Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

food for thought
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Sobek! And thanks for putting up all those alleles; I thought about it but just couldn't get motivated LOL.

Quote:
That's an excellent article, and thank you so much for the posting.
It seems to me that the latest genological reserch done on the Amarna family leaves more questions than it answers--there are just too many possiblities instead of proven, uncontested facts.
Even the words--"posssibilities, perhaps, likely" and others raises all sorts of questions for me.


I agree, all that inbreeding they did really was inconsiderate of them! It messes up the works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the argument is one based on possibility? - it's possible that a three-legged donkey could win a horse race, but I would not be keen on putting my money on it- as others have mentioned, all the [if] talk of possibility feels very wobbly. At a minimum surely the talk should be one of probability? ie; something with calculable-odds (even approximate), possibility can be used to make any point- lawyers use it every day to create doubt, and before you know it, they are talking about possibility as probability, then probability as fact... and we know where that leads, "if the glove don't fit - you must acquit!" - it's called an agenda

There is not enough information to move towards reckoning any probability of KV35YL being Meritaten. The hypotheticals are short of two more imaginative-creations, it would need not just the hypothetical Akhenaten and Nefertiti, but also both a hypothetical Ay and Iuy(?). This means the creation from imagination of four hypothetical people to get to where we are able to, at least, calculate some approximate odds of probability. I am not going to do the math for you, but from what I have reckoned the odds would seem to be very long indeed...

On the other hand, we currently have KV35+KV35EL=KV35YL with only a possibility of the posit being wrong, ie; a very probable relationship - surely that limits the options? under that formula, where KV35=Aiii and KV35EL=Tiye, KV35YL=Meritaten does not fit, unless you want to posit that Meritaten was daughter of Aiii and Tiye?
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally don't want to posit anything. I'm not the author of the paper, and only think it's interesting, and as this thread is named, food for thought. Possibilities are enough for me to begin thinking in different directions. When faced with possibilities we all have to decide how open we are to accepting them as such. Some are, some are not.
For myself, I have always thought (and it's just a belief until there's real evidence) that Nefertiti was the daughter of Ay, and that Ay was the son of Yuya, so the second line of descent is nothing new to me. Since this is the case, I see no problem with opening up the possibility of the Younger Lady being a niece rather than a sister. I'm not sure if even having Nefertiti's mummy would make the case any clearer with all the same alleles running around.
I would of course drop the whole thing should some geneticists take up the possibility and totally destroy it in a paper of their own, showing how it would be IMpossible. I would actually welcome that, the more proof the better. I want to KNOW, not believe/think/assume. Until that time, I'm openminded enough to say, "yeah, ok, maybe it could be that way too." Another way to kill the possibility would be to figure out the name of Tut's mother so we don't have to keep calling her KV35YL. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khaemweset wrote:
I would of course drop the whole thing should some geneticists take up the possibility and totally destroy it in a paper of their own, showing how it would be IMpossible.
That sound slightly backwards-forward to me

I agree with you, more than may be obvious. The point I am trying to make I guess, is one of standards. I realize there is a fine line sometimes between possibility and probability, and semantics can be such a pain. However with the introduction of Genetics into the arena there seems to be the opportunity for a more calculated and more scientific approach. Instead of simply positing an opinion (it seems) there is (now) the opportunity to back it up (sometimes) with numbers. We know that two alleles are inherited per location- one from the mother, one from the father. We know that this dictates the odds of any specified outcome, we can extend this and these odds across known locations, and we know that 'hypothetical people' can be created to degrees of probability. I intend no offense but my complaint (if it is one) about this nicely written piece from Kate is that is seems to fall into the older methodology along the lines of... here is my theory, now prove me wrong - or it remains standing

Surely, if we are to take anything from this latest report etc., we can ask that probability be the minimum standard (a 1:32,000 probability is still a probability). Fine, have your posit and possibilities, but now back it up to some extent with a calculated mathematical probability. There is a difference between posting possibility on a message board like this where all and sundry are able to discuss, protest or agree- and publishing a read-only book, paper or website. I have nothing against the publisher of the article, I thought it very well written and enjoyable to read, but my point is... let us move away from the old-style agenda-driven work. It is bad enough that the godfather Hawass is obviously as agenda driven as the next seeker of glory, this is nothing more than vanity. You want truth, I want truth, deep down we all want truth. So I would say- possibility is fine, but back it up with some calculations. I started calculating the mathematical probability along the lines of the posit, but the odds started to become so long... that it makes more sense simply to accept KV55+KV35EL=KV35YL as is proven to a very high level of probability
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phizackerley is not a professional, she says so herself, but she doesn't just say, hey maybe it was like this. For example:

Quote:
In addition to the allele jumps from Thuya to KV21A/foetuses examined in the previous section, allele 16 at the D13S317 locus, and allele 6 at the D7S820 locus jump from Amenhotep III to the foetuses. (Although the Younger Lady presents allele 6, there is no suggestion that she is an ancestor of the foetuses other than as their paternal grandmother via Tutankhamun who did not present this allele.) Referring again to the Heinrich-Heine-Universitšt databank, the frequencies of D13S17-16 and D7S820-6 in the general modern Egyptian population is immeasurable in a sample population (ie 0%) in both cases. Clearly the incidence within a population is non-zero: it is just immeasurably low in a study with a typical sample size. It may therefore be reasonable to state that the incidence of each allele is not expected to exceed 0.1% in the general population.

Again, the chance therefore that these rare alleles have re-appeared in the foetuses from the general population, rather than inherited via Amenhotep III (or Yuya in the case of D7S820) is extremely unlikely. That is, there is a 99.99%+ chance that the foetuses have inherited these alleles from these earlier generations rather than from an unknown progenitor from outside this familial group. In the case of D7S820-6, inheritance could have been from Amenhotep III or from Yuya via one of their children other than AmenhotepIII; however, neither Yuya nor Thuya presented D13S17-16 so there is a high (99%+) chance of a secondary ancestral pathway from Amenhotep III to the KV21A and Foetus 1.


Sounds scientific to me, though she's no scientist. There's more of course. I think I can paraphrase the above as "There is a 99% probability of a secondary ancestral pathway."
Now, this isn't a 99% chance that KV35YL is the niece rather than sister of KV55, but the secondary pathway is necessary to that, as the genetics get muddled when everyone is already closely related.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you really mean KV55+KV35elderlady=KV35younger lady?

Wasn`t it KV35m (AIII)+elder lady=KV55 and younger lady
And KV55 and younger lady=Tut?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FreeTinker, I think you may be drawing a line that is not permitted by the data.

Yes, the most obvious interpretation of the genetic information is that KV35YL is the daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. It is not proved because you cannot prove something to be true scientifically, you can only prove it false.

Phizackerley makes the point that if we go with this interpretation (and it is an interpretation. although one with a high probability), it requires that there was a royal marriage between a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye and one of their daughters that is not recorded historically. She also shows that KV55 cannot be both the maternal and the paternal grandfather of the fetuses in KV62. If we assume that these fetuses are the unborn children of Tut and Ankhsesamun, KV55 cannot be Akhenaten.

Phizackerley also demonstrates that the data do not exclude the possibility that KV35YL is a niece of KV55 because of the interrelated nature of the royal families. Yes, the probability that this is true is lower based on the data that we have than KV35YL being a full sibling, but it is not impossible. This interpretation fits better with the historical data and is possible. That is all she is saying.

This is exactly how science should work. You have multiple working hypotheses that are supported by your data. You devise a test (in this case, more genetic work) that will falsify one or more of your hypotheses. This is the way you must proceed if you are an honest scientist because you cannot prove anything to be true, only false. Only after multiple tests have failed to falisfy a hypothesis will it be accepted as likely true.

Diorite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
Did you really mean KV55+KV35elderlady=KV35younger lady?

Wasn`t it KV35m (AIII)+elder lady=KV55 and younger lady
And KV55 and younger lady=Tut?


Yes, apologies. It should be KV35+KV35EL=KV35YL - I think I repeated that ooops more than once, please accept as error
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diorite wrote:
This interpretation fits better with the historical data and is possible. That is all she is saying.


That's what got me to really think about it. If we question the identification of KV55 with Akhenaten, based on the age issue, or on Phizackerley's demonstration that Amenhotep III cannot be both grandfather's to the fetuses, then we're left with Smenkhkare. If so, why search for a full sister for him to marry when we know he married Meritaten?
I'm open to any and all possibilities. Zahi wanted the DNA testing to bring all the answers but it really just brings more questions. More testing will bring even more questions I'm sure, but also the more testing we have the more the truth will come to the surface.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...test the claim that KV35YL could be Meritaten.


