Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,20:49)|
OK Mike-- Here's an extract from your table. Tell me what data I should be looking at and tell me how this is a problem for a YEC timescale. (I added a "Sum" column in and sorted by that column).
Also, you might want to explain to everyone how the frequencies are calculated and what the numbers in the region columns represent.
OK Dave, I'm game to lead you step-by-step through this.
First the data in your table. Each region listed has a seperate sampling size (listed in the original table). The frequency columns listed to the right of the region columns are purley the fraction of the regions population that that have that allele. For example... Column H is 'Europe' and Column I is Frequency of Europe population that have a certain allele. Cell I2=0.0491 which means that 4.91% of the European population tested (179 people in cell H2) has the HLA-B B*4001 allele.
Next, the explanation. Look at Columns H(Europe), N(NE Asia), V(SE Asia), X(SW Asia), and Z(Sub-Sahara Africa). All of these regions share the almost the same alleles (above 90% of those tested for). We should expect this since these populations have interbred (admixed) for millenium. As an HLA-B allele appears in any of the above populations from mutation and selection, the geographically connected populations will spread the allele throughout the population over time.
However, look at Column L(North America). The NA population shares almost the same number and type of alleles as all the populations above (Africa-Euro-Asia). Since the NA population was isolated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) population until 1492 then the shared alleles MUST have come from a mixed population BEFORE the NA population isolation. This is why I (and Grey Wolf and ericmurphy and others...) say that there is only 250 years for the allelic mutations to appear in the population.
If there are common alleles in ISOLATED populations then these populations must have shared these alleles BEFORE seperation. The population of NA was seperated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) after the UCGH ice age.
Also, the individuals tested within each region were selected for regional homogeneity (they and their familial lineage was considered aboriginal to the region). The original table has a citation to justify this fact and can be cross-checked. So the North American population tested consisted of Mayan, Navaho, etc... individuals that have familial lineages that don't cross-breed with other regional peoples.
Does this help explain the table?