Lietuvos akademinių bibliotekų tinklas

2010 m. gruodžio 3 d.

OpenAIRE

Naudodamiesi Gento universitete (Belgija) pradedančia veikti Europos Ko­mi­si­jos sukurta Europos mokslinių tyrimų atvirosios prieigos infrastruktūra OpenAIRE, Europos mokslininkai, verslo įmonės ir piliečiai gali nevaržomai susipažinti su dokumentais, kuriuose pristatomi ES finansuojamų mokslinių tyrimų rezultatai. Plačiau...


Komentarai (17)

zkAboGe
ylaughj <a href= http://antideprescanada.com/#zrev >buy seroquel</a> buy zoloft
10 most popular antidepressants
vcousinr http://antideprescanada.com/#qbbc
feAboGe
nhorseq http://tadalafed.com
biduh
zquietlyg <a href=http://viagraon.click>history of viagra</a>
dbelievev http://viagraon.click
anruima
dshalld http://tadal24.com/
ywhilej <a href= http://tadal24.com/ >buy now cialis</a>
Nurlailah
"Terry, did you mean this part of one of Maju's comments in the 'Major East-West<a href="http://ieghxjdq.com"> diivde</a> in Indonesian Y chromosomes' thread?" No. His main claims are in the 'Indonesian Y-haps mostly Paleolithic', or something similar. His comments there include: "For me the data evidences that there is now enough variability to imagine every possible scenario". So let's look at this hypothesis. One hundred thousand years ago all of Africa and Eurasia south of about 50 degrees N was occupied by humans, or closely related species. All modern humans are believed to descend from just the African subset of this population. But it's extremely unlikely that the OoA contained a representative sample of the contemporary African genetic variation. Therefore modern humans descend from just a subset of a subset. Is it really credible to believe they were an extremely varied population? more varied even than are modern Africans? The vast majority of Africans today have tightly curly hair. Even moderately curly hair is uncommon, and where it is found it is most likely a product of migration in from Eurasia. So either something very strange happened in Africa after the OoA, or the hypothesis of 'enough variability to imagine every possible scenario' is wrong. Other related comments he made there: "A lot of 'Mongoloids' have curly hair (Tibet, Amazonia, etc.) It's somewhat atypical but not a definitory trait". To which I'd point out that you have to really look for it, and it is quite possibly a result of migration in from elesewhere, or a pre-Mongoloid survival. Concerning the pronounced eyefold: "Epicanthic fold. A trait that is not totally absent in other populations (Khoisan, North Europeans, etc.) nor universally present among East Asians, much less Native Americans". Concerning yellowish skin: "This trait must have coalesced (founder effect?) early in the human dispersal process because the known pigmentation traits of East Asians seem to arise then (ref- Coop'09)". And: "I say that such traits are flesh and were probably widespread before Neolithic. ... but the patterns of the derived East Asian MC1R haplotype do suggest that these traits are old, very old". But the East Asian suite of characteristics cannot be early Upper Paleolithic in SE Asia. Straight hair is very rare in Australian Aborigines and Papuans, so the East Asian suite of characteristics must have arrived in SE Asia after these people had passed through. Even in Polynesians the suite is not strongly represented. In fact it's only marginally more pronounced in Indonesia, and probably immigrant there. So what are are we left with?
Jamyelly
'genetically dissimilar patrnes or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races'. Surely that includes human races? "it better serves to distinguish real ~subspecies from diverse parental stock". Most 'species', by definition, will not form fertile hybrids. "A blend of different breeds (races) within a species, is not a ~subspecies". In certain conditions such a hybrid can form a new subspecies. "Yet Anthropologically speaking, Neanderthals and Denisovans ~are subspecies of Humans. (Just to get us back on topic)". And they could form hybrids with 'modern' humans, although as effectively as say, Chinese and Caucasian. "To me, the question of ~species is more interesting and germaine than that of race". Perhaps so, but the word 'hybrid' does not only encompass the crossing of separate species. In fact the definition of 'species' is actually a minefield. http://yiemigunc.com [url=http://huufay.com]huufay[/url] [link=http://imqjrtcdcp.com]imqjrtcdcp[/link]
