Are you dyslexic? He blames RSS for his own screw up LOL . Now character assassination is that all you could come with ?
His conclusions have been thoroughly and conclusively demolished by the legendary Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn in two papers published in Acta Archaeologica and the European Journal of Archaeology I talked about in previous post .
evan his co authors condemned him for his racist behaviour .
Geneticists have begun using old bones to make sweeping claims about the distant past. But their revisions to the human story are making some scholars of prehistory uneasy.
www.nytimes.com
It has blown the lid off a shocking scandal in paleogenomics. This whoreson reich figures as a central character in this scandal. You are putting the blame on RSS now here is extensive collaboration to the point of collusion between three well-funded and well-connected labs that dominate the field of paleogenomics, in a manner that harms their competitors. These labs are the Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School (David cuck reich), the Department of Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany (director: Svante Pääbo), and the Department of Archeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany (director: Johannes Krause).Small labs are unable to compete with the Big Three because they lack access to the datasets that would enable them to place their work in the context of the bigger picture. The only way to get access to the data is to give their samples to reichs or one of the other two teams, in return for being added to the list of contributors of their research paper.
The Big Three labs function as an oligopoly. Their power extends to funding, samples, data, and even technology. They have marginalized all competition and their dominance of the field leaves researchers and archaeologists with no option but to submit samples to them in return for a token junior authorship. Samples are routinely procured by extremely dubious means, often violating ethical norms. This has created a “smash and grab” culture among archaeologists in which hopeful co-authors source their bones by any means necessary, even under false pretenses. Among teams at work on any given excavation, it takes only a single colleague to deliver a bone to one of the industrial giants for the entire group to lose control of their findings. Ancient specimens in museums, too, are being swept up by these perverse incentives.
It isn’t unusual for junior authors to be given just days to review a finished manuscript, with little input into its broader framing.This has created an atmosphere of intense suspicion, anxiety and paranoia, among archaeologists and geneticists alike. In dozens of interviews with practitioners of both disciplines, almost everyone requested anonymity for fear of professional reprisal.
Reich and his team are accused by an ancient-dna researcher in turkey of seeing the rest of world as the 19th-century colonialists saw Africa — as raw-material opportunities and nothing else.Reich is shown to repeatedly arrive at broad, grandiose, sweeping conclusions about ancient migrations, invasions and wholesale replacements of onepopulation by another on the basis of flimsy and dubious evidence – in one case, on the basis of a single sample from a single island – and often uses different, unrelated,arbitrary population groups as stand-in proxies for modern populations whose DNA samples he is unable to procure. Moarover reich’s team makes “disproportionate or even wholly unwarranted claims on the basis of both the archaeological and genetic evidence it provides”.He and his team invariably express absolute certainty about their inferences and conclusions and presume to offer the final word on the ancestry and history of entire regions and cultures. They do not consider the possibility that their inferences could have been skewed by biases and faults in the set of assumptions that are inherent in their complex statistical models. Their paleogenomic papers, which are riddled with assumptions that are often weak, tenuous or outright unwarranted, end up being interpreted as fact.
Shekel hungry manwhoreich’s papers are immediately taken up and politicized by blogs such as Eurogenes, West Hunter, etc which happen to be cumskin master race delusional mafia.).
There is a shocking nexus between reich and the journal Nature, which is the world’s pre-eminent scientific journal, as well as other scientific journals. Nature is shown to violate long-established peer-review norms and standards when dealing with Reich’s papers.
Nature’s actions demonstrate clear favoritism toward Reich’s work.For example, Nature allowed reich, against its own norms, to revise and resubmit a paper that was rejected by reviewers (rejections are final, papers that are rejected are not allowed to be resubmitted).Rascal resubmitted his paper on the basis of flimsy new evidence. The revised paper addressed very few of the reviewers’ concerns. Nevertheless, Nature’s editors overruled the reviewers’ steadfast objections and accepted the paper. Editors overruling a peer-review panel is unheard of. Nature’s preferential treatment of Reich and his team is demonstrated by the fact that other researchers and teams that arrived at the same conclusions as Reich,but by different means, had their papers inexplicably rejected, which defies logic and justice.The journal Current Biology accepted a paper by Reich’s team just one week after it was submitted.Peer review and acceptance of a scientific paper in a week is an unprecedented feat, unheard of even among low-quality scientific journals. It is unheard of even among low-quality scientific journals. It takes a lot of time to review a scientific paper – typically several months – as any scientist can attest.The acceptance of a complex genetics paper in just one week is absurd to the point of being ridiculous. It is a red flag that raises the very real specter of possible scientific misconduct.
Reichs himself hasnt been able to defend it and you are trying to shill .
These are but a few of a large number of extremely serious and troubling revelations establishing a case of possible ongoing scientific misconduct and raise serious doubts about the veracity of the entire corpus of Reich’s research.They demonstrate that the glaring issues in reich’s papers that support the ait are repeated throughout the entire corpus of his and mafia work.
Cherrypicking LOL thats your kind who induldge in such mal practices . Evident from my previous posts and this post as well as you will see .
You have copying a bunch of lines from 1 of those research papers of reichs team and posting it here again without any elaborations on assumed parameters . Incoherent at best .
Lalji Singh and K Thangaraj showed that the ANI and ASI are considerably
more than 12,500 years old, and not the result of any recent migration.
Reich was with them co author probably and he also got butthurt about this LOL
See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/
See -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711004885
I know where is all this coming from exactly . On 16 June 2017,
an article appeared on the Hindu titled “How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate” by Tony Joseph .
Joseph’s article is based on a peer-reviewed, which, at first sight, appears to be an impeccable source. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal, however, does not automatically endow a research paper with credibility. There are big issues with the peer review, which is known to be a
flawed process Nobel prize-winning papers have been known to be rejected by the peer review, while works of low quality are often accepted.
See -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Further they have misinterpreted the dating of the expansions within R1a-Z93 given in them as the age (Time to Most Common Recent Ancestor:
TMCRA) of the subclade itself. The paper refers only to
expansions within R1a-Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 – 4,500 years ago in South Asia; it does not refer to the time of the subclade’s diversification from its parent haplogroup; it makes no attempt to determine the subclade’s TMRCA and makes no claim that the date of the expansions coincides with the subclade’s TMRCA. Silva et al’s conclusions misrepresent the findings of which they cite, and are therefore incorrect.
silva et al. neglect to cite research papers that do not support their conclusions. Academic research papers must cite all research that is relevant to their work, even if it contradicts their findings (in which case they must prove that their work improves upon, or disproves that of their predecessors).
> This paper rekts your argument
http://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...plogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf
In contrast, silva et al. neglect to cite the 2015 paper by
Lucotte ^ which samples a dataset of 6643 male DNA samples originating from 79 populations in 52 countries (more than the samples of your silvas put together). Lucotte’s paper demonstrates that the Z93 subclade originated in India and is approximately 15,450 years old, thereby confirming and refining the results of several other studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/
Further also he neglect to cite the
recent paper ^ by Tamang and Thangaraj which rejects the possibility of an Aryan invasion/migration and concludes that Indian populations are genetically unique and harbor the second highest genetic diversity after Africans.
Silva et al. are guilty of cherry-picking which you were trying to accuse me of lmao: they have selectively chosen data that support their conclusions, and tried to suppress data that doesn’t. A biased approach such as this invariably leads to skewed and inaccurate results and conclusions.
Further , joseph tony the krantikari dalal whos best frens with your scroll.in shoyab danyan and you interprets this to mean that there was a significant inflow of Indo-European language (which they infers to be Sanskrit) speakers from Central Asia into India in the Bronze Age, approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago (the so-called Aryan invasion/migration), even though the authors of your paper dont make no such claim, referring only to lineage expansions within R1a-Z93 in south Asia.
Fun fact .
View attachment 680638
Does he not know that R1a is a Y-chromosomal, patrilineal (male-only) haplogroup? Does he not know that the Y chromosome is absent in females (who have two X chromosomes)? Most high-school students would be able to teach him this! This is extraordinarily poor journalism; it is what happens when non-scientists write science articles.