I have posted all the relevant data, and I am still waiting. Anyone that can read, and understands the most basic genetics, should be able to do this. At each position each child must receive one and only one allele from each parent. Did you, freeTinker, take the time to trace the path that each allele takes from KV35m and KV35EL to KV35YL? Did you also take the time to trace alleles from KV35m and KV35EL to OS35; and from OS35 and OP21 to KV35YL? I have done this, and I think paths are there. If the paths are there, then KV35YL may be a child of KV35m and KV35EL or a grandchild of KV35m and KV35YL by their child OS35 and OP21. That is all the DNA data and genetic kinship analysis can tell you. If anyone sees an allele that does not follow these paths, please tell me. I know I make mistakes, and if I have, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

Do any of you people know many allele profiles a child of KV35m can have?

of KV55?

Could any of you distinguish identical twins from full siblings born separately?

Can any of you tell me how likely the allele sharing between KV46m and KV35m is, and what the kinship implications of this allele sharing are?

How many of you are even aware that the allele sharing is there?

For me, science (and history) are a way to better understand reality. It has nothing (or should have nothing) to do with proof, truth, or belief. I recently joined this discussion board because I was excited by the JAMA article and hoped this would be a good place to discuss this it and it's implications. It took me a few days to realize that I was one of the genetics experts on the board. Actually I think of myself as barely more than a novice. I guess I must come from a bad background(mother a nurse, brother a microbiologist, friend a nursing aid), but practically everyone I know well enough for complex conversations understands this stuff, including my nieces and nephews (ages 10 to 15). Anyway, I started adding explainations to the posts I made. This doubled or tripled the length of them, but I figured it was worth it if people learned something from it. I am a very nonverbal person (and a worse typist) and I am devoting 4 to 8 hours a day which I don't have (half of them to posts here). This post, for example took over two hours. I don't appreciate the effort I am making being blown off with comments about bad gambling and lawyers. So if my posts have been worthwhile, please let me know. I will go away for awhile.

If you want proof, Hire a lawyer

If you want truth, Talk to a Philosopher

If you want to believe, Get a religion

I am looking for an intelligent conversion... and talking to myself isn't working.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek, I'm learning from what you are posting. I just don't have the genetics knowledge necessary to make any judgements other than the ones I've already posted.

I do know enough I could tell identical twins from full siblings - the identical twins would have identical DNA, full siblings would share fewer alleles.

Diorite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, without getting all fussed-up, talk me through the posit. If it is ok with you, please look over the attachment and tell me if we are on the same page. Then can we take it one pairing of alleles at-a-time and calculate the odds-of-probability as we go? - is that fair?


_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV35m
D13-10,16; D7-6,15; D2-16,27; D21-25,34; D16-8,13; D18-16,22

KV35EL
D13-11,12; D7-10,15; D2-22,26; D21-26,29; D16-6,11; D18-9,12

OS35
D13-12,16; D7-6,#; D2-16,26; D21-25,#; D16-8,11; D18-16,#

OP21
D13-10,#; D7-13,10; D2-17,26; D21-29,35; D16-11,13; D18-10,19

KV35YL
D13-10,12; D7-6,10; D2-16,26; D21-25,29; D16-8,11; D18-16,19

I have shown allele transmission for one of the possibilities.

Please show allele transmission for the other.

note to Diorite: Thanks. You are correct (almost). Identical twins share all alleles. There are 65,536 combinations of 16 alleles possible at 8 positions. The probability that two full siblings born separately will match exactly at 8 positions is 1 in 65,536, so they can't be separated. Identifying alleles at more positions will increase the resolution. It's probably a better bet than a three-legged donkey.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not what I was looking for Sobek, but that's ok- intention and meaning can get lost on a message board like this

What you are starting to set-out is possibility. I understand possibility, it is like potential- a blank canvas with all the colors of paint lying in front of you. It is like the potential to create a masterpiece (say, like Leonardo DaVinci), yes it is possible (most things are), but given the same tools (blank canvas and oils), how many of us actually could? - and how probable would it be that any of us could actually produce results to the same standard?

