- Rep Point
- Rep Power
Do you notice that article came out in 2001 before the completion of the human genome project? That means they knew very little about autosomal (total) genetic makeup before 2003.
Originally Posted by ocrapdm
Do you also notice the site I linked includes Upper-Caste Brahmin from the South, the correlation is stronger geography-Veddoid mixture than caste-Veddoid mixture... Also the highest amount of Caucasian blood is in a peasant caste.
If you look at the sources I posted, they're post 2003.
No, the most comprehensive study done on the Filipino genome was the HUGO one.. Northern Filipinos actually have ~3% and the 10% among Visayans was very 'generous' on my part.
Link to table here
Non-Negrito groups K=0.08 or 8%, C= 0.07 or 7%
Ivatan C=0.17 or 17%, K= 0
So now you link to papers but don't even get the numbers right? How is that any better?
Source from a peer reviewed paper? I've provided mine from the HUGO PAN SNP.
Blatantly spreading misinformation about other people's races is incendiary. It won't be tolerated here.. It's no different than me going to Chinese chat with all those "Manchurian are the real Han blogs".. Your next post better include a peer-reviewed source, post 2003, that shows that Veddoid/South Asian autosomal DNA is "limited to Sumatra and a few outer islands of Indonesia. AND that Oceanic-Australoid is the general rule elsewhere."
Veddoid-Australoid type is actually more frequent in MSEA than ISEA and is actually very common, in fact Southeast Asians in general are much more shifted towards Veddoid-Australoids than Oceanic-Australoids. You can see this in the genes & geography study I linked earlier and the HUGO study. Also historically there has been extensive contact between them and us in historic times.
Many have theorized that there was a Veddoid exodus to Southeast Asia at the time of the Bronze Age. It would make sense but there has been no paper on this. It's just a guess of the people with backgrounds in the field. (See that's called being careful not to take people's assumptions and call them fact)
Well, even though the study you linked worded it like "no obvious dichotomy", The data shows that Negrito have ~50% non-East Asian Y-DNA and non-Negrito have ~15%.
Btw, do you realize how retarded the last exchange was?
You: You know I'm talking about Autosomal DNA (Total genomic makeup) right?
Me: No shit, me too
You: Links study to a Y-DNA study (paternal DNA only)
hint: Y-DNA is often misleading...
Greeks have very high instances of Y-DNA E (typically African), but their total makeup is mostly Caucasian.
Japanese have high instances of Y-DNA D(typically Andamese-Australoid) but their total makeup is predominantly East Eurasian
Polynesians have high instances of various Australoid Y-DNA but are predominantly Austronesian by their total genetic makeup.
You're reaching bro...
A talk page of a wiki article isn't a peer reviewed study.
Dude, don't you get embarrassed? I mean, I know I'm only a hobbyist.. But at least I make effort to cite everything I put forth with at least a published study OR if it's not I at least do a disclaimer. I really get sick of guys like you who spread misinformation either out of either ignorance on the topic BUT at the same time act as if you're some expert on the topic..
Last edited by easy772; 03-18-2013 at 02:13 PM.
Reason: red text.. I'm sick of dealing with this shit.. support your assumptions or be banned.