Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeUnfounded
Posted by Maju on 19 Nov 2009 at 01:44 GMT
First, the first PCs emphasize the role of migration and dispersal in human history, including: dispersal out of Africa, spread across Eurasia, entry into the Americas, and entry into Oceania. Indeed, the order of the PCs closely corresponds to the relative timing of these events
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007888#article1.body1.sec3.sec1.p2
I fail to see any correlation whatsoever between PC1 and any possible timing of colonization that should be (1) South Asia, (2) East Asia and Oceania, (3) West Eurasia and (4) America. PC1 shows a West Eurasian-African axis and PC2 an East Eurasian-African axis, that's all.
Correcting myself
Maju replied to Maju on 19 Nov 2009 at 01:51 GMT
Sorry: the other way around: PC1 means Africa-Pacific genetic distance and PC2 Africa-Europe. Is that what you mean? That the later colonization of West Eurasia in relation to South and East Eurasia is reflected in the relative greater distance represented by PC1 in relation to PC2? I don't gather that from your explanation.