#RESIST
"What's that? We haven't a clue what you're referring to."
There's nothing civil about this war.
The article misinterprets the findings a bit (not too bad overall though). More importantly - it has a critical mistake mixing up Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) - Also known as Before Christ and anno Domini (BC and AD).
Before anyone gets their titties in a twist over the use of CE/BCE over AD/BC it is:
1) Commonly used in scientific literature, because scientific literature aims to be as agnostic as possible.
2) Has origins as a functional term that date back to Johannes Kepler around 1615 (CE/AD).
Anyways, it's an interesting article in Nature Comm. Link here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11357-9 - This is an open access article available to anyone with an internet connection.
The big takeaway is Figure 2 - sections D an E (the maps) - Where the dots are colored by Fst - which is the Fixation Index in population genetics, lower values (note the exponent is negative) indicate higher degrees of relatedness, in theory. Where the genetic distance between groups is very small* (at 0 there is no genetic distance).
NOW here's the kicker - the values on those maps shown in Fig 2 are distributed all over the place. And the Fst values show three orders of magnitude of relatedness. The light colored dots have similar genetic distances to as Europeans have to Japanese. Where the middle values are comparable to the genetic distance of Greeks to Russians. That's a lot more closely related in one scenario than another. They've chosen to focus on the even lower Fst values, which I don't blame them, necessarily, but that doesn't tell the whole story. There is a portion missing here. And that portion is that alleles in the 'Skeleton Lake' populations from early on are heavily derived from Greek-Crete origins but also have significant contributions from all over Eurasia.
So the DNA theories are weak?Originally Posted by RevolverRob
I found the date range the more interesting bit. It would be interesting to know whether there was a relatively steady stream of individuals over time, or distinct clusters of people with similar dating. And how tight were those time clusters (if there are clusters)? And if so, can they be correlated to known events?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
So now who are y’all going to believe? RR, with all his fancy, tier-1 science or...
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
"Take your anti cop rhetoric someplace else, Paulhides is a retired detective that's investigated thousands of crimes and deserves a little respect."-Moderator on one of the many Missing 411 FB pages when I suggested that a lot of his theories make for good stories which in turn drives book sales.So now who are y’all going to believe? RR, with all his fancy, tier-1 science or...
So, ya’ll got any ideas for these unusual missing persons cases, or just want to cast stones from afar without offering a credible alternative explanation?
Seems to be a bit of a thread derail, from LL’s initial post, and I just can’t seem to reconcile snarky comments on a subject that’s pretty far removed from *anything* related to the subject at hand...
Last edited by Dan_S; 08-21-2019 at 01:48 PM.
People go missing. The woods don't give a fuck about you, me, or the people that go missing. Bigfoot isn't real.
Well, that discussion about beliefs probably isn’t going to be answered on an online forum when people that have spent a good portion of their lives outdoors can’t agree on what they have or have not seen or felt. Shrug.
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand what human remains in.....Asia...has to do with bringing up an irrelevant topic in a sarcastic fashion.
LL didn’t say *anything* about Missing 411....there’s no common link between these two separate discussions, and that’s pretty much what I’m trying to point out.
Getting a little ‘echo chamber’ -ish when long time posters start getting snarky like there’s some kind of ‘inside’ joke about something, that, well....isn’t answered simply, much less when it comes out of the clear blue and isn’t in any way related to the topic at hand.
This probably isn't the first time a thread in General Discussion drifted off topic, and it likely won't be the last.
You seem to be more upset over this than you need to be. Are you a Paulides Disciple?
Reply With Quote
