R-Z2105 isn't R-Z2015


Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:33 am
Ahahahahah
Look at these other stupid morons:

Okunevo_EMBA RISE675 R-Z2105 R-Z2015 R1b1a2a2
( Richard Rocca said...
Now published: The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... gures-data)

Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:43 am
Of course this sample came from the R-L23 of Yamnaya migrated Eastward:

"Interestingly, 1 Okunevo individual (RISE675), presented the R1b1a2 lineage. However, by directly inspecting the BAM file we realized that by applying variant quality filters, these removed the derived allele A at the Z2105 marker (C->A), which defines the R1b1a2a2. This allele is indeed present in RISE675 although only covered by one read, supporting the notion of admixture with Yamnaya related peoples (largely assigned to R1b1a2a2). In addition to this, the R1b1a1 lineage identified in Botai does not support a direct link between Botai and this Okunevo individual, though we urge caution interpreting these results given the small sample size of Botai males sampled in the present work (n = 2)" [p. 26].

Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:08 pm
https://medium.com/@dr_eprice/peer-revi ... 3283069ffd
Peer Review is Not Scientific

"Today, I’d like to set my sights on another troublingly biased and sloppy aspect of the academic publishing process: Peer review. The peer-reviewed process, which is intended to boost the rigor and objectivity of scientific work, is not itself done in an objective, systematic, or scientific way. In fact, it’s one of the most scattershot, inconsistent messes possible.
The process of selecting and assigning reviewers is unsystematic and filled with room for bias and error; review processes themselves are not standardized in any way; the content of reviews is often arbitrary and influenced by personal agendas; it takes a miserably long time to conduct a review; and worst of all, no one involved in the process earns a cent."

Return to R1b-General & Misc.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron