Comments on: Don’t trust an archaeologist about genetics, don’t trust a geneticist about archaeology

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:01:03 +0000

Exactly!

“Science Made Stupid” and “Am I a Neanderthal” (cf)

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:49:08 +0000

As I read this blog entry headline and read Razib’s bolded comment , I immediately thought about what Steve Farmer said very recently about the inaccuracy of mutation rates (in past papers) and how some well known geneticists have not been vociferous in cautioning the jump to conclusions, rather it seems they partly welcomed it because it drew attention to their papers.

” Despite our arguments, the papers were cranked out regularly for over a decade
by well-known population geneticists. When we pointed out the problem to them
they privately admitted we were right but argued that tossing in discussions of
“hot” political topics in their abstracts drew needed attention (and funding!)
to their work.

We’re talking about the best-known population geneticists, at Stanford and
elsewhere. ”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/16092

–

S.Farmer mentions the California Textbook controversy; fudging mutation rate data takes a sinister turn when well known Indian geneticists from well known institutions misrepresent and or fudge data to promote an ethno-nationalist / casteist pov.

By: BJM

BJM — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:53:34 +0000

Re: does anyone know what #9 is trying to say?

Something about not suffering fools gladly? Poor postal clerks, often used as stereotypical incompetents. I doubt there are more incompetents in their ranks than in any other profession.

By: sniper

sniper — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:17:09 +0000

I was also scratching my head about the contamination issue….contamination from what? From the Neanderthal or Denisovan who took the sample?

By: stargene

stargene — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:22:38 +0000

Since I’m a happy amateur in all this, often rushing in where angels
fear to tread, and am drawn to bright, shiny objects, my opinions
are suspect. But, Razib… 5% Neanderthal DNA?… your clearly
stated love for habaneros seems a dead giveaway. As is my
unrequited passion, against my wife’s advice, for kim chee and
really greasy steaks. Doubtless a remnant of chasing wooly
mammoth blubber across Siberia. Here’s to happy admixtures.
Good hunting.

By: Eurologist

Eurologist — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:51:51 +0000

@#13
I am, too, but I suspect it’s nothing too exciting, something like some H5a subclade that simply isn’t very common.

By: Spike Gomes

Spike Gomes — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:27:13 +0000

I’ve had *a lot* of experience with archeologists on a professional level, though I can’t be overly specific because it will get me canned. In general, genetics just doesn’t seem to be something they consider much. Not that they’re hostile to it (though a few are). Just doesn’t seem to be something they consider much, except in regards to concerns with burials (i.e. the natives don’t like it when you mention anything that even hints of it). Granted, though, I think that folks attracted to the field are the sort that love surveying and testing in the field, but hate the nitty-gritty stuff like weighing and sorting midden and soil samples and doing official write-ups of jobs with uninteresting results. Genetics is like a C-14 dating spreadsheet with even more incomprehensible math.

Of course this is all anecdotal on my part, and I live someplace that’s very atypical in regards to archeological concerns and how it’s practiced.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:53:22 +0000

Re: #12
I think it’s his idea of a Neanderthal admixture test.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:15:19 +0000

Very curious what his mDNA is!

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:33:02 +0000

does anyone know what #9 is trying to say?

By: DK

DK — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:30:49 +0000

Yeah, given the precautions taken, it’s practically impossible to get contamination on a 5% level. It’s just not a real issue.

By: Nick Patterson (Broad)

Nick Patterson (Broad) — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:04:57 +0000

(I was an author of both the Green et al (Neandertal) and Reich et al (Denisova) papers)

When thinking about contamination it’s important to realise that contamination
will look like modern human gene-flow -> archaics. But we find very strong evidence
for flow in the reverse direction.

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:49:41 +0000

Have you ever had the desire to bash a postal clerk about the head with a club?

By: John Hawks

John Hawks — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:12:39 +0000

What I don’t get is the archaeologists who care enough to write “corrections” in to the Atlantic, but don’t care enough to get the facts…

By: gcochran

gcochran — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:39:07 +0000

James Fallows was also prominent among those who concluded, around 1988, that Japan had the secret of lasting economic growth and technological progress. Back then, I coined the word “dunderkid” just for him.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:06:25 +0000

#5, re: journal quality. it’s an OK quick & dirty filter on the front end (we’ve seen the problems with relying on ‘good journals’ like *science* in the recent past). but if you’re bringing it up in your explicit argument, then my skepticism goes up, because the quality of the paper should speak for itself. though to be fair i probably put more weight on the group that’s producing the paper…but people outside of a sub-discipline are totally blind as the implicit rank order research groups in terms of credibility.

By: Bryan Howie

Bryan Howie — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:49:05 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out; I had the same reaction to the “expert” that Fallows quoted in his post (although I hadn’t noticed that the link did not match the citation — good catch). I find it especially annoying when non-experts propagate headline results from “good journals” rather than evaluating the specific claims of a paper.

I brought this up to JF on Twitter a couple of days ago, and I tried to point him toward recent commentary from better experts. I didn’t get a reply, but I understand that he’s a busy guy and this Neandertal business is just trivia for him. I see that you forwarded this blog posting to him — it would be great if this spurred him to do a follow-up post on the subject.

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:01:09 +0000

Hit Fallows up on the Twitters. He seems reasonable; bet he’ll listen.

By: Aylwyn Scally

Aylwyn Scally — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:00:44 +0000

The authors of the high-coverage Denisova paper presented convincing evidence by three different measures that the level of present-day human contamination is less than 0.5%. If there are reasons to doubt the inference of archaic admixture in modern humans, contamination is not a good one.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:02:55 +0000

Read the protocols…..they did take “superduper precautions against contamination”