Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm

The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No. "Although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces." "While the limitations of the genetic-ancestry tests are complex, here we focus on a few key points: (1) the social construction of ethnic labels that are being mapped onto biology; (2) the limited geographical and cultural representation of the world’s people in existing genetic databases; and (3) the incomplete, fragmented record of the past in any person’s DNA." Reference is also made to: "Who's More Irish, You or Your Sibling? The Surprising Science Behind the Inheritance of Ethnicity" It is a given, that "most siblings have a different mix of ethnicities due to the random nature of genetic inheritance". "If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor." This uncertainty, that cannot be accurately calibrated, professionally invalidates answers to specific questions. Different segments of DNA are randomly passed down to create an individual's DNA. This shows up in variations found in the DNA of siblings, as well as in the fact that everyone has a different set of finger prints, or that in the fact that "everyone's eyes are wired differently". "DNA determines the color and structure of the iris, but its random pits, furrows, swirls, and rifts occur during fetal development, which makes every iris unique (even your two irises don’t match each other)." "Bodyprint . . . touch sensor . . . scan users’ body parts, such as ears, fingers, fists, and palms by pressing them against the display." "Cheilosopy deals with the study of elevations and depressions which form a characteristic pattern on the external surface of the lips. Lip grooves are considered to be unique and analogous to the fingerprint." "New oral features can be considered unique as a fingerprint". In fact there are "11 Body Parts Researchers Will Use to Track You". "Are toeprints unique, like fingerprints?" "Yes they are." "You're more unique than you know". . . . even identical twins have different DNA. Using second generation genome sequencing, . . . "you find that once that fertilized egg splits there are random mutations that are happening and that can be used to identify differences between twins." So the real question is: "Are Fingerprint Patterns Inherited?" Etc.? "There is an inheritance component to fingerprint patterns but the genetics of how they are inherited are complicated. (Multiple genes are involved.) Fingerprints are also affected by a person's environment while developing in the womb." . . . "Because each person's fingerprints are unique, and not even identical twins—who share the same DNA—have identical fingerprints, this also shows that fingerprints are not completely controlled by genetics." Which then brings up the final question that is not being asked generationally; namely, "Are genetics completely controlled by genetics?" The answers come: "During pregnancy, cells from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's body, where they can become part of her tissues." "The mother's body accumulates cells from each baby--and potentially functions as a reservoir, transferring cells from the older sibling into the younger one and forming more elaborate microchimeras." Studies show that DNA has changes as people age, in DNA methylation, linked to diseases like cancer and autoimmune disorders. "Mitochondrial circulating DNA (m-cirDNA) was also elevated in patients with cancer and disorders associated with massive cell damage, such as acute ischemic stroke"; remembering, at the same time, that it is Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is passed down almost unchanged from a mother to her children, allowing tracing of maternal ancestry; apparently now to be adjusted by health and age issues, as well as more elaborate microchimeras. "In the last decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies describing altered MtDNA or Mt/N in circulation in common nongenetic diseases where mitochondrial dysfunction may play a role (for review see Malik and Czajka, Mitochondrion 13:481-492, 2013). These studies are distinct from those looking at genetic mitochondrial disease and are attempting to identify acquired changes in circulating MtDNA content as an indicator of mitochondrial function. However, the methodology being used is not always specific and reproducible." In fact, "Genes May Be Linked To Tooth Decay, Gum Disease", noted by using the only one of a kind, University of Pittsburgh dental registry and the DNA Repository. Gait on.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2016.1105990
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adopting-reason/201607/dna-tests-ethnic-ancestry-in-adoption-skeptic-s-view
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/whos-more-irish-you-or-your-sibling/?o_xid=76884&o_lid=76884&o_sch=Content+Marketing
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/unique-body-parts/
http://www.christianholz.net/bodyprint.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789909
http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2014/01/new-oral-features-can-be-considered-unique-as-a-fingerprint.html
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/11-body-parts-researchers-will-use-to-track-you/
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-toeprints-unique-fingerprints
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/health/unique-body-parts/index.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/9/1165.long
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/succession-science-are-fingerprint-patterns-inherited/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414163/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032717306614
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25631009
http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/conditions/gum-disease/article/ada-04-genes-may-be-linked-to-tooth-decay-gum-disease
http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~kale/avbpa.pdf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No. "Although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces." "While the limitations of the genetic-ancestry tests are complex, here we focus on a few key points: (1) the social construction of ethnic labels that are being mapped onto biology; (2) the limited geographical and cultural representation of the world’s people in existing genetic databases; and (3) the incomplete, fragmented record of the past in any person’s DNA." Reference is also made to: "Who's More Irish, You or Your Sibling? The Surprising Science Behind the Inheritance of Ethnicity" It is a given, that "most siblings have a different mix of ethnicities due to the random nature of genetic inheritance". "If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor." This uncertainty, that cannot be accurately calibrated, professionally invalidates answers to specific questions. Different segments of DNA are randomly passed down to create an individual's DNA. This shows up in variations found in the DNA of siblings, as well as in the fact that everyone has a different set of finger prints, or that in the fact that "everyone's eyes are wired differently". "DNA determines the color and structure of the iris, but its random pits, furrows, swirls, and rifts occur during fetal development, which makes every iris unique (even your two irises don’t match each other)." "Bodyprint . . . touch sensor . . . scan users’ body parts, such as ears, fingers, fists, and palms by pressing them against the display." "Cheilosopy deals with the study of elevations and depressions which form a characteristic pattern on the external surface of the lips. Lip grooves are considered to be unique and analogous to the fingerprint." "New oral features can be considered unique as a fingerprint". In fact there are "11 Body Parts Researchers Will Use to Track You". "Are toeprints unique, like fingerprints?" "Yes they are." "You're more unique than you know". . . . even identical twins have different DNA. Using second generation genome sequencing, . . . "you find that once that fertilized egg splits there are random mutations that are happening and that can be used to identify differences between twins." So the real question is: "Are Fingerprint Patterns Inherited?" Etc.? "There is an inheritance component to fingerprint patterns but the genetics of how they are inherited are complicated. (Multiple genes are involved.) Fingerprints are also affected by a person's environment while developing in the womb." . . . "Because each person's fingerprints are unique, and not even identical twins—who share the same DNA—have identical fingerprints, this also shows that fingerprints are not completely controlled by genetics." Which then brings up the final question that is not being asked generationally; namely, "Are genetics completely controlled by genetics?" The answers come: "During pregnancy, cells from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's body, where they can become part of her tissues." "The mother's body accumulates cells from each baby--and potentially functions as a reservoir, transferring cells from the older sibling into the younger one and forming more elaborate microchimeras." Studies show that DNA has changes as people age, in DNA methylation, linked to diseases like cancer and autoimmune disorders. "Mitochondrial circulating DNA (m-cirDNA) was also elevated in patients with cancer and disorders associated with massive cell damage, such as acute ischemic stroke"; remembering, at the same time, that it is Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is passed down almost unchanged from a mother to her children, allowing tracing of maternal ancestry; apparently now to be adjusted by health and age issues, as well as more elaborate microchimeras. "In the last decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies describing altered MtDNA or Mt/N in circulation in common nongenetic diseases where mitochondrial dysfunction may play a role (for review see Malik and Czajka, Mitochondrion 13:481-492, 2013). These studies are distinct from those looking at genetic mitochondrial disease and are attempting to identify acquired changes in circulating MtDNA content as an indicator of mitochondrial function. However, the methodology being used is not always specific and reproducible." In fact, "Genes May Be Linked To Tooth Decay, Gum Disease", noted by using the only one of a kind, University of Pittsburgh dental registry and the DNA Repository. Gait on.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2016.1105990
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adopting-reason/201607/dna-tests-ethnic-ancestry-in-adoption-skeptic-s-view
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/whos-more-irish-you-or-your-sibling/?o_xid=76884&o_lid=76884&o_sch=Content+Marketing
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/unique-body-parts/
http://www.christianholz.net/bodyprint.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789909
http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2014/01/new-oral-features-can-be-considered-unique-as-a-fingerprint.html
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/11-body-parts-researchers-will-use-to-track-you/
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-toeprints-unique-fingerprints
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/health/unique-body-parts/index.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/9/1165.long
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/succession-science-are-fingerprint-patterns-inherited/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414163/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032717306614
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25631009
http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/conditions/gum-disease/article/ada-04-genes-may-be-linked-to-tooth-decay-gum-disease
http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~kale/avbpa.pdf

