tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5859517160695400153..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: More Uniform Sampling of Human Genetic Diversity (Xing et al. 2010)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40430102790646933482011-06-07T22:56:18.030+03:002011-06-07T22:56:18.030+03:00http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human-genetic...http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human-genetic-variation-first.htmlDienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7037382361576215972011-06-07T22:43:25.208+03:002011-06-07T22:43:25.208+03:00The Karitiana and Surui who are 100% pure Amerindi...The Karitiana and Surui who are 100% pure Amerindians from the Brazilian Amazons show the 'European' peak component at K=3 in the Harappa admix runs (they have one of the most cosmopolitan datasets). So the K=3 'European' in the Totonac is in actually mostly Amerindian.<br /><br />http://www.harappadna.org/2011/04/reference-3-admixture-k3/jes-rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13572668095214926909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7635742282081938882010-07-31T04:48:20.407+03:002010-07-31T04:48:20.407+03:00Realistically I don't foresee the red componen...Realistically I don't foresee the red component being so low in the UK. If that is true representation, then it shows you how quickly an island community could change. I suspect it's closer to the representation given to Belgium/Netherlands. I also question that the Iraqi Kurd is completely red. I guess the results all depend on which SNPs they are using for the study.I'm taking the finer details with a grain of salt.AWoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14966600445259901063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40713174952983810852010-07-30T14:32:59.376+03:002010-07-30T14:32:59.376+03:00Correction: That error almost doesn't not occu...<b>Correction:</b> <i>That error almost doesn't not occur any more</i><br /><br />I accidentally made a typo here, I must have written so:<br /><br />That error almost doesn't occur any moreOnur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83549243823067656752010-07-30T03:32:31.421+03:002010-07-30T03:32:31.421+03:00German, in a global study nothing can be clear at ...German, in a global study nothing can be clear at K=2 as all of humanity can relatively accurately be represented <b>at least</b> with a three-racial system, thus <b>at least</b> at K=3 (pecision increases as K increases). But the most realistic representaion in Rosenberg et al. 2002 is at K=5.<br /><br />BTW, racially completely pure East Asians (like all of Japanese and overwhelming majority of Han Chinese) in Rosenberg et al. 2002 have western components at K=2 and K=3 and, to a much lesser extent, later at Ks almost certainly due to poor and outdated methodology. That error almost doesn't not occur any more in the latest studies (global or regional) and racially completely pure East Asians appear completely comprised of eastern components at all Ks (see, for instance, Li et al. 2008 - I'll put its link below). So your contention that racially completely pure East Asians have little western components at Ks (especially at early Ks) while racially completely pure Amerindians have none at all Ks is wrong, as both racially completely pure East Asians and racially completely pure Amerindians have no western component at all Ks according to the latest studies, so they are equal in their easternness (Mongoloidness). <br /><br />Here is the link to the supplement of Li et al. (look at the Fig. S1):<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/319/5866/1100/DC1/1Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48719563458010099302010-07-29T21:31:29.079+03:002010-07-29T21:31:29.079+03:00"In Rosenberg et al. 2002 the Amerindian clus..."In Rosenberg et al. 2002 the Amerindian cluster emerges at K=4 and the East Asian (Asian Mongoloid) cluster emerges at K=5 (look at when Melanesians and Papuans separate from East Asians)."<br /><br />The Amerindian cluster didn't "emerge" at K=4. It's been there from K=2, but it's just shrank to a continent-specific one at K=4 because populations outside of America diverged into their own regional clusters, with no contact with America.<br /><br />"...are is in line with my contention that complete isolation of Amerindians from the rest of the world led to their genetic divergence from all other humans in a very marked manner."<br /><br />Because Amerindians diverged first and stayed in isolation ever since. The primary split is therefore between the New World and the Old World, not between Africans and non-Africans. It's quite clear in Rosenberg's K=2 that, while the brown cluster (highest frequencies in Africans) is only locally represented in the Americas (Maya), the purple cluster (highest frequencies in America) extends, at low frequencies, through all of the African populations. The frequencies of the purple Amerindian cluster are higher the closer the region is to America geographically.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33375778729222062092010-07-29T20:20:38.548+03:002010-07-29T20:20:38.548+03:00I see it differently. In Rosenberg, there's an...