https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... dna-story/
Emphasis added....One of the researchers who did the original genetic analysis rejects the claims out of hand. On the basis of science then that’s where it ends.
But this actually is an interesting story of meta-science, of the media reaction to genetic results (or genetic inferences, tenuous though they may be), and their intersection with politics. One of the more ridiculous headlines I saw was this from CTV: King Tut may have been more European than Egyptian. I can see where they’re coming from, the haplogroup which Tut may have been a member of is present at over ~50% frequency in Western Europe, and ~1% in Egyptians. But this is just a single locus, a marker which traces the paternal lineage of an individual (assuming they’re male). To illustrate the obvious fallacy of this logic, recall that Dr. Daniel MacArthur is of the same haplogroup as I am, R1a1a. Does this imply that I am “more Scottish than Bengali”? Not really. In terms of total genome variation I’m South Asian, and Dr. MacArthur is Northwest European. Our paternal lineage is just one slice. Secondarily, why can’t we formulate it so that Dr. MacArthur is “more Bengali than Scottish”? There are more Bengalis than Scots by about 1 order of magnitude.
yeah, but I also wonder why anyone cares? Seems like people have a lot riding on this for some bizarre reason, lol.Hekuni wrote:King tut and all egyptian royalty, like most royal lineages are inbred beyond belief, probably not going to apear normal compared to other people of that lineages.Aristocracies are far more likely to marry lords princes or princess,s etc from far off regions then they are to bread with a commoner.