Secular science notes that: "Stephen Hawking has worked on the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes." By his theory, we are contained (all life forms) in an enclosed cube of Universe, surrounding a "tree of life" Octahedron, a point beginning in non-living matter, and ending up in a future event horizon as an absorbed, regurgitated extinction. In contradiction to these assertions, the Bible records a different "tree of life", capable of only reproducing within certain designated, fixed (genetic) boundaries, where minor changes normally occur only within the different related groups of animals, and other living organisms. The ancient Hebrew " tree of life" menorah, based upon the One God, branches out by His creative power into individual, separate, reproducing branches of all life forms, not stacked, one upon the other, from least to greatest, but distinctly individualistic, "flowerlike cups, buds and blossoms". Biblical, or Septuagint rights of primogeniture, through the principal virgin wife's first born male, provides genetic, best possible transfer of the Y chromosome, without harmful gene mutations, from the father, to his own posterity. "Y chromosome influences immune and inflammatory responses in men, translating into genetically programmed susceptibility to diseases with a strong immune component." Ancient Israelite moral laws were based upon rules of conduct that reduced, or eliminated malformations in posterity, indicating that there was a precise genetic understanding, by their Author (Jehovah). Close affiliation of DNA evidence between species, down to the base building blocks of genes, manifests a knowing God was aware of all genetic segments of DNA: deleted some, duplicated others, and inserted one part of a genome into another, in His acts of creation and replication.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/about-stephen.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhedron#/media/File:Dual_Cube-Octahedron.svg
Loading Image...
[Menorah symbolizes the creation (derived stems) in seven days, with the center light representing the Sabbath.]
http://jerusalemstone.theisraelboutique.com/what-does-the-menorah-symbolize.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2017128
NOTES: [The almond blossom supplied a model for the menorah which stood in the Holy Temple.] [Today, California’s Central Valley leads the world in global almond production.] [All parts of the almond tree contain taxifolin, a natural compound that has anti-tumor properties.] [Taxifolin has shown to have anti-proliferative effects on many types of cancer cells by inhibiting cancer cell lipogenesis. By inhibiting the fatty acid synthase in cancer cells, taxifolin is able to prevent the growth and spread of cancer cells.] [Almond blossoms are available in the early spring.] [Spring and "springtime" refer to the season, and also to ideas of rebirth, rejuvenation, renewal, resurrection and regrowth.]

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No. "Although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces." "While the limitations of the genetic-ancestry tests are complex, here we focus on a few key points: (1) the social construction of ethnic labels that are being mapped onto biology; (2) the limited geographical and cultural representation of the world’s people in existing genetic databases; and (3) the incomplete, fragmented record of the past in any person’s DNA." Reference is also made to: "Who's More Irish, You or Your Sibling? The Surprising Science Behind the Inheritance of Ethnicity" It is a given, that "most siblings have a different mix of ethnicities due to the random nature of genetic inheritance". "If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor." This uncertainty, that cannot be accurately calibrated, professionally invalidates answers to specific questions. Different segments of DNA are randomly passed down to create an individual's DNA. This shows up in variations found in the DNA of siblings, as well as in the fact that everyone has a different set of finger prints, or that in the fact that "everyone's eyes are wired differently". "DNA determines the color and structure of the iris, but its random pits, furrows, swirls, and rifts occur during fetal development, which makes every iris unique (even your two irises don’t match each other)." "Bodyprint . . . touch sensor . . . scan users’ body parts, such as ears, fingers, fists, and palms by pressing them against the display." "Cheilosopy deals with the study of elevations and depressions which form a characteristic pattern on the external surface of the lips. Lip grooves are considered to be unique and analogous to the fingerprint." "New oral features can be considered unique as a fingerprint". In fact there are "11 Body Parts Researchers Will Use to Track You". "Are toeprints unique, like fingerprints?" "Yes they are." "You're more unique than you know". . . . even identical twins have different DNA. Using second generation genome sequencing, . . . "you find that once that fertilized egg splits there are random mutations that are happening and that can be used to identify differences between twins." So the real question is: "Are Fingerprint Patterns Inherited?" Etc.? "There is an inheritance component to fingerprint patterns but the genetics of how they are inherited are complicated. (Multiple genes are involved.) Fingerprints are also affected by a person's environment while developing in the womb." . . . "Because each person's fingerprints are unique, and not even identical twins—who share the same DNA—have identical fingerprints, this also shows that fingerprints are not completely controlled by genetics." Which then brings up the final question that is not being asked generationally; namely, "Are genetics completely controlled by genetics?" The answers come: "During pregnancy, cells from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's body, where they can become part of her tissues." "The mother's body accumulates cells from each baby--and potentially functions as a reservoir, transferring cells from the older sibling into the younger one and forming more elaborate microchimeras." Studies show that DNA has changes as people age, in DNA methylation, linked to diseases like cancer and autoimmune disorders. "Mitochondrial circulating DNA (m-cirDNA) was also elevated in patients with cancer and disorders associated with massive cell damage, such as acute ischemic stroke"; remembering, at the same time, that it is Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is passed down almost unchanged from a mother to her children, allowing tracing of maternal ancestry; apparently now to be adjusted by health and age issues, as well as more elaborate microchimeras. "In the last decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies describing altered MtDNA or Mt/N in circulation in common nongenetic diseases where mitochondrial dysfunction may play a role (for review see Malik and Czajka, Mitochondrion 13:481-492, 2013). These studies are distinct from those looking at genetic mitochondrial disease and are attempting to identify acquired changes in circulating MtDNA content as an indicator of mitochondrial function. However, the methodology being used is not always specific and reproducible." In fact, "Genes May Be Linked To Tooth Decay, Gum Disease", noted by using the only one of a kind, University of Pittsburgh dental registry and the DNA Repository. Gait on.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2016.1105990
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adopting-reason/201607/dna-tests-ethnic-ancestry-in-adoption-skeptic-s-view
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/whos-more-irish-you-or-your-sibling/?o_xid=76884&o_lid=76884&o_sch=Content+Marketing
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/unique-body-parts/
http://www.christianholz.net/bodyprint.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789909
http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2014/01/new-oral-features-can-be-considered-unique-as-a-fingerprint.html
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/11-body-parts-researchers-will-use-to-track-you/
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-toeprints-unique-fingerprints
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/health/unique-body-parts/index.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/9/1165.long
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/succession-science-are-fingerprint-patterns-inherited/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414163/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032717306614
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25631009
http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/conditions/gum-disease/article/ada-04-genes-may-be-linked-to-tooth-decay-gum-disease
http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~kale/avbpa.pdf