<i>I see it differently. In Rosenberg, there's an Amerindian cluster at K=2 in which Eurasian and Oceanic clusters are nested. Even Africa has traces of the Amerindian cluster. Then the Amerindian "substrate" slowly recedes at K=3 in Africa and Europe and at K=4 in East Asia and Oceania, then, finally, Oceania breaks off from the East Asian cluster. Once again, this is the real evolutionary history of human populations: from small isolated demes to large aggregated populations. At first, as John Locke once put it, all the world was America.</i><br /><br />The Amerindian cluster emerges at K=4, not before, and the extremely small (except one Japanese individual and to a much lesser extent one Oroqen individual and one Pathan individual) traces of the Amerindian cluster (beginning from K=4) in non-Amerindian populations can easily be explained as a result of limited pecision in discenring Amerindian-originated and non-Amerindian-originated sections of the DNA, so those "traces" may not be Amerindian traces, but a result of limited precision in methodology thus a human error. Another explanation is that they may be traces of an ancient population that contributed both to Amerindians and to some Eurasian populations (especially eastern ones) and maybe to a lesser extent also some Africans (see the end of my previous post). <br /><br /><i>Consistent with the non-African origin of modern humans.</i><br /><br />It may instead be a result of the sampling strategy.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68070243237135673802010-07-29T14:36:29.351+03:002010-07-29T14:36:29.351+03:00Aldamiz: Different algorithms and sampling strateg...Aldamiz: <i>Different algorithms and sampling strategies seem to produce the low level sets at different orders, that's pretty clear. Here we only get the Amerindian sample at K=4 but they are only two populations, in Rosenberg 2002 the Amerindian cluster arises at K=3 (and the East Asian one at K=5)</i><br /><br />Pontikos: <i>That is incorrect. In Rosenberg et al. (2002) there is no "Amerindian" cluster at K=3, but rather a Mongoloid one encompassing both East Asians and Amerindians. This Mongoloid cluster is split off at K=4, and that is when the East Asian cluster emerges, and not at K=5.</i><br /><br />You are both partially wrong. In Rosenberg et al. 2002 the Amerindian cluster emerges at K=4 and the East Asian (Asian Mongoloid) cluster emerges at K=5 (look at when Melanesians and Papuans separate from East Asians). Next time look at the populations more carefully. <br /><br />BTW, Amerindians' earlier separation from East Asians than Melanesians/Papuans at Ks in Rosenberg et al. 2002 despite Amerindians being closer to East Asians by origin than Melanesians/Papuans are is in line with my contention that complete isolation of Amerindians from the rest of the world led to their genetic divergence from all other humans in a very marked manner. <br /><br />In this last study (Xing et al. 2010) we again see Amerindians' very early separation from East Asians and the rest of the world at Ks (I think with increases in precision in methods such distinctions and separations will be more clear in the future studies).<br /><br />Marnie: <i>It is highly improbable that Kyrgyzstanis walked straight from central Asia and plunked themselves down in the Bolivian Andes.</i><br /><br />No, what they propose must be that both Central Asians (including Mongolians here) and Amerindians have in their DNA remnants of an ancient population that over time largely disappeared elsewhere in Eurasia (note that yellow component at K=4 can also be found - albeit in much smaller amounts - in many East Asian and even in some European populations). I agree that it is premature to make such a quick conclusion from just one study.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90359955868947088952010-07-29T04:32:39.924+03:002010-07-29T04:32:39.924+03:00"That is incorrect. In Rosenberg et al. (2002..."That is incorrect. In Rosenberg et al. (2002) there is no "Amerindian" cluster at K=3, but rather a Mongoloid one encompassing both East Asians and Amerindians. This Mongoloid cluster is split off at K=4, and that is when the East Asian cluster emerges, and not at K=5."<br /><br />I see it differently. In Rosenberg, there's an Amerindian cluster at K=2 in which Eurasian and Oceanic clusters are nested. Even Africa has traces of the Amerindian cluster. Then the Amerindian "substrate" slowly recedes at K=3 in Africa and Europe and at K=4 in East Asia and Oceania, then, finally, Oceania breaks off from the East Asian cluster. Once again, this is the real evolutionary history of human populations: from small isolated demes to large aggregated populations. At first, as John Locke once put it, all the world was America.<br /><br />"in Behar 2010, where there are no Amerindians, Africans and West Eurasians only diverge after East Asians do contradicting somewhat the common genetic wisdom that Africans must diverge first (and also Rosenberg's pattern)."<br /><br />Consistent with the non-African origin of modern humans. Usually, Amerindians don't make the published sample if the data shows that they diverged first.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32123994255261722512010-07-29T00:07:43.770+03:002010-07-29T00:07:43.770+03:00The Caucasoid component in Bolivians and the Toton...<i>The Caucasoid component in Bolivians and the Totonac is almost certainly...</i><br /><br />Here by component I mean components in the ADMIXTURE analysis.