Bill wrote:
Pain, perhaps you do need a nap then but as they say don’t go way mad, stick around! I will say this as delicately as I can and apologize in advance if you find my response offensive but here goes. Hey, wait a minute isn't that my wife? B)
All joking aside, it is clear to me by your response that you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern (fresh) DNA can only tell, within limited parameters who is related to whom and where they came from.
By ancestors we are talking about folks who lived around, at most, only 500 to 800 years ago. I’ll even say 1,000 years ago in some cases but to go back older than that, is to invite problems.
When someone examines modern DNA to make inferences about folks who lived 40,000 –12,000 years, modern DNA don’t mean nothin and why is this?
It is because modern mtDNA cannot reveal Haplotypes or even Haplogroups that were lost anciently. Populations who died, were killed and had a very low rate marrying outside the parent population by survivors may have lost their Haplogroup or Haplotypes.
If that happened than modern DNA will not retain any record of those groups or populations that simply disappeared from the genetic record.
It would be like trying to read a book that has missing chapters. In other words there will be gaps when trying to compare modern DNA to make inferences about ancient people. When people try to use modern DNA to try and answer the question of who people were and where they came from, there is one question that is critical and must be answered first.
Do you really enough ancient Haplotypes represented in your modern sample and in all likelihood, the answer to this question will always be no. Why is it a problem?
Ancient people were especially hunters and gatherers were very mobile and led riskier life styles that stay at home people were not related to them. The stay at homes were pretty stable and just keep making the population lager while the unrelated wanderers were always moving around and theirs was a riskier life style. These people could be killed by new people who wanted their territory or many of them could die over the course of a very severe change of climate or catastrophe.
The survivors even if they joined new and (unrelated to them) groups, their Haplotypes would be bred out over as thousands of years passed. In other words, the DNA of the group would absorb their DNA and genetically leave no trace of their existence at all in modern DNA.
This is the reason why the usefulness of modern DNA is extremely limited and even useless when attempting to make inferences about wandering people who lived 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.
I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.
Comment
-
Bill wrote:
CMD please read my latest post to Pain because I have addressed all of his and your concerns as well as teach a little about the limitations on the accuracy DNA to reach a long into the past
Rhode Island
Comment
-
Charlie you make me sad because you keep going aimlessly in circles. "Do you think they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of that same conclusion?" If you read their paper you know they did because I posted it in quotation marks because I took it from directly from their paper.
"Simple logic would say no, of course they would do no such thing." You even have this wrong because they did see above!
Those guys took modern DNA and applied the Hyplotypes it contained and pretended it was the same as 20,000 year old DNA. Therefore we have no way of knowing whether the DNA got it right or not because the authors didn't compare it to ancient DNA.
I have and thank you nor acknowldging that. I appreciate the fact that you noticed. B) B)
Comment
-
CMD, I not only addressed his points, I recognize the fact that I refuted them!
When I address someone’s arguments with a counter argument that consists of facts, science and knowledge and they choose to ignore it that causes me question the honesty of your intentions.
I agree that you have made the right decision for you not to discuss this subject further.
Comment
-
Again, another thread I will interject my disapproval of the way it's playing out socially. Bill,You seem like a smart guy and are very articulate, I welcome respectful discussions without the personal undertones.... You have successfully driven a respected member from an interesting thread..... I think we're done here.
Im hoping this discussion will continue in a respectful manor for all parties involved....I'd rather not see what the "lock" button really does.
Southern Connecticut
Comment
-
Bill wrote:
Remember CMD you brought it up and the one who keeps throwing rocks so let’s just keep smiling. :laugh:
Remember, in order to feel respected one must respect. It is my sincere wish that you feel better now and let’s just let the smiles show.
Rhode Island
Comment
-
CMD, I would like to say one more thing. Why is it my fault you are unhappy? I don't understand how I made discussing this topic difficult at all. I always enjoy talking and arguing about it. I believe it is my special area, my turf and I have really enjoyed this string.
I will not apologize for being better versed on migrations from the Old World to the New, Clovis,
Preclovis, the DNA evidence, and so much more than most people with whom I discuss and argue those subjects. If there is anything I am guilty of its knowing this stuff a little too well.
I have read widely and have written about this subject. I have given talks about it before Professional Archaeologists, avacationalists, and the general public too. Since I have a laboratory research background, I have an excellent understanding of the DNA evidence and know the limitations of it as well.
I also resent implications and outright statements that I am less worthy, know less about it, or are less capable than some.
Other than that it’s all good. B)
Comment
-
Bill wrote:
greywolf22, you are kidding right? You did study the photos you posted first right? :unsure:
We will have to agree to disagree then.
Bill
I posted Clovis points -and- paleo tools found in the Northwest and Soluterean Points artifacts found in Europe. Are you saying that Cache pictured is not a Clovis cache? The white scraper/knife has a Rogers COA as being Paleo. Let me know your thoughts.
Jack
Comment
-
Jack, of course not but you said you didn't see a Solutrean in those Clovis points and ivory artifacts from Wenatchee Washington.
I can't believe you didn't see the overshot technology present in the Clovis points from the point cache alone. That is a huge shout out to the Solutrean knappers because who else did that and where do think you the Clovis knappers got that technology? Solutreans were huge users of Ivory tools too so that's another shout out to Solutrean.
The Solutrean points you posted all featured overshot technology and that's what I meant.
The Solutrean hand of Overshot bifacial thinning and ivory artifacts are both present at Eastern Clovis sites. This is why I posted the the link to the paper on the Topper Clovis site. I have never seen a Clovis from the Eastern US that didn't have overshot bifacial thinning scars.
We have already talked about the beautiful agate lanceolate you, Rogers, (and Jackson?) believe is Clovis. I just don't think it is. I agree that it is Paleoindian in age but I just don't see a Clovis point when I look at it.
Comment
Comment