UPDATED:
Secular science notes that: "Stephen Hawking has worked on the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes." By his theory, we are contained (all life forms) in an enclosed cube of Universe, surrounding a "tree of life" Octahedron, a point beginning in non-living matter, and ending up in a future event horizon as an absorbed, regurgitated extinction. [Cyclic Universe: quantum physics universe reincarnation (modern religious theosophy movement, connected to more ancient South Asian and East Asian traditions) through an infinite cycle of starting Big Bangs and Big Crunches reverses (recollapses).] In contradiction to these assertions, the Bible records a different "tree of life", capable of only reproducing within certain designated, fixed (genetic) boundaries, where minor changes normally occur only within the different related groups of animals, and other living organisms. The ancient Hebrew " tree of life" menorah, based upon the One God, branches out by His creative power into individual, separate, reproducing branches of all life forms, not stacked, one upon the other, from least to greatest, but distinctly individualistic, "flowerlike cups, buds and blossoms". [JST - In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him (Jesus Christ | Jehovah); and without him was not anything made which was made.] Biblical, or Septuagint rights of primogeniture, through the principal virgin wife's first born male, provides genetic, best possible transfer of the Y chromosome, without harmful gene mutations, from the father, to his own posterity. "Y chromosome influences immune and inflammatory responses in men, translating into genetically programmed susceptibility to diseases with a strong immune component." Ancient Israelite moral laws were based upon rules of conduct that reduced, or eliminated malformations in posterity, indicating that there was a precise genetic understanding, by their Author (Jesus Christ | Jehovah). Close affiliation of DNA evidence between species, down to the base building blocks of genes, manifests a knowing God was aware of all genetic segments of DNA: deleted some, duplicated others, and inserted one part of a genome into another, in His acts of creation and replication.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/about-stephen.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhedron#/media/File:Dual_Cube-Octahedron.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)#/media/File:Menorah_0307.jpg
[Menorah symbolizes the creation (as shown by Hebrew verb binyanim - derived ner tamid stems) in seven days, with the center light representing the Sabbath.]
http://jerusalemstone.theisraelboutique.com/what-does-the-menorah-symbolize.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2017128
NOTES: [The almond blossom supplied a model for the menorah which stood in the Holy Temple.] [Today, California’s Central Valley leads the world in global almond production.] [All parts of the almond tree contain taxifolin, a natural compound that has anti-tumor properties.] [Taxifolin has shown to have anti-proliferative effects on many types of cancer cells by inhibiting cancer cell lipogenesis. By inhibiting the fatty acid synthase in cancer cells, taxifolin is able to prevent the growth and spread of cancer cells.] [Almond blossoms are available in the early spring.] [Spring and "springtime" refer to the season, and also to ideas of rebirth, rejuvenation, renewal, resurrection and regrowth.]

[taf]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:52:49 AM UTC-8, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote:

Several essays on DNA.

I guess it is worth repeating that these contributions on DNA derive from misinterpreted Google search results and misapplication/misunderstanding of scientific findings. Nothing said about DNA or so-called secular science ('secular' science is just science that is inconveniently inconsistent with faith-based dogma) can be taken at face value, let alone be mistaken for a representation of expertise.

Yes, DNA can answer genealogical questions, if the question is phrased precisely, addresses something amenable to DNA testing, and appropriate samples are available.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf
Several essays on DNA.
I guess it is worth repeating that these contributions on DNA derive from misinterpreted Google search results and misapplication/misunderstanding of scientific findings. Nothing said about DNA or so-called secular science ('secular' science is just science that is inconveniently inconsistent with faith-based dogma) can be taken at face value, let alone be mistaken for a representation of expertise.

Well said - I didn't read the "several essays" but it amazes me that
anyone would try to use 'secular science' as if this is a meaningful
concept. Presumably the adjective is supposed to contrast this pursuit
with 'religious' science, that presumably means some kind of theology in
whole or in part. This is a field of enquiry that has not moved far in
any religion or confession since the medieval era - and that is anyway
incapable of moving far without abandoning its own premises in whatever
orthodoxy, only to make way for self-serving inventions like
Scientology. In other words, not science at all. Our medieval ancestors
did not know enough about nature to understand or admit this point.
Modern people who are honest certainly should.

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Peter Stewart
Well said - I didn't read the "several essays" but it amazes me that
anyone would try to use 'secular science' as if this is a meaningful
concept. Presumably the adjective is supposed to contrast this pursuit
with 'religious' science, that presumably means some kind of theology in
whole or in part. This is a field of enquiry that has not moved far in
any religion or confession since the medieval era - and that is anyway
incapable of moving far without abandoning its own premises in whatever
orthodoxy, only to make way for self-serving inventions like
Scientology. In other words, not science at all. Our medieval ancestors
did not know enough about nature to understand or admit this point.
Modern people who are honest certainly should.

OT I guess but indeed all modern science is "secular science" by definition, because Francis Bacon's proposal to avoid all metaphysics in order to make science work better was eventually accepted, and has been spectacularly successful. Some time ago in fact. Theologists living in the past can call modern science "technology" (mere "art") if they want to reserve the classical word for a "science" which allows for metaphysical explanations such as whether nature has ends. But modern science/technology is purely practical by intention and takes what works as the gold standard. But this means discussion of ends does not add anything to this particular discussion, which is about what works and what is useful. Furthermore, 99.9999% of English speakers will not understand anyone who insists on twisting modern English using classical understandings in this way! :)

As to the original question I think everyone responding is agreeing: Yes genetics can often be extremely helpful in resolving questions of ancestry. This of course does not mean it can resolve every question to the point of consensus, but that is obviously a standard of success which would be ridiculous. In any case we can say that this technology is moving quickly and every year more types of question can be successfully dealt with.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf
Several essays on DNA.
I guess it is worth repeating that these contributions on DNA derive from misinterpreted Google search results and misapplication/misunderstanding of scientific findings. Nothing said about DNA or so-called secular science ('secular' science is just science that is inconveniently inconsistent with faith-based dogma) can be taken at face value, let alone be mistaken for a representation of expertise.
Yes, DNA can answer genealogical questions, if the question is phrased precisely, addresses something amenable to DNA testing, and appropriate samples are available.
taf

===============================================
TAF, or is it just "taf"? I wish that what you just penned was true. It would be so nice. One ancient leader said: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." DNA is consensus research, or as I like to define it: "DNA is the Maybe, between Yea, or Nay." It changes from day to day, from moment to moment, according to weight given to reputation, not of any factual recorded written evidence. It is like playing with an old set of tinker toys, each creation dependent upon someone and their individualistic, childlike observations. "Maybe", or "DNA consensus", has a parallel in biology, in "How the Zombie Fungus Takes Over Ants’ Bodies to Control Their Minds" DNA consensus is a sinister example of the mind control of "Maybe". Interestingly enough, as with ants, brainless cells (quantum physics universe reincarnation, or modern religious scientific theosophy thoughts, i.e., the observer effect) can commandeer the brain of much larger creatures (humans), and they can do that without ever physically touching the brain itself (external force of status). Inherent DNA randomness, cannot answer genealogical questions.
The number of mutations in your DNA as your cells age, may come incredibly close to a general sample population prediction, so as to appear that it has become the reality. Nevertheless, on an individual level (distinct pedigree, or keyed relationship), this estimate offers no absolute validation; thus, a distraction. One infinitesimal error at the genetic level has no mathematical calculus to correct it; as, is true for undocumented written pedigrees. Cheers to you, taf.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-zombie-fungus-takes-over-ants-bodies-to-control-their-minds/545864/
https://books.google.com/books?id=YclsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=Inherent+DNA+randomness&source=bl&ots=RncnwnPEFv&sig=NT-Xc2yEEa76Xx5MCSWQ8i608zE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVlY-D9MXXAhUV3mMKHYOGBEQQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=Inherent%20DNA%20randomness&f=false
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/what-does-randomness-look-like/

[taf]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
One infinitesimal error at the genetic level has no
mathematical calculus to correct it; as, is true for
undocumented written pedigrees.

Complete gibberish, demonstrating perfectly why 'a little knowledge is dangerous.'

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, Complete Gibberish indeed.

Computer Generated?

Ratiocination, indeed "Thinking 101" is not "his" long suit.

DSH

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:11:13 -0800 (PST), taf

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
One infinitesimal error at the genetic level has no
mathematical calculus to correct it; as, is true for
undocumented written pedigrees.

Complete gibberish, demonstrating perfectly why 'a little knowledge is dangerous.'
taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Mr. Tinney ~

With all due respect, Sir, you seem to be changing your original topic.