Again this doesnt prove shit . It is indeed an easy way to check, based on various genetic studies:Firstly, is it a question of brahmins? The highest percentage of R1a1 among brahmins is in the
east: Bengal 72%, Bihar 60%, eastern UP 48%. In most of the rest of the country, the percentages vary among the 30s (e.g. Gujarat 32%, Jammu 37%, Maharashtra 40%, Andhra 26%, Madhya Pradesh 35%, Punjab-Haryana 35%).
Compare the non-brahminical castes of North India: Punjab-Haryana Khatri 67%, Punjab Haryana Ahir 63%, Punjab Haryana Balmiki 33%, Haryana Meo 31%, Rajasthan Meena 38%, Rajasthan Meghwal 30%, Gujarat Bhanushali 67%, Gujarat Lohana 60%, Gujarat Kathodi 40%, Gujarat Charan 36%, Gujarat Rabari 32%, Gujarat Dongri Bhil 26%.....Then, is it a question of "Aryan" vs. "Dravidian"? Compare some of the Dravidian-speaking castes and particularly the tribes (some, like the Kota, representing among the purest and most pristine Dravidian forms of speech): Medar 39%, Ezhava 24%, Korava 24%, Andh 31%, Kare Vokkal 27%, Chenchu 26%, Kota 23%.Further, the Manipuri people in the far east, who speak the Sino-Tibetan Meitei language, have 50%. The starkness of this will be better understood if we examine the R1a1 (the "
genetic signature" of Indo-european language speakers) percentages in the other Indo-European branch language speakers outside India, starting with the branch closest to Vedic, the Iranians:Amazingly, the percentage of R1a1 haplogroup in Iran is almost negligible: it ranges from around 3-4% in the western parts of Iran to less than 20% in the more central and eastern areas and among "the traditional custodians of the avestan text and language", the endogamy-practicing Zoroastrians in Iran as well as the Parsis in India.The Armenians have R1a1 ranging from 2% to 9%.The Greeks have from 11% to 17%.The Albanians have 2% to 10%.The Italic people of Spain, Portugal have around 2%. In Italy to the east, it is 4% to 5%, going up to 11% in the north-east in areas bordering eastern Europe. The Romanians, actually in eastern Europe, have as high as 20%.The Celtic people (Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales) have 1% to 7%.
The Germanic people (including Hitler's "pure Aryans") mostly have low percentages: in Germany from 8% to the highest 31% (in areas like Rostock), in Holland around 4%. In England, it ranges from 1% to 7% (except in Orkney, a Scottish island, where it is 27%, due to it having long been in control of the Norse people of Norway, who also have 27%).
In fact, among the Germanic populations, the Scandinavians (Norway, Sweden, but also the
non-Indo-European Finland) have the highest consistent percentage of R1a1.It is only the Baltic and Slavic speakers of eastern Europe who have this haplogroup in high percentages: from 38% to 60%, going sometimes to as high as 65% (still less than the Bengali brahmins, which as we saw above, does not make it an "Aryan" or "brahmin" or "Indo-European" haplogroup!)―and the Iranian speakers of Afghanistan, and Central Asia: The Pathans 45-50%, the Baluchis 28%, Nooristanis 60%, Tajiks 31%!The dismal percentages among the Iranians proper, Greeks, Armenians and Albanians (as also Celts and most Italic speakers) may also be compared with the percentages in certain non-Indo-European Semitic groups of West Asia: 9% in Syria, as high as 43% among the Shammar tribes in Kuwait, and as high as 52% among the Ashkenazi Levites in Israel: Levites are a priestly class among "yahwehs chosen ", "'the traditional custodians of the Hebrew Old Testament text and language"!
In fact, even the Uralo-Altaic language speaking Uighurs of Central Asia and Sinkiang have 22%.
Clearly, while haplogroups may show genetic ancestral connections among different peoples of the world―and they yet tell nothing about the history of
languages.
@SuvarnaTeja yo buddy check this out .
Anyways I gotta sleep right now brother . Will post any points if missed .
Regards