PDA

View Full Version : Pseudoscientists In Ethnogenomics And History



Bulat
02-24-2016, 05:14 AM
THE ANSWERS TO "THE REVIEWS" AND WORKS OF PHILISOPHER AND POLITICAL SCIENTIST Zh.M. SABITOV

IN HISTORY AND ETHNOGENOMICS - 1



The political scientist and philosopher Zh.M. Sabitov well-known on Internet forums under the pseudonym asan-kaygy — recently he decided to do a critical analysis of the works of researchers in the field of History and DNA-genealogy.



http://suyun.info/userfiles/bulletin/2015-5/sabitovism.png

Zhaksylyk Sabitov


In Bulletin of EH Project "Suyun" we begin a series of publications to articles and "reviews" of the political scientist and philosopher Zh.M. Sabitov in History and Ethnogenomics.

Previously, I asked of Zh.M. Sabitov that he sent to me his "a review" of my work — "Ethnogenesis of Bashkirs: historiography and modern researches". But Zh.M. Sabitov chose a silence for this question from me.

So, my response to his "a review" i done a late, I could give the answer also in 2014, when was written Zh.M. Sabitov of his "a great review" about my monograph. But, only in 2015. I was able to read the so-called "a review" Zh.M. Sabitov about my monography "Ethnogenesis of Bashkirs: historiography and modern researches"[4], and about a work of R.P. Khrapachevsky “Polovtsians-Kuns in the Volga-Ural interfluve (according to Chinese sources)” and others works of Zh.M. Sabitov.

Look at and read article:
https://www.academia.edu/22369301/Muratov_B..._2016_P.117-125 (https://www.academia.edu/22369301/Muratov_B.A._THE_ANSWERS_TO_THE_REVIEWS_AND_WORKS_ OF_PHILOSOPHER_AND_POLITICAL_SCIENTIST_Zh.M._SABIT OV_IN_HISTORY_AND_ETHNOGENOMICS_1_BEHPS_Volume_3_1 _1_2_January_2016_P.117-125)

Keywords: Zhaksylyk Sabitov, Zaksylykism, pseudoscience, carping of political science methods, Ethnogenomics and History, Polymorphism of Y-chromosome, Ethnogenesis, Bashkirs, Methods of Population Genetics, Turanians*.

P.S. In Youtube (in Russian Language)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6kBZxk35c8

ThirdTerm
02-26-2016, 09:41 PM
http://f2.s.qip.ru/VDVAsjR9.gif

There are talks of Mongoloid admixture in the literature (Yunusbayev et al. 2015) but typically Asian haplogroups Q, C and O are less than 1.5% in the Bashkirs in total. While the Bashkirs are around 77% Indo-European (R1a and R1b), they also possess some genetics elements from Siberian Uralic-speaking populations (Nganasans, Nenets, Maris, Udmurts, and Komis). Haplogroup N1, which is a typical haplogroup for Altaic and Finno-Ugric populations of Siberia and northeastern Europe, can be found at 17.4% in the Bashkir Y chromosome pool. Haplogroup N1 reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 95% in the Nenets and 90% in the Yakuts and the ancestors of these South Siberian tribes migrated to northeastern Europe between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago, thus admixing with the ancestors of the Russians and Bashkirs.

http://www.arcticphoto.co.uk/Pix/RW/04/RWS0126-30_P.JPG
Alla, a Nenets girl, with one of her family's pet reindeer calves.



Another important outcome of our IBD sharing analysis is the finding that two of the three SSM populations that we consider “source populations” or modern proxies for source populations are both Mongolic-speaking. This observation can be explained in several ways. For example, one may surmise that the Mongol conquests, starting in the 13th century, were accompanied by their demographic expansion over the territories already occupied, in part, by Turkic speakers, and this led to admixture between Turkic and Mongolic speakers. Alternatively, it is also probable that the ancestors of Turkic and Mongolic tribes stem from the same or nearly the same area and underwent numerous episodes of admixture before their respective expansions. The latter explanation is indirectly testified by a complex, long-lasting stratigraphy of Mongolian loan words in Turkic languages and vice versa [38]. The first explanation is unlikely from a historical perspective since although Mongolic conquests were launched by Genghis Khan troops in the early 13th century, it is well known that they did not involve massive re-settlements of Mongols over the conquered territories. Instead, the Mongol war machine was progressively augmented by various Turkic tribes as they expanded, and in this way Turkic peoples eventually reinforced their expansion over the Eurasian steppe and beyond [39]. Therefore, we prefer the second explanation, although we cannot entirely exclude the Mongol contribution, especially in light of admixture dates that overlap with the Mongol expansion period.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068