Your initial question was: "Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?"

You said the correct answer is no.

I replied that based on my own experience with DNA testing that the answer is a resounding yes. I indicated that I've been able to use my recent DNA test to conclusively resolve a long standing genealogical problem in my own ancestry.

If you're unfamiliar with what DNA tests can or can't do, that's certainly understandable Mr. Tinney. The science behind DNA tests is complicated but it is not complex. It can be understood by someone with even average intelligence.

As an aside to everyone, we can do without the personal insults back and forth. Mr. Tinney would not have posted his initial post unless he was seeking to learn more about this most interesting topic.

So let's live and learn. I invite all those who have had their DNA tested to answer Mr. Tinney's original question. Has DNA testing answered a specific question about your individual ancestry? Yes or no? Please provide specifics if necessary.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by taf
Several essays on DNA.
I guess it is worth repeating that these contributions on DNA derive from misinterpreted Google search results and misapplication/misunderstanding of scientific findings. Nothing said about DNA or so-called secular science ('secular' science is just science that is inconveniently inconsistent with faith-based dogma) can be taken at face value, let alone be mistaken for a representation of expertise.
Yes, DNA can answer genealogical questions, if the question is phrased precisely, addresses something amenable to DNA testing, and appropriate samples are available.
taf

===============================================
TAF, or is it just "taf"? I wish that what you just penned was true. It would be so nice. One ancient leader said: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." DNA is consensus research, or as I like to define it: "DNA is the Maybe, between Yea, or Nay." It changes from day to day, from moment to moment, according to weight given to reputation, not of any factual recorded written evidence. It is like playing with an old set of tinker toys, each creation dependent upon someone and their individualistic, childlike observations. "Maybe", or "DNA consensus", has a parallel in biology, in "How the Zombie Fungus Takes Over Ants’ Bodies to Control Their Minds" DNA consensus is a sinister example of the mind control of "Maybe". Interestingly enough, as with ants, brainless cells (quantum physics universe reincarnation, or modern religious scientific theosophy thoughts, i.e., the observer effect) can commandeer the brain of much larger creatures (humans), and they can do that without ever physically touching the brain itself (external force of status). Inherent DNA randomness, cannot answer genealogical questions.
The number of mutations in your DNA as your cells age, may come incredibly close to a general sample population prediction, so as to appear that it has become the reality. Nevertheless, on an individual level (distinct pedigree, or keyed relationship), this estimate offers no absolute validation; thus, a distraction. One infinitesimal error at the genetic level has no mathematical calculus to correct it; as, is true for undocumented written pedigrees. Cheers to you, taf.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-zombie-fungus-takes-over-ants-bodies-to-control-their-minds/545864/
https://books.google.com/books?id=YclsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=Inherent+DNA+randomness&source=bl&ots=RncnwnPEFv&sig=NT-Xc2yEEa76Xx5MCSWQ8i608zE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVlY-D9MXXAhUV3mMKHYOGBEQQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=Inherent%20DNA%20randomness&f=false
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/what-does-randomness-look-like/

[taf]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Mr. Tinney would not have posted his initial post unless he was seeking
to learn more about this most interesting topic.

This is just plain false. Mr. Tinney comes here periodically, not with questions, to learn, but instead claiming to be knowledgeable, with pre-written essays that are intended to proselytize. In the process he is lying to people who may not know enough about the subject to recognize the falsehoods he disguises with misrepresented citations.

Post by Douglas Richardson
So let's live and learn. I invite all those who have had their DNA
tested to answer Mr. Tinney's original question.

Perhaps you should reread his post. He did not ask a question - he made a bold assertion, one that he has repeated in the face of your clear description of an example that showed the assertion to be erroneous.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Douglas Richardson
Mr. Tinney would not have posted his initial post unless he was seeking
to learn more about this most interesting topic.

This is just plain false. Mr. Tinney comes here periodically, not with
questions, to learn, but instead claiming to be knowledgeable, with
pre-written essays that are intended to proselytize.

What a waste of his time and effort! Written proselytising requires some mental activity to process, and that is not at all likely to work in his favour. He would surely do better to take a bullhorn to an event where people gather for the purpose of being mindless together - a revival meeting in Alabama, say, or a fashion parade in New York, or best of all a surfing competition in California.

Peter Stewart

[Nathan Murphy]

Post by Douglas Richardson
So let's live and learn. I invite all those who have had their DNA tested to answer Mr. Tinney's original question. Has DNA testing answered a specific question about your individual ancestry? Yes or no? Please provide specifics if necessary.

Where I work, we have an entire team that uses all types of DNA tests atDNA, y-DNA, mtDNA to solve unknown parentage cases. On average, the team identifies previously unknown biological parents of several adopted people each week. The clues do not come from sealed adoption papers, but typically from inherited atDNA they and other cousins in the big DNA databases share from common ancestors, which can be measured quite precisely by generations removed. When adoptees telephone family members we place them in contact with, and share information, the genetic relationships are verified. If they wish to know with greater certainty they are parent and child, they can then take additional tests.

Nathan

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Nathan Murphy

Post by Douglas Richardson
So let's live and learn. I invite all those who have had their DNA tested to answer Mr. Tinney's original question. Has DNA testing answered a specific question about your individual ancestry? Yes or no? Please provide specifics if necessary.

Where I work, we have an entire team that uses all types of DNA tests atDNA, y-DNA, mtDNA to solve unknown parentage cases. On average, the team identifies previously unknown biological parents of several adopted people each week. The clues do not come from sealed adoption papers, but typically from inherited atDNA they and other cousins in the big DNA databases share from common ancestors, which can be measured quite precisely by generations removed. When adoptees telephone family members we place them in contact with, and share information, the genetic relationships are verified. If they wish to know with greater certainty they are parent and child, they can then take additional tests.
Nathan

====================

UPDATED:
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/170568769666249/permalink/1600363956686716/
[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence.] One's family or ethnic descent.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestor
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestry

[Nathan Murphy]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence.] One's family or ethnic descent.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestor
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestry

All of the genetic tests, with the exception of ancient DNA exhumations, rely on living forensic evidence to tell us about ancestral DNA. The adoptees often match a second (great-grandfather) or third cousin (2g-grandparent) in the database. We then use documentary and geographic evidence to isolate which of the common ancestor's descendants is the adoptees' probable parent. Reviewing shared matches and testing additional relatives further refines the results. What is being detected to make this connection is the DNA of a person who lived in the nineteenth century, which is well within the scope of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of an 'ancestor.' And it's not pseudoscience. I see the process repeated week after week.

Nathan

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Nathan Murphy

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence.] One's family or ethnic descent.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestor
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancestry

All of the genetic tests, with the exception of ancient DNA exhumations, rely on living forensic evidence to tell us about ancestral DNA. The adoptees often match a second (great-grandfather) or third cousin (2g-grandparent) in the database. We then use documentary and geographic evidence to isolate which of the common ancestor's descendants is the adoptees' probable parent. Reviewing shared matches and testing additional relatives further refines the results. What is being detected to make this connection is the DNA of a person who lived in the nineteenth century, which is well within the scope of the Oxford Dictionary's definition of an 'ancestor.' And it's not pseudoscience. I see the process repeated week after week.
Nathan

==========================
Nathan, your answer avoids the commonly known truth, repeated again in the year 2017. "Analysing autosomal DNA to determine ancestry is more of an issue because it is such a patchwork of genetic sequences. The first problem is that it undergoes recombination where varying fragments from both of your parents are joined together. It also occurs quite randomly so this means there will be sections or genes you won’t inherit from your parents. If you go back far enough you will find that you won’t always inherit genes from all of your ancestors. Therefore in your family tree you will have ‘DNA ancestors’ the ones who passed on their genetic material to you, and ‘pedigree ancestors’ the ones who didn’t. Genetic ancestry testing will only ever be able to detect your DNA ancestors, which is not entirely accurate." . . . "The second issue comes in on what gene/ section of DNA you are analysing. Each different gene or section of DNA will have its own ancestry. This is akin to analysing a man’s Y chromosome and his mitochondrial DNA. He will get two completely different stories; his paternal grandfather’s lineage and his maternal grandmother’s lineage. If you apply this principle to autosomal DNA, you can get different sections of DNA telling you different ancestries. Not all genetic companies will look at the same sections of DNA thus you end up getting different results entirely."
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/genetic-ancestry-testing-race/
Note author Danae Dodge received PhD in Scientific Archaeology from University of Sheffield in 2011, which specialised in ancient DNA and anthropology.

