I couldn’t locate the part about the variations between moderns - as I’ve said the studies weren’t done a year apart so you have picked up on something else. Are you sure it wasn’t the differences between those two locations in the control region of mtDMA?
As for the overlapping ranges on Table 1.
If it means what I think you think it means then we should have heard loud and frequent screams of outrage and horror and who knows what else.
The study was done 3 years ago, plenty of time if this range difference has any great meaning.
In the site you linked in your last post, the paragraph that begins, “Finally, the team compared the Neanderthal sequence with 986 distinct sequences…” mention is made of overlap. It continues on to say, “These data put the Neanderthal sequence outside the statisticcal range of modern human variatin and, says Paabo, make it ‘highly unlikely that the Neanderthals contributed to the human mtDNA pool.’”
This is part of peer review, too. If those numbers you mentioned were significant then Cell wouldn’t have touched it originally.
Jois
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
START======================
Above I comment on some range numbers. Then you ask me to explain them. On the next post I explain them. Then on your next post you ask me if they were in the Paabo study? What’s the problem?
NEXT 1/====================
For the concession question:
From that article above, “And the range only barely overlapped.”
This is not trivial. That there is overlap is a major point. If you want to consider it not meaningful then don’t. Paabo comments that the overlap is not important and you go with that = great.
NEXT 2/====================
Jois: Paabo says of the Neanderthal sequence it is, “very different from (the corresponding region of) modern humans.”
He can call a fish a frog but its critical there is overlap. Also, its not defined what ranges equate to negation of mating.
NEXT 3/===================
Jois: The article also says that the data lends a new kind of support to the now-favored view of Neanderthals: that they were a side branch of the human family tree, not our direct ancestors.
Fine = support but no proof.
NEXT 4/===================
Jois: It also quotes Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard University (A well-published geneticist isn’t she?) “You can’t prove (Neanderthals) were a separate species from just this sequence, but it’s very unlikey they contributed to the modern gene pool.”
This is critical: You can’t prove (Neanderthals) were a separate species from just this sequence. She adds the qualifier of “unlikely” which is not elaborated or supported and you can take her as gospel but I’m not. There is no proof of her claim and she admits no “separate species”.
NEXT 5/===================
Joie: No range for Neanderthal. There was only one.
That’s not the point and my issue was detailed above so I don’t know way you are questioning my point.
The point is that in reality there would be a range and to hang a study on numbers that in reality would be different is not a realistic presentation. The one Neanderthal could be anywhere in an expected range just as I mentioned for Hss and primates. I’m aware there was only one Neanderthal. From what I wrote above you should be aware if the
point of view that I’m talking from. I state it specifically. Hss has ranges, primates have ranges and Neanderthals
would have ranges. The study does not factor in an expected range for Neanderthals. I’m aware of that. I’m saying its a shortcoming of the study that factoring in a range for Neanderthal was not done. To not do so was favoring their point of view and distorting the data.
NEXT 6/====================
Jois: And why shouldn’t these guy be very good at the statistical side of this kind of work?
I don’t know, may be a bad childhood? I can’t address why they are fudging the numbers. For me they play down the range overlap - actually ignore it. They also are unfair in the treatment of ranges by not
factoring in a range for Neanderthal which would represent reality. I say its a shortcoming of the study and quite
intentional but I cannot address why. My suspicion is there are less than fully honest in the stats presentation and its purposeful to better establish their point. I said before I don’t trust Paabo and CS and these are my reasons.
NEXT 7/====================
For the Hss variation:
Call the studies what you want. There is the original pub of 1997. Then Stoneking verifies the data at Penn State.
Then there is the CS 1998 “reissue” if data. The point regardless of the studies being separate or not is that for one they use 8 to 8.5 places and later they use 10.9. That’s what’s important.
If you want to ignore this point then that’s fine. For me its a big point they use these two numbers.
NEXT 8/====================
Jois: If it means what I think you think it means then we should have heard loud and frequent screams of
Jois: outrage and horror and who knows what else.
Not much of a point - read the numbers for yourself.
NEXT 9/====================
Jois: “These data put the Neanderthal sequence outside the statistical range of modern human
Jois: variation and, says Paabo, make it ‘highly unlikely that the Neanderthals contributed to the human
Jois: mtDNA pool.’”
You can’t have the data be a fish and a frog and I’ve addressed this above. Look at the ranges for yourself. If you
want to take the author for the study’s word as infallible truth then that’s up to you. I’m looking at the ranges and they
don’t give the same picture. Again it was admitted as I’ve pointed to above.
NEXT 10/===================
Jois: This is part of peer review, too. If those numbers you mentioned were significant then Cell wouldn’t
Jois: have touched it originally.
This is an appeal to authority argument. I’m going by the range tables.
You still have not addressed the questions:
Please include the implications for mating i.e. your justification why this piece negates the fossil record. The
strand is probably used for its ease of locating across samples allowing study.
Explain to me how differences in mtDNA prohibit nuclear DNA from mixing.
The problems with the ranges I have listed. Your arguments above are: They are correct because of CS’s review.
Other people have not complained and paleoanthropologists are honest and would not deceive anyone. All of which
do not address the range issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On reviewing the HVRI and HVRII + 8-8.5 range
turning into 10.9 I see I was wrong and that they summed HVRI and HVRII into the calc to “estimate the relationship of the Neandertal mtDNA to that of contemporary humans”. But I did not base any arguments on these numbers. I only questioning the difference.
For a parting shot I’ll quote CS:
I get different numbers as I’ve outline in post at 03-18-2000 07:25 PM.
If you agree with my numbers or not there is still the admission of Paabo from 1997 that the ranges overlap and in the data rehash of CS 1998 the admission above. Keep in mind that overlap is one thing and for me very telling. But if there is overlap there is also close ranges and no one has established the limits of “close ranges” such that mating is not permitted.
So, Trouts1, Paabo and the other went through all this trouble just to fake me out and tick you off?
The cement has hardened. Knowing how little mtDNa is used in forensics studies and how just a few sequences (not many more than Paabo used) could fry your butt in a criminal case or the depth of research that goes into mtDNA or has already gone into mtDNA the identification of nearly every area of mtDNA or reputation of CS or Paabo or the standards for accepting articles into periodicals like Cell, none of this matters.
See , eventually I do catch on! When you don’t trust 'em, you don’t trust em.
If there is some area of early man in which you aren’t solidly cement and want to discuss… start another thread, this one takes too long to pull up and I hate second pages, anyway.
Jois
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford; 2Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare,
Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” Rome; 3Department of Human Genetics, Sackler Faculty of Medicine,
Ramat-Aviv, Israel; and 4Istituto di Biochimica, Università di Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Received August 6, 1998; accepted for publication October 19, 1998; electronically published January 6, 1999.
Summary
Variation in the human mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) is now routinely described and used to infer the histories of peoples, by
means of one of two procedures, namely, the assaying of RFLPs throughout the genome and the sequencing of parts of the
control region (CR). Using 95 samples from the Near East and northwest Caucasus, we present an analysis based on both
systems, demonstrate their concordance, and, using additional available information, present the most refined phylogeny to date
of west Eurasian mtDNA. We describe and apply a nomenclature for mtDNA clusters. Hypervariable nucleotides are identified,
and the relative mutation rates of the two systems are evaluated. We point out where ambiguities remain. The identification of
signature mutations for each cluster leads us to apply a hierarchical scheme for determining the cluster composition of a sample of Berber speakers, previously analyzed only for CR variation. We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged 50,000 years ago.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley