Post 130: Acharya, that paper is from 2003. I think Kivisild et al wrote their more scientific paper in 2006. But cheers for your subsequent post highlighting the twaddle of Analabha Basu et comrades.
Sorry to bring this up again, but I missed the following earlier. More questions:
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Feb 1 2008, 01:38 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Feb 1 2008, 01:38 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->link
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ash and Angelina may have common ancestors
[...]
Professor Hans Eiberg of the university said he has analysed the DNA of about 800 people with blue eyes, ranging from fair-skinned, blond-haired Scandinavians to dark-skinned, blue-eyed people living in Turkey and Jordan.
"<b>All of them, apart from possibly one exception</b>, had exactly the same DNA sequence in the region of the OCA2 gene. This to me <b>indicates very strongly</b> that there must have been a single, common ancestor of all these people," he said.
The study reported in the journal Human Genetics <b>indicates </b>that the mutation originated in just one person who became the ancestor of all subsequent people in the world with blue eyes.
"From this we can <b>conclude</b> that all blue-eyed individuals <b>are linked</b> to the same ancestor.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]77883[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>Short version:</b> Grief. Their whole bet is on one person being responsible for/being ancestor of all the blue-eyed individuals today. And yet in the same brief interview they themselves admit to their seemingly geographically-challenged sample of 800 showing how 1 person is possibly not a descendant of their poster boy and would therefore have derived it from elsewhere. And yet they have the audacity to bypass scientific sense and pronounce poster boy the origin of <i>all</i> blue eyes anyway. Must be "Oryan science" - it obviously has special privileges.
Oh, and did the samples at least include Iran and Afghanistan?
<b>Long version:</b>
Is there anywhere that has more about that possible exception (the 1 person in the apparently geographically-limited sample of 800)? How is the observed deviation in that one person explained? When the researchers themselves admit to a possible exception, how can they - two sentences later - conclude that <b>all</b> blue-eyed individuals <i>all over the world</i> derived their eye colour from the same ancestor? Do they not want to explain the outlier at all? Is it okay all-of-a-sudden just to ignore an outlier like it hadn't occurred at all? What, no suggestions for further testing, larger sampling?
Where did that one subject get their blue eyed genes from then? How do they explain that person/inconvenient anomaly? Error in recording the measurement? Error in extracting the data/in methodology (then did it affect/spoil the results of the entire sample...)?
If that subject's eye colour was not obtained from that one magic ancestor the world is supposed to be bowing down to now, then the anomalous subject could have either got it from some other 'unique' ancestor or spontaneously mutated themselves. After all, if one person could do it 10,000 yrs ago, why not some other ancient human or someone else at some other point in time. (Ancient blue-eyed Black Sea inhabitant not so unique anymore then...)
Really hope they have asked and publicly answered such basic questions <i>somewhere</i>, else such science is as sad as the reliability of the English-language 'Indian' media that also bounds to distant conclusions ("Aishwarya and Angelina with possible common ancestry... Extry Extry, Read All About It.")
Sorry to bring this up again, but I missed the following earlier. More questions:
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Feb 1 2008, 01:38 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Feb 1 2008, 01:38 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->link
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ash and Angelina may have common ancestors
[...]
Professor Hans Eiberg of the university said he has analysed the DNA of about 800 people with blue eyes, ranging from fair-skinned, blond-haired Scandinavians to dark-skinned, blue-eyed people living in Turkey and Jordan.
"<b>All of them, apart from possibly one exception</b>, had exactly the same DNA sequence in the region of the OCA2 gene. This to me <b>indicates very strongly</b> that there must have been a single, common ancestor of all these people," he said.
The study reported in the journal Human Genetics <b>indicates </b>that the mutation originated in just one person who became the ancestor of all subsequent people in the world with blue eyes.
"From this we can <b>conclude</b> that all blue-eyed individuals <b>are linked</b> to the same ancestor.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]77883[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>Short version:</b> Grief. Their whole bet is on one person being responsible for/being ancestor of all the blue-eyed individuals today. And yet in the same brief interview they themselves admit to their seemingly geographically-challenged sample of 800 showing how 1 person is possibly not a descendant of their poster boy and would therefore have derived it from elsewhere. And yet they have the audacity to bypass scientific sense and pronounce poster boy the origin of <i>all</i> blue eyes anyway. Must be "Oryan science" - it obviously has special privileges.
Oh, and did the samples at least include Iran and Afghanistan?
<b>Long version:</b>
Is there anywhere that has more about that possible exception (the 1 person in the apparently geographically-limited sample of 800)? How is the observed deviation in that one person explained? When the researchers themselves admit to a possible exception, how can they - two sentences later - conclude that <b>all</b> blue-eyed individuals <i>all over the world</i> derived their eye colour from the same ancestor? Do they not want to explain the outlier at all? Is it okay all-of-a-sudden just to ignore an outlier like it hadn't occurred at all? What, no suggestions for further testing, larger sampling?
Where did that one subject get their blue eyed genes from then? How do they explain that person/inconvenient anomaly? Error in recording the measurement? Error in extracting the data/in methodology (then did it affect/spoil the results of the entire sample...)?
If that subject's eye colour was not obtained from that one magic ancestor the world is supposed to be bowing down to now, then the anomalous subject could have either got it from some other 'unique' ancestor or spontaneously mutated themselves. After all, if one person could do it 10,000 yrs ago, why not some other ancient human or someone else at some other point in time. (Ancient blue-eyed Black Sea inhabitant not so unique anymore then...)
Really hope they have asked and publicly answered such basic questions <i>somewhere</i>, else such science is as sad as the reliability of the English-language 'Indian' media that also bounds to distant conclusions ("Aishwarya and Angelina with possible common ancestry... Extry Extry, Read All About It.")