Archive

Archive for January 10, 2011

NSFW Links: Jan 10, 2011

January 10, 2011 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Cuties in Cuffs: Jan 10, 2011 NekkidCuties

Cuties in Cuffs: Jan 10, 2011 Nudie Cuties

Eshe from Big Tit Glamour NekkidCuties

Eshe from Big Tit Glamour Nudie Cuties

More Eshe from Big Tit Glamour NekkidCuties

More Eshe from Big Tit Glamour Nudie Cuties

Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

Guest Post by Nestorius: Limitations of Genetics and Genealogy

January 10, 2011 1 comment

In every field of knowledge you will find those who are right about whatever little parts they have studied but are wrong about everything else- even if it concerns other aspects of the same field.

What makes a hard science hard is that you should not ignore certain factors while you can study them. In other terms, even if you can isolate the objects of study, you cannot ignore one thing of the things that you have isolated. Genetics is intrinsically attached to genealogy. ‘genetics’ and ‘genealogy’ both derive from a Greek verb which has the meaning of ‘to give birth’. So both disciplines is about who gives birth to whom. This means that in many cases you cannot isolate genealogy from genetics especially in the sub-discipline of archaeogenetics. If you want to trace the genetic tree of the people of a certain place you have to check what they say about their genealogies and origins.

Take the following hypothetical example. In a certain region (R1), you have the people of this region (PR1). This people is composed of 40 families (F). So you have F1, F2 until F40. There are certain cases where some families have a common male ancestor. So for example, F3 and F24 might have the same male ancestor. If a sane person were to study the genetics of people PR1, he would first study the genealogy of each family, then check the geographic origin of each family and find which families descend from a common ancestor. So if F3 and F24 have a common male ancestor he would group them into F(1). After separating families with common ancestries (F(1),F(2)…F(n)), a sane person would select 2 or 3 persons from each family (assuming that bastards might exist, therefore he can’t just select one person), then he would check their genes. Now, if F(1) descends from a person who originally came from another region (R2), this sane person would go to R2 and study the genealogy of its families and so on.

These are logical steps that any sane geneticist should follow. But if seems that many geneticists are vain not sane. All they seem to want is to show off as geniuses who are making unprecedented discoveries in human history.

None of them is even intelligent enough to try to study genealogies and link it with their finds. Even if they are aware of basic historical facts, they don’t seem to realize certain basic facts about demographics, i.e. that peoples grow, decrease and move. They don’t seem to realize certain basic facts about families throughout human history. Things like adoption or the possibilities of having bastard children are not taken into consideration.

Another evidence of their stupidity is that, while most selected study groups are not genetically homogeneous (i.e. they don’t descend from a single father), they keep on assuming that they are genetically homogeneous just because those study groups share a name that sounds like the name of a genetically homogeneous people.

Yet another sign of their stupidity is that they make useless conclusions that sound like new discoveries. Not to mention that those conclusions are made random samples.

Let me give you some examples taken from different articles from Wikipedia:

a) ”DNA studies on modern Egyptians”:

“Other studies have shown that modern Egyptians have genetic affinities primarily with populations of North and Northeast Africa, and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and European populations.”

Which Egyptians? Christian Copts, Muslim Arabs, Muslim Berbers, Muslim Copts, Muslim Turks, Muslim Cherkess? You see, what geneticists don’t know is that the modern Egyptians are composed of these peoples. All these conclusions are vague and don’t need a costly genetic analysis in order to be deduced. A simple look at photos of the modern inhabitants of Egypt will show that many descend from mixed whites and blacks.

“Some genetic studies done on modern Egyptians suggest that most do not have close relations to most tropical Africans.”

Well shouldn’t that be evident from skin color.

b) ”Anatolia”:

Research using HLA profiles stemming from Anatolian population groups suggests the possibility that most of the region’s people are descendants of ethnic groups who lived in Anatolia during the Hittite empire. No genetic signals for intrusions during the Bronze Age collapse at around 1200 BC or Indo-Aryan invasions could be detected. It was concluded that subsequent invasions, if they occurred, had few invaders in comparison to populations already settled by 2000 BC, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian (Mitanni) groups. The populations present in Anatolia from 2000 BC to 1200 BC likely have given rise to the genetic make-up of the present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations.

So what about all those large Turkmen tribes that still live in Turkey now and that have Mongoloid facial features?

c) ” History of the Kurdish people”:

According to the current results, present-day Kurds and Azeris of Iran seem to belong to a common genetic pool.

They seem to don’t know it, but ‘Azeris’ refers to the inhabitants of the district of Azerbaijan in Iran. So an Azeri could be a Kurd at the same time. But didn’t it occur to those idiots that some of those Azeris are Kurds?

d) Genetic history of Italy

Following recent scientific research carried out by geneticists, Italy has proven to be one of the last two remaining genetic islands across Europe (along with Finland), this due to the presence of the Alpine mountain chain that, over the centuries, has prevented large migration flows aimed at colonizing the Italian lands.

Whoever made this statement, seems to be ignorant of the fact that peoples like the Etruscans, Celts or Lombards have made it to Italy from outside. The Lombards themselves have eradicated many of the Romans that were in Italy during the 7th century AD.

e) Misleading genetic maps:

Check this map showing diffusion of haplogroup J2 in Europe. Such maps rely on statistics taken from each country. This map is presented as an indicator of “a possible genetic signature of the Neolithic migration”. But there is something wrong in it. In Romania for example, there is evidence of different population changes over centuries, but here it is assumed that nothing happened from the Neolithic to now and that those who were there in the Neolithic stayed there until now.

In other terms, those maps are nonsense.

f) Useless statistics:

For example, these are some statistics concerning haplogroup G:
In southern Asia, haplogroup G is found in concentrations of approximately 18% to 20% of Kalash, approximately 16% of Brahui, and approximately 11.5% of sampled Pashtun, but in only about 3% of the general Pakistani population. The many groups in India and Bangla Desh have not been well studied. About 6% of the samples from Sri Lanka and Malaysia were reported as haplogroup G, but none were found in the other coastal lands of the Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean in Asia. In the Middle East, haplogroup G accounts for about 3% of the population in almost all areas.

So what? What does all those numbers mean? Which families have it? What are the origins of those families? In short, geneticists might have been intelligent when they discovered the tree of different haplogroups, but everything else is nonsense.

The main point in all this is that being a genius in one branch of a scientific discipline does not prevent them from being morons about other branches and aspects of that field.

Comments?