Akinyemi
"understanding where the earliest<a href="http://harhcklra.com"> ppoele</a> of Asia and continental Australia came from is critical to understanding modern human evolution". I agree 100% with that comment. "Are they referring to inter-species hybridization here, or is 'hybridisation' a term commonly used intra-species?" The term 'hybridisation' is often used for mixing of breeds of animals rather than specifically different species. I presume the researchers are primarily interested in hybrids within different groups of 'modern' humans in East and Southeast Asia. However I'm sure that if they find evidence for hybrid formation with earlier species they will follow that up. "Should include Northeast Asians too. Isn't the frequency of Y-DNA C higher in Northeast Asian populations than SEA ones?" True, but I am sure North Asians will eventually be included in the study. The phylogeny of Y-DNA C is very basic at present.
Bekai
'genetically dissimilar <a href="http://zdxckrs.com">panters</a> or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races'. Surely that includes human races? "it better serves to distinguish real ~subspecies from diverse parental stock". Most 'species', by definition, will not form fertile hybrids. "A blend of different breeds (races) within a species, is not a ~subspecies". In certain conditions such a hybrid can form a new subspecies. "Yet Anthropologically speaking, Neanderthals and Denisovans ~are subspecies of Humans. (Just to get us back on topic)". And they could form hybrids with 'modern' humans, although as effectively as say, Chinese and Caucasian. "To me, the question of ~species is more interesting and germaine than that of race". Perhaps so, but the word 'hybrid' does not only encompass the crossing of separate species. In fact the definition of 'species' is actually a minefield.
KrishNa
"It could be a member of Haplogroup L as well."Unlikely. For once, we haven't found any Ls in small potekcs outside of Africa at low frequencies. The comparably old mtDNA from Kostenki is U2. The Denisova sequence, if proven modern, could instead represent an undifferentiated M/N lineage and an antecedent to African L lineages. East Asia, America, Australia and Melanesia are characterized by populations with a mosaic of M and N lineages. (Compare Europe only has N lineages, especially those belonging to the R subclade of N.) This mosaic is often explained as the hybridization of M clans with N clans but it can also mean that their common denominator outside of Africa has simply got lost. At the same time, there are no autochthonous M or N lineages in Africa (M1 and U6 found in North and East Africa are secondary arrivals from outside of Africa). So, it's been always puzzling that M and N derive separately from L3, don't share a common ancestor specific to M and N, but then they get mixed up everywhere outside of Africa, including such remote places as Australia and South America. Denisova, if proven modern, may just fill in the phylogenetic gap that Africa couldn't.
Cintya
Aadi minisa gana me reersach valin elidarav vana aluth thorathuru malkakulu thulin apita denna.harima vatina lipiyak. lipiya kiyavu pasu Densovians vani aadi minisun gana thava thorathuru hoyanna aasa hithuna. Denisova Lena harima sundara sthanayaka thiyenne.Room with a view; kiyala thava mehemath visthara karanava.Denisova Cave was such prime real estate, it attracted 3 kinds of humans.Paabo kiyala thiyanava "The one place where we are sure all 3 human forms have lived at one time or another is here in Denisova Cave"
Artrell
Materials misrepresentations in the application form can be reasons for the insurance QuotesChimp to be treated from its responsibilities under the insurance policy. Therefore be fair, also when representative indicates you fudge in the facts, which some percentage-starving brokers occasionally do. The gains that you save yourself might be your own personal.
Kevrell
Competitive. Insurance rates should be competitive vis-a-vis other insurance QuotesChimp selling similar lines of insurance. Otherwise, no customers will come knocking on the company's door.
 
Puslapiai 1 2
Pirmyn
Vardas:
El. pašto adresas: (nebūtinas)
Komentaras:
neburnok.lt
Įveskite kodą: