The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


this is a must

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:04 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?


Shows you cannot read or have not read the report because it is all in there

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) at a moderate frequency (~5.5%) in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2% (S8 Table).



Once again, where is the data for Ottoman DNA? - I see references to Empires and eras but no 'Ottoman DNA' to underpin your support.

However, yet again, even this bit of data (underlined in the quote) would suggest TCs are Turks. Period!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am still laughing.....
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:02 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:
supporttheunderdog wrote:You cannot even answer a straight question on the meaning of the words.


Have you answered where the Ottoman DNA data is?


Shows you cannot read or have not read the report because it is all in there

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) at a moderate frequency (~5.5%) in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2% (S8 Table).



Once again, where is the data for Ottoman DNA? - I see references to Empires and eras but no 'Ottoman DNA' to underpin your support.

However, yet again, even this bit of data (underlined in the quote) would suggest TCs are Turks. Period!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am still laughing.....


Of course. No other response possible for your errors.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:15 am

GreekIslandGirl wrote:Of course. No other response possible for your errors.


My errors?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now you are making me roll about hysterically.

Please explain what do these words mean?

Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots


Are you seriously trying to argue that the title of the report is wrong ?

How do you reconcile the phrase
Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share primarily a common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry.
with YOUR comment
This bit of data (underlined in the quote) would suggest TCs are Turks. Period!

with the comment in the report
the moderate genetic differentiation (Rst) between TCy and Turks (Table 2) does not support the notion that TCy primarily derive from the same paternal gene pool as mainland Turks
(i.e they are not Turks)
and
Our PCA plot (Fig 4) indicates a clear separation of Turkish sub-populations away from Cypriots, Southeast European and other Near Eastern and North African populations. TCy, although sharing some similar features to mainland Turks (i.e. presence of Eastern Eurasian haplogroups( "some of which of possible Ottoman origin" [/u][/b] my emphasis - see below) do not seem to cluster with Turkish sub-populations in the PCA plot


what does the bit at the end of the quote
is 4.2%
mean and why did you not underline that?

The report states
Previous population genetic studies have identified that both Greek Cypriots (GCy)[10–13] and Turkish Cypriots (TCy)[14] show genetic affinity with surrounding Southeast European and particularly Near Eastern populations. Despite historical records on the origins of GCy and TCy, the genetic ancestry of the two communities has not as yet been systematically compared. Generally, two different, but not mutually exclusive scenarios might hold. Scenario 1: TCy and GCy derive primarily from the same local paternal gene pool, diverging only recently (Ottoman era) as a result of Islamization and gradual formation of a separate TCy community. Scenario 2: TCy derive primarily from the mainland Turkish paternal gene pool, migrating to Cyprus during the Ottoman era of the island.


this is discussed as follows
GCy and TCy share between them many more Y-chromosome haplotypes, both in relative and absolute terms, than with any other surrounding population. Given that historical and archaeological evidence shows the GCy to have been established on the island at the beginning of the Iron Age (ca. 1000 B.C.)[2] and the TCy at the beginning of the Ottoman era (ca. 1600 A.D), this high percentage of shared haplotypes between them could be explained either by a common local (pre-Ottoman) ancestry for both communities and a recent (few centuries) divergence (scenario 1 in Introduction), or a non-local (i.e. Turkish) paternal origin of TCy and extensive mixing with the local GCy population during the Ottoman era (scenario 2 in Introduction).


the report states
To sum up, all analyses performed in the current study point to a primarily common paternal ancestry between GCy and TCy,
.
and
Additional evidence, that further supports a common ancestry between GCy and TCy[59], comes from a study showing that in Cyprus four mutations were responsible for the majority of beta-thalassaemia cases (>79%). While similar frequencies of these mutations were observed between TCy and GCy, much lower frequencies were present in patients from Turkey and Greece.


As for Ottoman haplogroups the report and the paragraph you selectively underlined discusses
Eastern Eurasian (some of which of possible Ottoman origin) Y-haplogroups.
so lets re-underline the para bearing in mind that in any reference to
Eastern Eurasian Y-haplogroups.

one must read that this includes some of which of possible Ottoman origin

Concentrating on differences in haplogroup frequencies between GCy and TCy, what stands out in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, is the presence of [u]Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) ("some of which of possible Ottoman origin" - my emphasis - see above)[/u] at a moderate frequency (~5.5%)] in TCy but not in GCy. These haplogroups are prevalent among mainland Turks (ranging from 3% in South Anatolia to 15% in Central Anatolia) (Fig 3; S4 and S5 Figs). The Central Asian origin[37,38,48–51] of some of these haplogroups, namely C, N, and Q, points to the influx of proto-Turkic tribes in the Anatolian peninsula, establishing gradually the Ottoman Empire and spreading to Cyprus during the Ottoman era (1571–1878), to be assimilated into the TCy gene pool. In fact, the current findings indicate that the frequency of these possible proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2%[/quote]

Now where
Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) [i]("some of which of possible Ottoman origin")
constitute only 5.5%% of the Y Dna of TCy and possible
proto-Turkic haplogroups among TCy is 4.2%
how can you conclude
this bit of data ... would suggest TCs are Turks.
?

or are you seriously trying to use this one phrase where you fail to underline the details of the
Eastern Eurasian haplogroups (H, C, N, O, Q) [i]("some of which of possible Ottoman origin")
and vital statistic to argue that the rest of the data which shows all analyses performed in the current study point to a primarily common paternal ancestry between GCy and TCy and only limited input following the Ottoman takeover?

