|
| I
have
several<a
hre
|
|
 |
|
 |
I have several ctimicisrs on the European section of this report, and I expect this casts doubt on the conclusions from other regions as well.First, the samples are not random (as the authors claim). In fact, the samples are selected by the 1000 Genomes Project from narrowly defined regions and many large regions are not evaluated at all. It would make more sense to include results from other studies to represent data from other eastern Europe, Near East and western Asia.The approach used to define star patterns is not described but is obviously flawed. For example, H1 and U5a are both treated as "star patterns", even though H1 has nearly 100 unique daughters while U5a has only two. There is something very obviously different in the patterns of these two groups that is entirely ignored.The 39 U5b samples were not considered at all, and they only reported results for 26 U5a samples. The report presents results from a model with no context, no scholarship, no reference or discussion of ancient DNA, and no critical evaluation of the model to assess if the model outputs are meaningful. It was published as a "Report" with expedited peer review, and it might have benefited from better peer review.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Palmeira
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 16:06:30
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
213.46.192.48
|
|
|
|
