Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cro-Magnon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by N21163 View Post
    Nothing, you were the one who deviated from topic and posted ridiculous statements aimed at me.

    You've previously tried to the 'North Sea' component out of a gedmatch DNA calculator and use it to support some kind of argument...this seems no different.

    Go back and read the very first post I had here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...14&postcount=6

    I asked you to provide evidence of where literature stated that the WHG component of the admixture calculators represents Cro-Magnon DNA. You didn't because you can't single out Cro-Magnon as a separate culture or subspecies.

    The WHG component is an artificial construct it is based on.....based on....the Loschbour sample two Mesolithic individuals from the La Brana Cave in Spain.

    You're essentially trying to attribute this component to a collective term for European early modern humans. Do you have any research or data, other than an admixture calculator to say that the WHG component represents which is not as simple as plucking the WHG component out of an admixture calculator.

    "The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10,000 b.p. […] The term "Cro-Magnon" has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans (AMH). They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label "Cro-Magnon", which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term "Cro-Magnon" is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons."

    Fagan, B.M. (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 864.

    Take a breath and instead of flying off the handles because someone identifies some holes in your argument, try to do some actual research rather than relying on admixture calculator results to support your statements.
    I don't remember saying that Cro Magnon belonged to a separate culture. The Cro Magnon was the label put on the earliest western Europeans.

    I don't see what is artificial about WHG. Is it not an autosomal component that is found in western Europeans today and is also found in ancient remains from western Europe? We are told often enough that we have dna links to Africans but you don't think that we could have any links to early Europeans!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Wikipedia

      "The original Cro-Magnon find was discovered in a rock shelter at Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France. The type specimen from the site is Cro-Magnon 1, carbon dated to about 28,000 14C years old.[20] (27,680 ± 270 BP). Compared to Neanderthals, the skeletons showed the same high forehead, upright posture and slender (gracile) skeleton as modern humans. The other specimens from the site are a female, Cro-Magnon 2, and male remains, Cro-Magnon 3.

      The condition and placement of the remains of Cro-Magnon 1, along with pieces of shell and animal teeth in what appear to have been pendants or necklaces, raises the question of whether they were buried intentionally. If Cro-Magnons buried their dead intentionally, it suggests they had a knowledge of ritual, by burying their dead with necklaces and tools, or an idea of disease and that the bodies needed to be contained.[21]

      Analysis of the pathology of the skeletons shows that the humans of this period led a physically difficult life. In addition to infection, several of the individuals found at the shelter had fused vertebrae in their necks, indicating traumatic injury; the adult female found at the shelter had survived for some time with a skull fracture. As these injuries would be life-threatening even today, this suggests that Cro-Magnons relied on community support and took care of each other's injuries."

      "Cro-Magnon (Listeni/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US pronunciation: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French: [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) is a common name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European early modern humans (EEMH), to the term 'Cro-Magnon,' which has no formal taxonomic status, as it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.[1] The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43-45,000 years before present that have been discovered in Italy[2] and Britain,[3] with the remains found of those that reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I don't remember saying that Cro Magnon belonged to a separate culture.
        Yet you are stating they comprised of WHG...only...how is that?

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        The Cro Magnon was the label put on the earliest western Europeans.
        I addressed this in my previous post

        "...collective term for European early modern humans..."

        Why are you parroting what I already stated?

        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I don't see what is artificial about WHG. Is it not an autosomal component that is found in western Europeans today and is also found in ancient remains from western Europe? We are told often enough that we have dna links to Africans but you don't think that we could have any links to early Europeans!!!
        By cherry-picking that statement you missed the point and completely went off on a tangent. European early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) were not just WHG. Was that not made clear enough? With all the time you spend on the admixture calculators you should surely know this.

        If you don't understand my intentions, ask me, as you often get the wrong end of the stick when you assume.

        Well done on your copy and paste from Wikipedia (still not research). Where is the part that states Cro-Magnons are exclusively WHG? Try working on a constructive concise argument rather than cutting and pasting a Wikipedia article, it doesn't help your case.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          The age of subclades or origin has nothing to do with autosomal dna or has it? France was not affected by the Ice Age so why would the Cro Magnon in France be replaced? The Irish people are close to the French in autosomal,YDNA and MTDNA.The archaeological records show this as well.

          Some posters are tying language to single subgroups to accommodate their personal ancestry and that has nothing to do with science.

          Just for the record our common ancestor P311 originated in western Europe and I don't know which language he spoke and far less I care, so JMHO.