(one logical inference of YOUR argument that "TCs are Turks" is that where "Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share primarily a common ,,,, paternal ancestry" GC must be Turks too and that is what makes me laugh so much and demonstrates the phallusy of your argument - i.e. you have made a cock-up.

This proves something else - the validity of my comments and those of others about the willful way you selectively quote then misrepresent and misconstrue the ordinary meaning of the words on the page, such that in this case YOU are corrupting the science by seeking to use only some words of the report to make it fit your world view, contrary to the overall findings of the science. Nothing new there. It is what you do, it is what you have always done.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:00 am

supporttheunderdog wrote:Please explain what do these words mean?

Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots


None of the data supports the above - unless the same was applied to every single person on this planet as we are ALL *pre-Ottoman* (whatever that means) if you go back far enough and not just these 300 or so people.

And for the last time, their actual data places TCs with Turks. The rest is speculation and generalization that can be applied to all.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:00 pm

The actual data supports the case that by far the majority of both Turkish speaking Cypriots and Greek speaking Cypriots can trace a common ancestry to Cyprus before the events of 1571' and that within the Turkish speaking Cypriots there is evidence of later genetic input from the time of and / or after the ottoman invasion of 1571. (And a smaller input from the same sources in the Greek speaking Cypriot population) .

You as usual do not like the idea Turkish speaking Cypriots are of substantiallty the same origin as Greek speaking Cypriots.

I Repeat, you are corrupting the science, What you are trying to argue is contrary to the findings of the report, and as ususl you use misrepresention of evidence to do it, that or a bland assertion without argument or reference to evidence as in your last responce.
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:11 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:You as usual do not like the idea Turkish speaking Cypriots are of substantiallty the same origin as Greek speaking Cypriots.


What I don't like is idiots like you twisting data, ignoring controls and making general assumptions that can hold true for anyone. The general assumption here being that if you go back far enough you can conclude that Turks and Greeks and Brits are related humans. :roll:

As I said, the actual data puts the TCs nearer present-day Turks. The extrapolations are about similarities that might exist to some *other* DNA (not analysed nor presented but randomly labelled of an *Ottoman era or empire*) that yields general speculations (therefore inconclusive in this case). For you, the title suits you. The researchers got their paper noticed. The data does not justify the title. I can speculate that their English is lacking.
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:04 pm

That is right, insult the scientists, some of whom are Cypriot, performing a study sponsored by a Cypriot institution. At best you are accusing them of incomptence, at worst of lying. Them, and the people who have peer reviewed the study.

They are plain in stating the extent to which Turkish Cypriots do or rather mostly do NOT relate to Turkish populations and the extent to which they mostly DO relate to Greek Speaking Cypriots, with timing that traces this back 1000 year which means that, for the most part, the Turkish Cypriot population had their origins here long before 1571.

But no, you think the data means something very different, as usual without providing one bit of supporting evidence or arguement, though you tried before by cherry picking certain aspects of one paragraph which dealt with the limited East Eurasian haplotypes, about 5.5% , and from that concluded the evidence suggested all Turkish Cypriots were Turks.

All because it does not conform to your world view that makes Turkish Cypriot citizens some sort of invading untermensch, to be driven out. Well that is not the case. Tough. Get over it...
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby GreekIslandGirl » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:50 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:That is right, insult the scientists,


No, scientists are not 'insulted' when their work is scrutinized. The problems lie in the badly worded or hype-generating statement that has led to people such as you running away with politics.

There are many weaknesses in the approach and their conclusion. They admit these, in places. For example, the differences in the sample collections ( if you care to look at the materials & methods section).

In order to be published these days, you may have to stick your neck out and say something novel and sometimes this might come at the expense of good science. In this paper, I would not be happy with the sampling (I have the impression the researchers are not too happy either but they try and justify their reasons for going ahead).
User avatar
GreekIslandGirl
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8954
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:03 am

Re: this is a must

Postby supporttheunderdog » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:18 pm

I have not forgotten this topic but for the past few days I have been a single Parent and time has been too tight to allow me to draft a focused reply: the Wife will be back tonight but whether I will have any extra time is dubious as she is bringing my Granddaughter down from Moscow for a few weeks, so I will go from heavy duty parenting to heavy-duty grand-parenting.

As Arnie said: "I'll be back"
User avatar
supporttheunderdog
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8180
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:03 pm
Location: limassol

Re: this is a must

Postby Alexa1994 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:10 pm

Incredible following it!
Alexa1994
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests