Yes, exactly that sort of thing has never been really evaluated AFAIK. One can't just point do some prior gap that disappeared, and then assume genetics did not change. By the way, this study has pretty rigorous approach and finds ancestry matters. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2608567 …
-
but
@KirkegaardEmil read the whole paper and vouches for its rigor. i don't understand
Can you stop playing this dumb? When I say a paper is pretty rigorous, I don't mean "I vouch for every possible statement in the paper". I meant just that, compared to most economist stuff of this kind, it's pretty rigorous.
-
-
They fucked up the basic people-counting! This isn’t some kind of subtle statistical issue
-
Bad, of course, but not rare. I recall a paper looking for evidence as to which path humans took out of Africa ( Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb) that assumed that before the Arab conquest, Egypt was basically sub-Saharan African.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.