[Nathan Murphy]

Nathan, your answer avoids the commonly known truth, repeated again in the year 2017 ...

Thomas, you are avoiding the conclusion that the process works and adoptees are daily reunited with their birth parents.

Nathan

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Nathan Murphy

Nathan, your answer avoids the commonly known truth, repeated again in the year 2017 ...

Thomas, you are avoiding the conclusion that the process works and adoptees are daily reunited with their birth parents.
Nathan

====================
It was never part of the question I asked, and I clarified my post by definition.

[Nathan Murphy]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
====================
It was never part of the question I asked, and I clarified my post by definition.

OT - When a sufficient number of descendants are tested, the genome of a unique deceased ancestor can be reconstructed. This has been accomplished for David Speagle born in the early 1800s.
https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/12/16/ancestrydna-achieves-scientific-advancement-in-human-genome-reconstruction/

For your Mormon interests, a similar project is underway to reconstruct the genome of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith (1805-1844) by Dr. Ugo Perego of Rome.
https://www.gofundme.com/JosephSmithDNA

I find it fascinating that the genomes of ancestors dead more than 150 years can be reconstructed by analyzing the DNA of their living descendants. These ancestors can be uniquely identified, even if their names are unknown and no historical documents survive to record their lives.

Nathan

[Stewart Baldwin]

Post by Nathan Murphy
I find it fascinating that the genomes of ancestors dead more than 150
years can be reconstructed by analyzing the DNA of their living
descendants. These ancestors can be uniquely identified, even if their
names are unknown and no historical documents survive to record their
lives.

This should probably be clarified by putting the words "part of" in
front of the word "genomes".  It would be pretty rare to find an
individual that far back who had passed along all of his/her DNA in a
manner that could be traced with confidence.  This is an exciting idea
in principle.  In practice, it runs into the difficulty that
reconstruction a specific segment of the DNA for a specific person in
the past is a lot of work, and as the method becomes more popular, a
large (perhaps too large) percentage of these "reconstructions" will be
done by individuals who do not sufficiently understand the basics.  This
presents the danger that too many bad reconstructions will mess up the
works so badly that it is hard to find the good ones (i.e., very much
like the current "house of cards" seen in internet genealogy).  If this
is going to be of value to future generations, then such reconstructions
will have to be backed up with enough documentation that they can be
checked by future genealogists.

Stewart Baldwin

[Nathan Murphy]

Post by Stewart Baldwin

Post by Nathan Murphy
I find it fascinating that the genomes of ancestors dead more than 150
years can be reconstructed by analyzing the DNA of their living
descendants. These ancestors can be uniquely identified, even if their
names are unknown and no historical documents survive to record their
lives.

This should probably be clarified by putting the words "part of" in
front of the word "genomes". 

Thanks Stewart. I agree and thought about that after I'd posted.

[Wjhonson]

For me it has confirmed many of my family lines, back to 5th ggrandparents.
And it has also given me the missing surname for one of my 4th great-grandparents

So there's that.







-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Murphy <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 18, 2017 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?

Post by Douglas Richardson
So let's live and learn. I invite all those who have had their DNA tested to answer Mr. Tinney's original question. Has DNA testing answered a specific question about your individual ancestry? Yes or no? Please provide specifics if necessary.

Where I work, we have an entire team that uses all types of DNA tests atDNA, y-DNA, mtDNA to solve unknown parentage cases. On average, the team identifies previously unknown biological parents of several adopted people each week. The clues do not come from sealed adoption papers, but typically from inherited atDNA they and other cousins in the big DNA databases share from common ancestors, which can be measured quite precisely by generations removed. When adoptees telephone family members we place them in contact with, and share information, the genetic relationships are verified. If they wish to know with greater certainty they are parent and child, they can then take additional tests.

Nathan

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[wjhonson]

I feel Thomas that you keep moving the goalposts.

It seems to me that you are now asking "Can DNA testing answer a question about *each* of my ancestors" and the answer to that is no... but maybe.

It can certainly answer questions about your DNA ancestors as you point out.

However I think that with triangulation, it could actually answer questions even about your ancestors who are not DNA ancestors.

But then you start saying things about events four thousand years ago, which is a rather remote area from yourself.

So if you want to get back to *your* direct ancestors, then that would be helpful to understand your point.

[Stewart Baldwin]

Post by wjhonson
So if you want to get back to *your* direct ancestors, then that would be helpful to understand your point.

The main "point" (and the "logic" behind it) is pretty easy to
understand:  Some individuals believe that any scientific conclusions
which are in direct contradiction to certain beliefs (which is
apparently the definition of "secular science") must necessarily be
false.  No argument exists which can defeat this logic in the universe
where this version of logic holds.

Stewart Baldwin

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Stewart Baldwin

Post by wjhonson
So if you want to get back to *your* direct ancestors, then that would be helpful to understand your point.

The main "point" (and the "logic" behind it) is pretty easy to
understand:  Some individuals believe that any scientific conclusions
which are in direct contradiction to certain beliefs (which is
apparently the definition of "secular science") must necessarily be
false.  No argument exists which can defeat this logic in the universe
where this version of logic holds.
Stewart Baldwin

===============================
From a genealogical research specialist standpoint, evaluation of records, ancient or modern, requires a suspension of judgments, allowing for the records themselves to "testify of themselves". In the discussion so far presented on this list, there have been numerous immature, unprofessional personal attacks, and suggestions of religious proselytizing, which is not my cup of tea, as I don't drink tea and never have. It has been suggested that "Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (because of climate change or interaction with modern humans) and were replaced by modern humans moving into their habitat between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago." There are no written records that assert this, or "testify of themselves" of these facts, from a contemporaneous basis, by the hand of "modern humans", as so presented. Scientific conclusions which are in direct contradiction to certain beliefs may appear to be the issue, but it is not. Secular science presents a [Cyclic Universe: quantum physics universe reincarnation (modern religious theosophy movement, connected to more ancient South Asian and East Asian traditions) through an infinite cycle of starting Big Bangs and Big Crunches reverses (recollapses).] [While theosophy emphatically teaches evolution, and on the grandest scale, in the cosmos and in man, it rejects every theory (such as the ape-ancestry one) that is purely mechanistic and that deals only with the perishable body while ignoring the real evolver, the monad or spirit in man. Evolution does not proceed in an ascending straight line. The monad descended from ethereal states and gradually entered into denser conditions, ultimately utilizing physical forms in harmony with the lowest part of the cycle. With the ascending return to more ethereal states, human bodily vestures will also be transformed. The monad, buddhi, and also the manas, are no "by-products" of a brain of flesh; still less are they "natural" evolutions from the lower animals. The anthropoid apes have, indeed, some human blood as well as animal in their veins, but they are not our ancestors. The origin of the anthropoids is partially traceable to early and degenerate human sources; they are the product of miscegenation.] The records themselves testify, that Western Civilization scientific evaluations graft into Buddhism, as an enlightened branch of buddhi. This secular science rejects Biblical text, suggesting that modern humans, as so presented, did not express "religious beliefs", for over 34,000 to 39,000 years. Additionally, no current evidence is shown in the common belief that these Neanderthals had lived alongside genetically modern humans for a short period of time, as per the Neanderthal remains at Vindija Cave. Neanderthals are at best, speculation on the probability of possibility. Since the process of genetic admixture, or miscegenation, did not result in the "evolution" of writing for the purpose of intelligent communication, prior to circa 4,000 BC, all evidence validates Biblical Adam and Eve.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gdpmanu/ryan-wh/wit-2.htm#evolution
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/refined-analysis-asserts-there-was-no-human-neanderthal-interaction-021605

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
I feel Thomas that you keep moving the goalposts.
It seems to me that you are now asking "Can DNA testing answer a question about *each* of my ancestors" and the answer to that is no... but maybe.
It can certainly answer questions about your DNA ancestors as you point out.
However I think that with triangulation, it could actually answer questions even about your ancestors who are not DNA ancestors.
But then you start saying things about events four thousand years ago, which is a rather remote area from yourself.
So if you want to get back to *your* direct ancestors, then that would be helpful to understand your point.

==================================
I will point blank clarify and add to my recently offered comments to the respected Stewart Baldwin, to hopefully aid in your understanding of facts.

From a genealogical research specialist standpoint, evaluation of records, ancient or modern, requires a suspension of judgments, allowing for the records themselves to "testify of themselves". It has been suggested that "Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (because of climate change or interaction with modern humans) and were replaced by modern humans moving into their habitat between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago." There are no written records that assert this, or "testify of themselves" of these facts, from a contemporaneous basis, by the hand of "modern humans", as so presented. Scientific conclusions which are in direct contradiction to certain beliefs may appear to be the issue, but it is not. Secular science presents a [Cyclic Universe: quantum physics universe reincarnation (modern religious theosophy movement, connected to more ancient South Asian and East Asian traditions) through an infinite cycle of starting Big Bangs and Big Crunches reverses (recollapses).] [While theosophy emphatically teaches evolution, and on the grandest scale, in the cosmos and in man, it rejects every theory (such as the ape-ancestry one) that is purely mechanistic and that deals only with the perishable body while ignoring the real evolver, the monad or spirit in man. Evolution does not proceed in an ascending straight line. The monad descended from ethereal states and gradually entered into denser conditions, ultimately utilizing physical forms in harmony with the lowest part of the cycle. With the ascending return to more ethereal states, human bodily vestures will also be transformed. The monad, buddhi, and also the manas, are no "by-products" of a brain of flesh; still less are they "natural" evolutions from the lower animals. The anthropoid apes have, indeed, some human blood as well as animal in their veins, but they are not our ancestors. The origin of the anthropoids is partially traceable to early and degenerate human sources; they are the product of miscegenation.] The records themselves testify, that Western Civilization scientific evaluations graft into Buddhism, as an enlightened branch of buddhi. This secular science rejects Biblical text, suggesting that modern humans, as so presented, did not express "religious beliefs", for over 34,000 to 39,000 years. Additionally, no current evidence is shown in the common belief that these Neanderthals had lived alongside genetically modern humans for a short period of time, as per the Neanderthal remains at Vindija Cave. Neanderthals are at best, speculation on the probability of possibility. At worst, suggestions in current scientific theory, that inbreeding between Neanderthals and "modern humans" occurred, presents the origins of man, as coming from acts of bestiality. [As of October 1, 2017, 45 states and 2 territories ban sex with animals, while 5 states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized it (due to repeal of sodomy laws). . . .The Humane Society of the United States is one of the leading American organizations to criminalize bestiality in the United States.] Evolution, in its most basic tenants, circumscribes perpetual serial "bestiality", from all lower forms of life, propagating into the reproduction of higher forms of life. "Scientists identified a type of chimpanzee in West Africa as the source of HIV infection in humans. They believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood. Over decades, the virus slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world." Genetic security appears to be in place, to inhibit completely, cross inbreeding between chimpanzees and "modern humans", as so presented in current scientific literature. Nevertheless, it is blatantly stated, far beyond all reason, by the American Museum of Natural History, that: "Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so closely related. Humans, chimps and bonobos descended from a single ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago. As humans and chimps gradually evolved from a common ancestor, (sexual intercourse serial bestiality of lower life forms with higher life forms), their DNA, passed from generation to generation, changed too. In fact, many of these DNA changes led to differences between human and chimp appearance and behavior." In conclusion, since the process of genetic admixture, or miscegenation, did not happen, as the savagely cruel or depraved behavior process is genetically self-destructive, it did not result in the "evolution" of writing for the purpose of intelligent communication, prior to circa 4,000 BC. Within the bounds of normalcy, all evidence validates Biblical Adam and Eve, both from theological, or faith based written records, as well as in current scientific discoveries of HIV genetic sources, afflicting today, and destroying, diseased bodies and minds of humans.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gdpmanu/ryan-wh/wit-2.htm#evolution
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/refined-analysis-asserts-there-was-no-human-neanderthal-interaction-021605
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_in_the_United_States
http://www.theaidsinstitute.org/node/259
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/

[wjhonson]

All of that is entirely irrelevant to your claim.

Your claim was can DNA testing answer a specific question about my ancestors.

The answer is Yes.

DNA can tell you if your mother is your mother.
That is a specific question.

Address the point that many people have brought up and stop talking about chimpanzees, Noah, and Neanderthals. That is all irrelevant.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
All of that is entirely irrelevant to your claim.
Your claim was can DNA testing answer a specific question about my ancestors.
The answer is Yes.
DNA can tell you if your mother is your mother.
That is a specific question.
Address the point that many people have brought up and stop talking about chimpanzees, Noah, and Neanderthals. That is all irrelevant.

============================================
Everything I have said is entirely relevant, within the context of the questions I actually asked and defined. Nevertheless, have a very happy Thanksgiving season. My medieval surname research notes, within the general framework of the medieval period show extensive scattering of the Tinney surname and variations throughout the world. I referenced: Tannaim, i.e., the tanna, or Teni were the ancient Jewish scholars, expounding law and teaching the people in synagogues and academies, the foundations of an ancient University. In Jerusalem there was at the Temple Mount the Avtinus chamber room, where incense was compounded for later use in the offerings upon the Golden Altar. Beth Ab was the name for the Father's House, the Temple at Jerusalem. This holy chamber [Av (father) + tinus; Ab is a variant of Av, part of Aramaic abba, father], was named after the Jewish aristocratic Avtinus family, merchants and spice makers.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/tingeo2.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/tingeo1.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogylevi.htm

To answer your particular point, in the context of my stated question, re: scientific papers about DNA, I consider the Levites to be well researched. I have provided one most current link online. My review showed problems. Positively, [First, the six tested Horowitz Levites were grouped into the Y chromosome haplogroup R1a-Y2619, allowing a unique glimpse into medieval Europe (Fig. 3a). The genealogic records for three of the individuals with the Horowitz surname converged to a common male ancestor born at 1615 CE or 402 ybp (Fig. 3b). The observed sequence variation between these three samples is consistent with this proposed genealogy (Fig. 3c), and accordingly, their genealogical claim could not be refuted. ] Negatively, and unfortunately, [More confusing is the fact that genealogical records of the Horowitz rabbinical dynasty, now shown to carry the R1a-Y2619 Y chromosome, suggest their presence in the Iberian Peninsula in the 15th century and probably earlier (Fig. 3). In fact, repeated Jewish migrations that might have carried R1a-Y2619 Y chromosomes to Catalonia are documented since the 4th century and during the Muslim expansion to Iberia. Additionally, because Catalonia was again Christian territory since 800 CE, proto-Horowitz R1a-Y2619 ancestors could also represent migration of Ashkenazi Jews to Iberia. Accordingly, the presence of R1a-Y2619 in Spain in the 15th century could not establish proof for the first arrival of the R1a-Y2619 lineage to the Iberian Peninsula, as this could simply reflect repeated and unrecorded movements of Jews back and forth between Eastern and Western Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. Previous evidences from mtDNA and autosomal markers have already suggested a likely gene flow between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews within Europe.] I search the word probably: [The genotyped samples showed deeply rooted splits probably pointing to the preservation of an ancient diversity of this haplogroup in the Levant, dating back to Pleistocene.] I search the word possible: [Because R1a-Y2619 is of Middle Eastern origin, it is possible that its introduction to Europe was by either, or both, of these routes.] [It is possible that the STR-based calculations, which are based upon the total number of STR deviations within a cluster, may have been skewed downwards because the R1a-Y2619 cluster includes a large subcluster with a more recent shared direct male ancestor.] [“Naturally, the strong founding event for R1a-Y2619 among Ashkenazi Jews, coupled with the presence of all known branches of R1a-Y2619 in Ashkenazi Jews, tempts to infer that its migration route from the Levant was directly related to the Ashkenazi founders,” but it is possible that R1a-Y2619 arrived with Sephardic Jews and expanded in the Ashkenazi population.] I search the word likely: [The R1a-Y2619 progenitor was very likely not only Jewish but also a Levite.] [The R1a-Y2619 lineage “was likely a minor haplogroup among the Hebrews.”] [In any event, the R1a-Y2619 line very likely arrived in Europe through a single expansion route, with the expansion of the population occurring after migration to Europe.] [I believe that there is an R1a-Y2619* subcluster, characterized by the STR marker value DYS576=16 – three steps from the R1a-Y2619 modal value of DYS576=19 – that likely split off from the R1a-Y2619 branch at or before the time that the R1a-Y2630 branch split off from the R1a-Y2619 branch; additional Big Y testing from members of this branch is necessary to confirm, or refute, this theory.] [It is important to note that while this bottleneck does not necessarily coincide with the founding effective male population size and events for Ashkenazi Jews, it does tell us that the Ashkenazi Levite R1a-Y2619 ancestor was likely among the founding males upon whom the bottleneck applied.] [Cumulatively, the emerging profile is of a Middle Eastern ancestor, self-affiliating as Levite, and carrying the highly resolved R1a-Y2619 lineage, which was likely a minor haplogroup among the Hebrews.] Book of Mormon Isaiah: "Wherefore, the Jews shall be scattered among all nations". Now concerning your point: [DNA can tell you if your mother is your mother. That is a specific question.] And DNA Worldwide says, [The first step is to contact an agency to help find your biological mother, as they will most likely have the resources and expertise to help in your case.Once an alleged mother has been found, the best way to clarify if they truly are your birth mother is via a maternity test. As this will examine both individuals DNA to see if the child’s DNA has been inherited from the alleged mother.] I repeat: Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry? [Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence. One's family or ethnic descent. The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No.] Thus, The Legal Genealogist notes that all adopted individuals must identify family "while they--and you--are still living."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14761-7
https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites/2017-behar-et-al-paper-on-r1a-y2619-ashkenazi-levites
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-do-early-nephite-prophets-speak-about-the-scattering-of-the-jews
https://www.dna-worldwide.com/resource/560/how-can-i-prove-if-someone-my-mother
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2017/01/08/dna-testing-for-adoptees-2017/

[wjhonson]

None of that is relevant to your claim that DNA cannot answer specific questions.

You've been given several examples, and yet you continue to spout all this nonsense about people who lived a thousand years ago.

Can Y DNA be used to establish your paternity? Yes
Can mtDNA be used to establish your maternity? Yes
Can atDNA be used to establish your family tree? Yes

So all types of DNA can and have been used to answer specific questions.
Stop being the most ridiculous person in the newsgroup

Grow up

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
None of that is relevant to your claim that DNA cannot answer specific questions.
You've been given several examples, and yet you continue to spout all this nonsense about people who lived a thousand years ago.
Can Y DNA be used to establish your paternity? Yes
Can mtDNA be used to establish your maternity? Yes
Can atDNA be used to establish your family tree? Yes
So all types of DNA can and have been used to answer specific questions.
Stop being the most ridiculous person in the newsgroup
Grow up

====================================
I have. I am 76 years old and still counting. University College London is good.
(1) A Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) test provides information about your male line ancestry only, which in most cultures corresponds with the inheritance of surnames. . . . time can be estimated, but such estimates are not precise with current standard tests,. . . . It is, however, difficult to be confident about where these haplogroups originated and how they spread; many different histories could explain their current distribution.
(2) A mitochondrial DNA test provides information about your female line ancestry only. . . . but it is again much more difficult to make inferences about the more distant past. The mtDNA mutation rate (has) considerable uncertainty about the precise rate. . . . the time gap between mutations in an mtDNA sequence can be 100 generations or more, and so common mtDNA ancestors cannot be dated accurately even with full mtDNA genome data: . . . it is common for participants in genetic genealogy databases to have exact full sequence matches with people with ancestry from a number of different countries.
(3) An autosomal DNA test provides information from the great majority of your DNA (the autosomes are the chromosomes other than the X, Y and mtDNA, and contain most of your DNA sequences, and genes). . . . dating the ancestor(s) is imprecise, particularly beyond about 4 generations ago. Also the tests have no ability to distinguish certain relationships: . . . (your "ethnicity" is a social category that may not accurately reflect your ancestry). However, the reference populations used for comparison purposes are limited, the ethnic labels applied to them may be questionable, and they were collected in different ways for different purposes: they rarely represent true random samples from a population (e.g. because the "population" itself may not be precisely defined: populations usually overlap and blend with other populations). Distinguishing between populations within continents is often poor with the current resolution of markers and databases.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/understanding-testing

What about the future? Illumina wants to sequence your whole genome for $100. The first sequencing of the whole human genome in 2003 cost roughly $2.7 billion, but DNA sequencing giant Illumina has now unveiled a new machine that the company says is “expected one day” to order up your whole genome for less than $100. . . . In 2006, Illumina’s first machine could sequence a human genome for $300,000, and in 2014 the company announced it could do the same thing for $1,000. The San Diego-based Illumina plays a huge back-end role in many of these direct-to-consumer tests. . . . And it will still take some time to interpret the data. Until the genetic testing industry reconstructs, genealogists, family generational historians, and newbies, interested in their ancestry, are stuck with a disconnected genetic swamp; continuing to use a massively increasing, but fractured DNA database, working at cross-purposes against itself. This fractured DNA database, is already obsolete, and must be discarded, (a waste of time, effort and $$$), and be replaced with a unified one limited to DNA sequencing of the whole human genome, with added costs for obtaining any interpretation from data results. Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/illumina-wants-to-sequence-your-whole-genome-for-100/

[taf]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
(1) A Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) test provides information about your male
line ancestry only, which in most cultures corresponds with the inheritance
of surnames. . . . time can be estimated, but such estimates are not precise
with current standard tests,. . . . It is, however, difficult to be
confident about where these haplogroups originated and how they spread; many
different histories could explain their current distribution.
(2) A mitochondrial DNA test provides information about your female line
ancestry only. . . . but it is again much more difficult to make inferences
about the more distant past.

Talk about moving the goal posts. . . . We have gone from 'DNA cannot be used for genealogy' to 'DNA cannot be used for determining ancient origins with precision'- so it must be rubbish, then. (By the way, you seem to be unaware of the revolution that has been made with ancient DNA, that now allows some Y chromosome (and mtDNA) origins to be determined both geographically and chronologically with a relatively high level of precision.)

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
What about the future? Illumina wants to sequence your whole genome for
$100.

Illumina wants to get their name in the papers, mostly. They are unlikely ever to achieve this price point - that is not to say it won't ever be achieved, but when it is, it almost certainly won't be Illumina that does it

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
The first sequencing of the whole human genome in 2003 cost roughly $2.7
billion, but DNA sequencing giant Illumina has now unveiled a new machine
that the company says is “expected one day” to order up your whole genome
for less than $100. . . .