I am trying to test the probability, not argue the possibility, the good news is that unlike creating a masterpiece we can be more scientific. We can calculate (at least an approximation of) probability

To start we need some 'rules' and we need understanding- the figure posted above is intended to provide that, it represents my understanding of your posit, that KV35YL does not in fact represent the daughter of KV35 and KV35EL, but is Meritaten, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti neither of whom are assumed to be included in the DNA population shown in the report(rule-one)

These 'rules' are extended further based on a general consensus of opinion and assumption that in addition to Akh and Nefer being missing, that Nefer was daughter of Ay (himself, son of Yuya and Thuya) and his wife (Iuy?), all of whom are missing from the reported DNA population. I think you referred to this as the second ancestral line. It is also assumed (based on the aforementioned general consensus of opinion and assumption) that Tut, KV21A+B and the fetuses are related to the 'down-line' of the identified DNA population and not misidentified 'up-line' ancestors. We must assume all these 'rules' as plausible to begin examining the probability of your posit

So, where to start...

I have started with two delimiters and have dealt with only two pairs of alleles. Remember please, I am trying to test probability here not make any argument about possibility

The two delimiters can be helpful when dealing with all these hypothetical people and hypothetical alleles required by the posit because they allow us to chart them to their hypothetical owner. You will have noticed that on column D2S and D18 there shows up a 17 and 10 respectively, you will also have noticed that these markers appear nowhere in the up-line. This allows us to deduce, within the 'rules' that their owner must be Iuy(?), Ay's missing wife. There is no other way they can be introduced to the DNA population. So this is where I have started


I have entered the above delimiters for hypothetical Iuy(?) in red

It is a short step from here to deducing hypothetical Nefertit's alleles for these same columns and also hypothetical Akhenaten's contribution. Under our 'rules' Akhenaten's contribution is shown traced back to KV35YL's grandparents and Nefertiti's alleles are traced back to KV35YL's great-grandparents. All this of course is possible, but how probable? what does this show us?

I am no math whiz, but what it tells me, and correct me if I am wrong, is if we take each of the four alleles individually for proposed Meritaten and reckon the probability... there is a 1:4 probability of Meritaten inheriting the 16 on column D2S from her grandparents through the paternal line; there is a 1:8 probability of her inheriting the 26 on column D2S from her great-grandparents through the maternal line; there is a 1:4 probability of inheriting the 16 on column D18 from her grandparents through the paternal line; and there is a 1:8 probability of inheriting the 19 on column D18 from her great-grandparents through the maternal line

This translates to a probability for both pairs of alleles being inherited as defined as 1:1,024. Or to put it another way- a probability that is over one-thousand times less likely that the explanation that works- KV35YL=KV35+KV35EL. Or further and to use equitable terms, where the JAMA report talks of a greater than 99.9% probability that KV35YL is the daughter of KV35 and KV35EL relative to the general population, the equivalent for the posit that KV35YL=Meritaten would be a probability of less than 0.1% - And this is only for two pairs of alleles!!! - the odds do not shorten

As has already been said by others, we simply do not have enough information. Nothing is impossible, just (sometimes) improbable, click here. You never know Smile
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...it represents my understanding of your posit, that KV35YL does not in fact represent the daughter of KV35 and KV35EL, but is Meritaten, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti neither of whom are assumed to be included in the DNA population...


This is not what I wrote.
Quote:
It is important to distinguish between the DNA data, the genetic kinship analysis, and other biological, archaeological, and historical information.

Quote:
Does this mean KV62m may be the child of KV35YL who may be the child of KV35EL and KV35m? If so, I agree. KV35YL may also be the child of "the other parent" and "the other child". Both alternatives are possible, but not equally plausible. The alternatives are mutually exclusive, and the genetic kinship analysis cannot determine which is so. Other kinds of information may help with this. Well, during the Amarna Period, maybe not.

Quote:
If the paths are there, then KV35YL may be a child of KV35m and KV35EL or a grandchild of KV35m and KV35YL by their child OS35 and OP21. That is all the DNA data and genetic kinship analysis can tell you.


This is what I wrote.

Can anyone tell me what the blood type of KV35EL is? I can find lots of references that talk about what it does or does not "prove", but none that say what it actually is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group