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71278992633631915102010-07-28T21:41:29.968+03:002010-07-28T21:41:29.968+03:00replace green with yellow to correct my previous p...replace green with yellow to correct my previous postprincenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63543089047369727202010-07-28T21:09:08.408+03:002010-07-28T21:09:08.408+03:00Get your theories straightened out. You suggest th...<i>Get your theories straightened out. You suggest that Native Americans had ancestors in Asia that were related to Caucasoids. Now that I've proven that many Native Americans do not show this alleged relationship, you are backpedalling without offering an explanation.</i><br /><br />As I said, that paper neither includes the Totonac nor Bolivians, so the issue is open to speculation. Your quotation from me is just one of the possible scenarios to explain the 20% issue, many other scenarios are possible. So there doesn't need to be a connection with Caucasoids.<br /><br /><i>Moreover, the great variability of this component in Bolivians proves beyond any doubt that it is not any "Paleolithic" element, in which case it would be uniformly distributed across Bolivians, but rather the product of recent admixture with Europeans.</i><br /><br />The Caucasoid component in Bolivians and the Totonac is almost certainly from recent European admixture, I have no objection to that. But it is so insignificant (especially in the Totonac) that it doesn't confirm your "20% European admixture in the Totonac" argument. In the ADMIXTURE analysis many Totonac and Bolivian individuals appear pure Native Americans if the components are to be believed. So the Totonac and Bolivian individuals remotest to Caucasoids on the PCA plot may really be pure Native Americans.<br /><br /><i>I also direct interested readers to Auton et al.<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914618107.full.pdf+html<br /><br />which show once again that some Amerindian groups have Caucasoid admixture while others do not (K=3)</i><br /><br />I already gave answers to these.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54087679458233825622010-07-28T20:18:04.550+03:002010-07-28T20:18:04.550+03:00Different algorithms and sampling strategies seem ...<i>Different algorithms and sampling strategies seem to produce the low level sets at different orders, that's pretty clear. Here we only get the Amerindian sample at K=4 but they are only two populations, in Rosenberg 2002 the Amerindian cluster arises at K=3 (and the East Asian one at K=5)</i><br /><br />That is incorrect. In Rosenberg et al. (2002) there is no "Amerindian" cluster at K=3, but rather a Mongoloid one encompassing both East Asians and Amerindians. This Mongoloid cluster is split off at K=4, and that is when the East Asian cluster emerges, and not at K=5.<br /><br />onur said:<br /><br /><i>Rosenberg's study is irrelevant as it doesn't include the Totonac and Bolivians and uses different and outdated methods.</i><br /><br />he had previously said:<br /><br /><i> it may be due to a Paleolithic connection between the ancestors of today's Caucasoids and the still Asia-dwelling ancestors of Native Americans. </i><br /><br />Get your theories straightened out. You suggest that Native Americans had ancestors in Asia that were related to Caucasoids. Now that I've proven that many Native Americans do not show this alleged relationship, you are backpedalling without offering an explanation.<br /><br />If the ancestors of Native Americans were related to Caucasoids, then we might expect to find spurious low-level "Caucasoid" admixture across Amerindian groups. However, that is not the case, and we find it only in _some_ groups and not in others.<br /><br />Moreover, the great variability of this component in Bolivians proves beyond any doubt that it is not any "Paleolithic" element, in which case it would be uniformly distributed across Bolivians, but rather the product of recent admixture with Europeans.<br /><br />I also direct interested readers to Auton et al.<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914618107.full.pdf+html<br /><br />which show once again that some Amerindian groups have Caucasoid admixture while others do not (K=3)Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34314334491264159672010-07-28T19:30:32.035+03:002010-07-28T19:30:32.035+03:00now that native American discussion has been settl...now that native American discussion has been settled, can someone tell me the significance of Japan being almost entirely blue. If Japan were to have a small amount of admixture from Southeast Asia because of Neolithic Migrations (rice agriculturists) would Japan necessarily have green? <br /><br />I don't really understand these maps. For example even though Northwestern Europe has very little red I know that Europeans at one point or another mostly came from middle eastern populations. So I assume grey and red are distinguished by more recent evolution. But do grey and red have similar variability (are they are the same "level"). If grey exists must there necessarily be a population with all grey. <br /><br />In the case of Japan does being nearly all blue mean that they just lie on one end of the spectrum in Asia or does it mean they lack a "green people" migration which the rest of Asia got?princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74691923839313381602010-07-28T17:09:12.117+03:002010-07-28T17:09:12.117+03:00Returning to the topic at hand, I will state that ...Returning to the topic at hand, I will state that the final statement of the authors of this paper seems premature.<br /><br />The authors were careful to use the term "substantial affinity." <br /><br />It is highly improbable that Kyrgyzstanis walked straight from central Asia and plunked themselves down in the Bolivian Andes. <br /><br />Living in a Latino part of San Francisco, I often see people from Central America who look to be various flavors of Asian and Central Asian, even Persian. However, I always stop myself from extrapolating to any easy conclusion. <br /><br />It's interesting, but something that will take many careful studies to unravel.<br /><br />The real story is probably far more interesting than any easy conclusion.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27429231080308047602010-07-28T16:09:08.667+03:002010-07-28T16:09:08.667+03:00Case closed.
In order for the case to be closed, ...<i>Case closed.</i><br /><br />In order for the case to be closed, we should see more genetic studies of the Totonac (especially haplogroup studies as European and Native American haplogroups are almost totally different from each other). Rosenberg's study is irrelevant as it doesn't include the Totonac and Bolivians and uses different and outdated methods.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43879005733868782982010-07-28T15:34:51.607+03:002010-07-28T15:34:51.607+03:00Different algorithms and sampling strategies seem ...Different algorithms and sampling strategies seem to produce the low level sets at different orders, that's pretty clear. Here we only get the Amerindian sample at K=4 but they are only two populations, in Rosenberg 2002 the Amerindian cluster arises at K=3 (and the East Asian one at K=5) and in Behar 2010, where there are no Amerindians, Africans and West Eurasians only diverge after East Asians do contradicting somewhat the common genetic wisdom that Africans must diverge first (and also Rosenberg's pattern). <br /><br />In Rosenberg'02, Amerindians are more numerous overall and anyhow only an order of the production of the clusters is found, as East Asians (who could appear also "mixed with Caucasoids" at K=3) reveal themselves as a distinct cluster at K=4. <br /><br />The comparison is perfectly valid but just in order to understand that low level Ks are meaningless and that sampling strategies are important. There's an equation to estimate the optimal number of clusters but in general it needs to be quite high, specially when we try to understand hugely diverse populations such as Humankind as a whole. <br /><br />A totally different case is when you want to estimate admixture between two discretely distinct populations such as in African Americans, then K=2 (or K=3 if you also mean to estimate Amerindian input) is enough and further clusters should reveal nothing but subclusters of the two/three matrix populations (IDK stuff like Mandinga and Mozabican).<br /><br />I'm pretty much disappointed of the low level of the debate anyhow. So bye (unsubscribing).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54501512446305247512010-07-28T14:34:51.580+03:002010-07-28T14:34:51.580+03:00Marnie: you're talking of mainstream Mexicans,...<i>Marnie: you're talking of mainstream Mexicans, usually called Mestizos (essentially in Mexico anyone who is not Indio is Mestizo, either by blood or culture) but there are still rather unmixed Native Americans in Mexico, of which this Totonac are a sample. Not all Mexicans are the same.</i><br /><br />The funny thing is, the paper Marnie linked to clearly differentiates between these two groups: <br /><br />1) Hispanics/Latinos/Mestizos/Mulattos <br /><br />2) Native Americans<br /><br />Off the topic, Marnie, what does being comprised of a single haplogroup have to do with race and racial purity?<br /><br /><i>onur, you continue to disrespect the rules of this blog, by quadruple posting, submitting the same post twice, etc.<br /><br />This is the last warning.</i><br /><br />Again I am dreadfully sorry, Dieneke, I promise there won't be a next time.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7778421092746738492010-07-28T14:14:29.390+03:002010-07-28T14:14:29.390+03:00Maju, your irrational opinions in the face of over...Maju, your irrational opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are becoming tiresome. It is a very bad trait to stick to an opinion after you have been shown evidence that you are wrong.<br /><br />Amerindian groups that lack European admixture do exist, and the lack of such admixture is evident at K=3.<br /><br />For example, see Figure 1 in Rosenberg et al. (2002) <br /><br />http://rosenberglab.bioinformatics.med.umich.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf<br /><br />Where most Amerindian groups lack any West Eurasian admixture at K=3, while one Amerindian group (the Maya) possess it.<br /><br />Case closed.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91062590303586767142010-07-28T14:04:47.261+03:002010-07-28T14:04:47.261+03:00onur, you continue to disrespect the rules of this...onur, you continue to disrespect the rules of this blog, by quadruple posting, submitting the same post twice, etc.<br /><br />This is the last warning.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69385344773607225612010-07-28T09:59:25.493+03:002010-07-28T09:59:25.493+03:00That purity and impurity I asked was...
also the ...<i>That purity and impurity I asked was...</i><br /><br />also the purity and impurity I mentioned throughout this threadOnur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30811161197886492672010-07-28T03:59:52.619+03:002010-07-28T03:59:52.619+03:00You have answered none of my questions
except giv...<i>You have answered none of my questions</i><br /><br />except giving link to that study of courseOnur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21878613104368018392010-07-28T03:20:12.005+03:002010-07-28T03:20:12.005+03:00Marnie,
You have answered none of my questions an...Marnie,<br /><br />You have answered none of my questions and are instead resorting to discussions of unrelated subjects. That purity and impurity I asked was purity and impurity from outside genetic admixture (mainly European) within the last 500 years (i.e., beginning from Columbus), nothing else. BTW, the Native Americans (not Hispanics/Latinos) tested in the study you linked are fairly pure in this sense according to the frappe analysis (except, to an extent, the Maya and Quechua). But that study doesn't include the Totonac or Bolivians or even any East or Central Asian population and is thus irrelevant to our discussion. My whole point is that a similar purity can be proposed for the Totonac and, to a lesser extent, Bolivians tested in this study based on the ADMIXTURE analysis results. I don't understand what you disagree with on this issue (terminology or arguments themselves?).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65256262254885210232010-07-28T03:14:34.127+03:002010-07-28T03:14:34.127+03:00Marnie: you're talking of mainstream Mexicans,...Marnie: you're talking of mainstream Mexicans, usually called Mestizos (essentially in Mexico anyone who is not Indio is Mestizo, either by blood or culture) but there are still rather unmixed Native Americans in Mexico, of which this Totonac are a sample. Not all Mexicans are the same. <br /><br />The cluster graph and data is very clear about that and, at least in this case, Onur is correct IMNSHO. When Native Americans are admixed, that does happen, it's very evident at all levels. Cluster algorithms are ideal for that but first you have to detect the two mixing clusters and the Native American cluster here only arises at K=4.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87547072670597543842010-07-27T21:14:05.339+03:002010-07-27T21:14:05.339+03:00Onur,
We've had many interesting discussions ...Onur,<br /><br />We've had many interesting discussions and I respect your thoughtfulness. You and I, we've run across this before, this discussion about race. I've mentioned that the notion of "racial purity" or "impurity", to me, is somewhat ridiculous in a scientific discussion. We only need to look to the latest paper on the Malana to see how unscientific such a term can be. The Malana, a genetically isolated population, is comprised of at least three y-dna haplogroups, likely originating from different parts of Western Eurasia. That doesn't even get to their autosomal DNA. <br /><br />The people of the Americas, or the people of Europe, for that matter, are also not comprised of a single haplogroup.<br /><br />That's not to say that there are not genetic isolates and identities. However, the term "racial purity" is not a precise or meaningful scientific term.<br /><br />I would respectfully say that I am uncomfortable engaging in any discuss about genetics when that term is used.<br /><br />Regarding the paper on population structure in Hispanics:<br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05/population-structure-in-hispanics-bryc.html<br /> <br />It's instructive to read the histories of Cortes, Pizarro, and Bolivar, for starters, to piece together a picture of the genetic complexity of Central and South America. <br /><br />I'm sure that La Malinche was only one of many thousands of women who where mothers of children with European fathers:<br /><br />La Malinche:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_MalincheMarniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.com