          How many threads do you need to start? I'm surprised with how many arguments you get into on here, that you're still allowed to post.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by N21163 View Post
            Yet you are stating they comprised of WHG...only...how is that?



            I addressed this in my previous post

            "...collective term for European early modern humans..."

            Why are you parroting what I already stated?



            By cherry-picking that statement you missed the point and completely went off on a tangent. European early modern humans (Cro-Magnon) were not just WHG. Was that not made clear enough? With all the time you spend on the admixture calculators you should surely know this.

            If you don't understand my intentions, ask me, as you often get the wrong end of the stick when you assume.

            Well done on your copy and paste from Wikipedia (still not research). Where is the part that states Cro-Magnons are exclusively WHG? Try working on a constructive concise argument rather than cutting and pasting a Wikipedia article, it doesn't help your case.
            Dna tests on some Cro Magnon ancient remains in western Europe will show how modern western Europeans are related to them. The scientists are testing remains from other regions in the world but it seems that western Europe is a long way behind. Mal'ta boy was Cro Magnon and he had ydna R and mtdna U.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
              Dna tests on some Cro Magnon ancient remains in western Europe will show how modern western Europeans are related to them.

              The scientists are testing remains from other regions in the world but it seems that western Europe is a long way behind. Mal'ta boy was Cro Magnon and he had ydna R and mtdna U.
              So now you are discussing ydna and mtdna...weren't you originally trying to state that the WHG component in the admixture calculators is Cro-Magnon?...and weren't you trying to discuss autosomal DNA?

              I think you're confusing yourself in these postings.

              Mal'ta boy is not exclusively WHG...in fact he has more of the ANE component according to his results.

              Is this a sideline topic from your post, are you attempting to try and link it back some how?

              It just seems like more waffle.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                So now you are discussing ydna and mtdna...weren't you originally trying to state that the WHG component in the admixture calculators is Cro-Magnon?...and weren't you trying to discuss autosomal DNA?

                I think you're confusing yourself in these postings.

                Mal'ta boy is not exclusively WHG...in fact he has more of the ANE component according to his results.

                Is this a sideline topic from your post, are you attempting to try and link it back some how?

                It just seems like more waffle.
                You seem to get upset at any suggestion that we in western Europe have WHG autosomal dna from the Cro Magnons who lived in western Europe.

                We also have R YDNA and U MTdna dna from the Cro Magnon era as well. I thought you might want to know that.

                Motala 12 has shown that ANE was also found in all ancient Europeans.

                Comment


                • #23
                  You seem to get upset at any suggestion that we in western Europe have WHG autosomal dna from the Cro Magnons who lived in western Europe.

                  We also have R YDNA and U MTdna dna from the Cro Magnon era as well. I thought you might want to know that.

                  Motala 12 has shown that ANE was also found in all ancient Europeans.[/QUOTE]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    You seem to get upset at any suggestion that we in western Europe have WHG autosomal dna from the Cro Magnons who lived in western Europe.

                    We also have R YDNA and U MTdna dna from the Cro Magnon era as well. I thought you might want to know that.

                    Motala 12 has shown that ANE was also found in all ancient Europeans.
                    Upset? If you believe that then you really do not understand how this works.

                    Too often it seems as though you miss the point of others postings.

                    Here is a rundown of how this thread has gone:

                    You made an opening claim that the WHG component of the admixture calculators is "the DNA of the Cro-Magnon", a statement that has no basis in research.

                    I refuted this statement, pointed out inconsistencies in your argument and backed up my statements with a link explaining how the WHG component was constructed.

                    You then claimed I must have a personal agenda of some kind (an accusation that had no basis in my character, nor what I have stated or alluded to in previous posts).

                    I refuted this statement and stated that you have an agenda on these forums. While I did not cite any examples my statements were based on your previous comments in forums threads.

                    Rather than addressing my statements you attempted to deflect the discussion on to another tangent. I refuted this again. You made a feigned attempt to query the relevance of my statements. I explained my position further and you parroted my response by copying and pasting part of a Wikipedia article. I further clarified my position and you went on to make a vague statement about an ancient DNA sample from Siberia (assuming I knew nothing about the sample)....

                    Now you are thinking that because I refuted your statements that I must be getting upset...hardly. This just demonstrates that you don't understand this process.

                    As I have stated numerous times I have no emotional attachment with any statements nor do I have any agenda on these forums.

