from another thread

A Branch Way Too Far



Sometimes it doesn't take too long to find the fatal flaw in these thingy’s. Right, I've looked into this population replacement/augmentation thing, by way of the archaeology, for a good deal of time now, and I've noticed several interesting patterns. I'll share them, but first I've got to get myself to work, as its both a field day, and I'm thinking a rain day.

In the meantime, can anyone familiar with the genetic study in question, tell me the number of actual individuals used in the study and how these plot out geographically, what were the range of attributes identified; and of these how many clusters were noted and how do they plot out geographically. I'm thinking that what we have here is a case of scientific slight of hand. For example; we have an island called X were 20 related women and 20 related man live (total 40 with no children). Then on year one a group of 65 adult men with no women invade island X and kill all but 5 of the adult native men. This group of 65 newcomers now represents about 2/3s of the total population, and they go on the bred and have children with all 20 of the native women. However using the type of DNA the study used, 1000 years later the newcomers would be represented in about 0/0 percent of the sample. If I'm correct, then these genetic studies are yet another huge waste of time and money. In other words, a wee bit meaningless.



CmacQ