                    Not that it is a requirement, but it seems that you don't keep track of our previous discussions. This isn't our first encounter, consistently I have requested evidence for your claims and have refuted your statements and claims when they have not been supported by any current research.

                    In addition, it seems you simply do not know how to engage anyone in academic discussion or debate and have difficulties constructing, and maintaining, a logical argument. If you take this as a personal attack you will only further demonstrate that you do not understand this process.

                    All in all your discussion has followed a similar pattern to other threads. It has essentially gone nowhere.

                    Some of your topics could generate lively discussions, however I believe you may need to think things through a bit more before posting. If you are able to back your statements up with consistent logical argument and research and be prepared that your ideas may be refuted, postings like this will be avoided.

                    Just a suggestion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                      Upset? If you believe that then you really do not understand how this works.

                      Too often it seems as though you miss the point of others postings.

                      Here is a rundown of how this thread has gone:

                      You made an opening claim that the WHG component of the admixture calculators is "the DNA of the Cro-Magnon", a statement that has no basis in research.

                      I refuted this statement, pointed out inconsistencies in your argument and backed up my statements with a link explaining how the WHG component was constructed.

                      You then claimed I must have a personal agenda of some kind (an accusation that had no basis in my character, nor what I have stated or alluded to in previous posts).

                      I refuted this statement and stated that you have an agenda on these forums. While I did not cite any examples my statements were based on your previous comments in forums threads.

                      Rather than addressing my statements you attempted to deflect the discussion on to another tangent. I refuted this again. You made a feigned attempt to query the relevance of my statements. I explained my position further and you parroted my response by copying and pasting part of a Wikipedia article. I further clarified my position and you went on to make a vague statement about an ancient DNA sample from Siberia (assuming I knew nothing about the sample)....

                      Now you are thinking that because I refuted your statements that I must be getting upset...hardly. This just demonstrates that you don't understand this process.

                      As I have stated numerous times I have no emotional attachment with any statements nor do I have any agenda on these forums.

                      Not that it is a requirement, but it seems that you don't keep track of our previous discussions. This isn't our first encounter, consistently I have requested evidence for your claims and have refuted your statements and claims when they have not been supported by any current research.

                      In addition, it seems you simply do not know how to engage anyone in academic discussion or debate and have difficulties constructing, and maintaining, a logical argument. If you take this as a personal attack you will only further demonstrate that you do not understand this process.

                      All in all your discussion has followed a similar pattern to other threads. It has essentially gone nowhere.

                      Some of your topics could generate lively discussions, however I believe you may need to think things through a bit more before posting. If you are able to back your statements up with consistent logical argument and research and be prepared that your ideas may be refuted, postings like this will be avoided.

                      Just a suggestion.
                      If you think that I am wrong in any of my posts then you don't have to answer them. So one has to be an academic to be able to write here. Is that what you are saying?

                      You stated that WHG is an artificial construct and Haik's paper is based on ANE, another artificial construct. So the Yamnaya invasion is a myth. Gedmatch should be closed then seeing that the autosomal components are based on artificial constructs.

                      I think that it is alright to say that I am descended from the Cro Magnon and I posted it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        If you think that I am wrong in any of my posts then you don't have to answer them.
                        How does that make any kind of sense? If I think you are wrong I will answer posts.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        So one has to be an academic to be able to write here. Is that what you are saying?
                        Really? Is that what you seriously think?

                        One doesn't have to be a logician to understand and apply the principles of logic, one doesn't have to be a mathematician to understand and use mathematics.
                        There are processes in debate and discussion, I'm simply stating try and stick to them.

                        I thought that would have been clear by now, obviously not.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        You stated that WHG is an artificial construct and Haik's paper is based on ANE, another artificial construct.
                        Perhaps you are struggling with the wording and that's where you are becoming confused. The components of the calculator, i.e. WHG and ANE are assembled using certain remains as reference populations. The admixture calculators have been discussed at length but it doesn't seem to get through.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        So the Yamnaya invasion is a myth.
                        Yamnaya genetic influence in Europe is not a myth, now you're being silly.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        Gedmatch should be closed then seeing that the autosomal components are based on artificial constructs.
                        Is this your attempt to provoke some kind of reaction? Is it seriously all or nothing with you? What is wrong with the admixture calculators being a "best fit" based on reference populations? It's all a work in progress.

                        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                        I think that it is alright to say that I am descended from the Cro Magnon and I posted it.
                        Quite possibly you are, but not with the example you gave in your first post (which is the whole point of our discussion): http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...61&postcount=1

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                          How does that make any kind of sense? If I think you are wrong I will answer posts.



                          Really? Is that what you seriously think?

                          One doesn't have to be a logician to understand and apply the principles of logic, one doesn't have to be a mathematician to understand and use mathematics.
                          There are processes in debate and discussion, I'm simply stating try and stick to them.

                          I thought that would have been clear by now, obviously not.



                          Perhaps you are struggling with the wording and that's where you are becoming confused. The components of the calculator, i.e. WHG and ANE are assembled using certain remains as reference populations. The admixture calculators have been discussed at length but it doesn't seem to get through.



                          Yamnaya genetic influence in Europe is not a myth, now you're being silly.



                          Is this your attempt to provoke some kind of reaction? Is it seriously all or nothing with you? What is wrong with the admixture calculators being a "best fit" based on reference populations? It's all a work in progress.



                          Quite possibly you are, but not with the example you gave in your first post (which is the whole point of our discussion): http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...61&postcount=1
                          You don't understand me and you stated that you are a scientist.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                            You don't understand me and you stated that you are a scientist.
                            Since you have nothing further to add your only conclusion is that I don't understand you? You and I have engaged in discussions many times and I have highlighted your pattern of posting on several occasions. It follows a similar cycle most times. As a result I can understand your pattern of behaviour on these forums.

                            Ultimately, I think you will find you are again mistaken and you have further demonstrated you have not understood a single word that I have said.

                            I am a scientist. You are not. What of it? What does that have to do with any of our discussions.

                            Focus on the task at hand. That's what my rebuttal has been about this entire post. I have outlined the method of approach for discussions and you choose to ignore it.

                            That is your choice, and in making that choice you will perpetuate a cycle of discourse from either myself or others. You're the one who is choosing to be stubborn and at times ignorant.

                            If you want people to understand where you are coming from you may wish to take a step back and comprehend what I have written. Think about how you phrase your topics of discussion, what outcome are you wanting to engage people with? Can your statements be backed up by research? Can you engage with others without resorting to logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ass...rHigherRes.jpg

                            I have had experience discussing interpersonal relations and building rapport with others. I would discuss this further with you if you wished, but I get the feeling you may not be interested.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                              Since you have nothing further to add your only conclusion is that I don't understand you? You and I have engaged in discussions many times and I have highlighted your pattern of posting on several occasions. It follows a similar cycle most times. As a result I can understand your pattern of behaviour on these forums.

                              Ultimately, I think you will find you are again mistaken and you have further demonstrated you have not understood a single word that I have said.

                              I am a scientist. You are not. What of it? What does that have to do with any of our discussions.

                              Focus on the task at hand. That's what my rebuttal has been about this entire post. I have outlined the method of approach for discussions and you choose to ignore it.

                              That is your choice, and in making that choice you will perpetuate a cycle of discourse from either myself or others. You're the one who is choosing to be stubborn and at times ignorant.

                              If you want people to understand where you are coming from you may wish to take a step back and comprehend what I have written. Think about how you phrase your topics of discussion, what outcome are you wanting to engage people with? Can your statements be backed up by research? Can you engage with others without resorting to logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ass...rHigherRes.jpg

                              I have had experience discussing interpersonal relations and building rapport with others. I would discuss this further with you if you wished, but I get the feeling you may not be interested.
                              So you,a scientist,feel it necessary to come on this forum and refute what I have written. If I am totally wrong then you don't need to answer any of my posts.

                              Can anyone's statements on SNP origins be backed up by research? I had my first Y test nine years ago and I was M269 positive. The scientists then didn't know the origin place of M269 and today they still don't know.

                              I think that my autosomal dna results represents the Irish gene pool since the last Ice-Age. There was no wipe out and no total replacement at any time in the last 10,000 years. So it is not wrong of me to write that I have autosomal dna from the Cro Magnon or "early Europeans" and that it would certainly be HG type.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Two interesting comments from another forum.
                                "We know now that the WHG autosomal component or at least something very similar to the WHG component was present among at least some of the early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia since the Barcin sample scores around 20% WHG in the Eurogenes West Eurasia K8 test"

                                "A WHG signal which is basically the signal of the Gravettian wave is not at all surprising in parts of Anatolia. If you want to take it back even further then it is important to recall that the Gravettians of Europe are thought to be descended from the Ahmarian hunters of the Levant and the coast of Anatolia."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X