"Expected one day" is industry-speak for "these reporters will never know that we can't even achieve a genome for $1000 - they will mindlessly report whatever we tell them and our shareholders will like seeing our company getting good press even if it is total pie-in-the-sky self-promotion'.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
In 2006, Illumina’s first machine could sequence a human genome for
$300,000, and in 2014 the company announced it could do the same thing
for $1,000.

And they were exaggerating then too.

By the way, that's not to say they won't offer to sequence people's genome for $100, but they will do it as a money-loser. To be meaningful their collection of comparison data will need to include as many as a million genomes, so they will sell their service at a loss in exchange for harvesting your data for their database. There is nothing new in this - it is the same thing 23andMe did.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
The San Diego-based Illumina plays a huge back-end role in many of these
direct-to-consumer tests.

I am guessing this comes straight from Illumina's press release.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
This fractured DNA database, is already obsolete, and must be discarded,
(a waste of time, effort and $$$), and be replaced with a unified one
limited to DNA sequencing of the whole human genome, with added costs
for obtaining any interpretation from data results. Presently, everything
is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.

You do know that when Alphabet says that their self-driving cars will make highways safer, it doesn't mean that all existing cars are worthless death-traps, right? It is in the interest of a DNA sequencing company to portray non-sequencing approaches of their less-costly competitors as inferior. You are taking this to mean that non-sequencing approaches are worthless, which is exactly what Illumina wants you to think, but bears little resemblance to reality.

taf

[P J Evans]

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
(1) A Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) test provides information about your male
line ancestry only, which in most cultures corresponds with the inheritance
of surnames. . . . time can be estimated, but such estimates are not precise
with current standard tests,. . . . It is, however, difficult to be
confident about where these haplogroups originated and how they spread; many
different histories could explain their current distribution.
(2) A mitochondrial DNA test provides information about your female line
ancestry only. . . . but it is again much more difficult to make inferences
about the more distant past.

Talk about moving the goal posts. . . . We have gone from 'DNA cannot be used for genealogy' to 'DNA cannot be used for determining ancient origins with precision'- so it must be rubbish, then. (By the way, you seem to be unaware of the revolution that has been made with ancient DNA, that now allows some Y chromosome (and mtDNA) origins to be determined both geographically and chronologically with a relatively high level of precision.)

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
What about the future? Illumina wants to sequence your whole genome for
$100.

Illumina wants to get their name in the papers, mostly. They are unlikely ever to achieve this price point - that is not to say it won't ever be achieved, but when it is, it almost certainly won't be Illumina that does it

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
The first sequencing of the whole human genome in 2003 cost roughly $2.7
billion, but DNA sequencing giant Illumina has now unveiled a new machine
that the company says is “expected one day” to order up your whole genome
for less than $100. . . .

"Expected one day" is industry-speak for "these reporters will never know that we can't even achieve a genome for $1000 - they will mindlessly report whatever we tell them and our shareholders will like seeing our company getting good press even if it is total pie-in-the-sky self-promotion'.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
In 2006, Illumina’s first machine could sequence a human genome for
$300,000, and in 2014 the company announced it could do the same thing
for $1,000.

And they were exaggerating then too.
By the way, that's not to say they won't offer to sequence people's genome for $100, but they will do it as a money-loser. To be meaningful their collection of comparison data will need to include as many as a million genomes, so they will sell their service at a loss in exchange for harvesting your data for their database. There is nothing new in this - it is the same thing 23andMe did.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
The San Diego-based Illumina plays a huge back-end role in many of these
direct-to-consumer tests.

I am guessing this comes straight from Illumina's press release.

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
This fractured DNA database, is already obsolete, and must be discarded,
(a waste of time, effort and $$$), and be replaced with a unified one
limited to DNA sequencing of the whole human genome, with added costs
for obtaining any interpretation from data results. Presently, everything
is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.

You do know that when Alphabet says that their self-driving cars will make highways safer, it doesn't mean that all existing cars are worthless death-traps, right? It is in the interest of a DNA sequencing company to portray non-sequencing approaches of their less-costly competitors as inferior. You are taking this to mean that non-sequencing approaches are worthless, which is exactly what Illumina wants you to think, but bears little resemblance to reality.
taf

The impression I'm getting is that DNA testing isn't telling Tinney what he wants to hear, therefore it can't be useful to anyone else. (I've seen DNA test kits being sold at my local pharmacy - the swabs and tubes are cheap, but the testing itself is in the range of $150-175.)

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 7:40:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote:

< Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.

Both Will and I have vouched that current DNA tests can be used to solve longstanding genealogical problems in one's own ancestry (I did so just today). And Nathan told you that his firm, ProGenealogists, routinely and successfully uses DNA tests to identify the parentage and ancestry of adopted children.

If everything is as speculative, as you say, this would simply not be possible.

By the way, for those interested in getting their DNA tested, I see that Ancestry is currently running a special for $79. Shipping would be extra.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

By the way, as some people have found out (not me), Autosomal DNA can even answer the question "Are my legal parents... my biological parents?"

I have a new first cousin, a new second cousin, and a new third cousin
All because one of their ancestors wasn't who they thought.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
By the way, as some people have found out (not me), Autosomal DNA can even
answer the question "Are my legal parents... my biological parents?"

As can Y DNA and mtDNA. Notable is the case of the Jefferson Y typing. The family that funded the study was rather dissatisfied when they scientists involved failed to inform them of the negative (for them but not for Hemings) results until they heard about it on the news.* However, this paled in comparison to the shock received by one of the study's participants, insufficiently disguised in the reporting,# who learned from these news reports that either his father or grandfather was not who they were supposed to be.

* This was not intentional, just a comedy of errors - the scientists decided to publish the finding in a premier journal, but that journal will not publish if there is any prior press coverage of the finding, so they didn't tell the family for fear one of them would tell the press and they would lose their ability to publish it. They submitted to the journal and planned to tell the family the result after the study was formally accepted but before it was published, but an unknown person (never identified) working in the journal's editorial office leaked the story to score political points with respect to the philandering then-president. This had significant negative repercussions - the funding family decided that these political factors had influenced, not only the timing of the announcement, but the outcome of the study itself and a decade later they still were in denial. They even funded a second independent analysis and when it produced the same negative result some of them simply concluded that the conspiracy was broader than they thought.

#The family had reported in their newsletter the names and pedigrees of those who had volunteered to be tested, so when the news reproduced the pedigree, stripped of names but still showing the generations and splitting patterns, it was evident to everyone who it was who had a Y chromosome different than the remainder of the family. This represented a significant ethical conundrum for the scientists - they unwittingly 'outed' this man, but what are the alternatives? Because the family had publicized the participants, the scientists were left with little leeway. They could theoretically have not reported the problem, and removed the man from the study, but ignoring negative/contradictory results is itself not ethically sound science practice. There was actually a whole scholarly study about what went wrong with the way this study was reported and the ethical issues involved.

taf

[wjhonson]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
By the way, as some people have found out (not me), Autosomal DNA can even
answer the question "Are my legal parents... my biological parents?"

As can Y DNA and mtDNA. Notable is the case of the Jefferson Y typing. The family that funded the study was rather dissatisfied when they scientists involved failed to inform them of the negative (for them but not for Hemings) results until they heard about it on the news.*

Well sort of.

Let's say your legal father and his brother have identical Y-DNA. The Y test cannot distinguish between whether your father is your biological father, or whether his brother is.

The Autosomal however can.

With the mother it's even worse, because the mtDNA doesn't change that often.
You may not be able to tell if your legal mother, is your biological mother, or whether it's her first cousin, using mtDNA.

But the Autosomal will make it crystal clear.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
But the Autosomal will make it crystal clear.

Not if one of your parents had an identical twin, in which case you have to do whole genome sequencing to even have a reasonable hope of distinguishing between them. There is little in biology for which one cannot come up with an exception, it just depends on how pedantic you want to get.

A Y or MT mismatch makes it equally abundantly clear.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
By the way, as some people have found out (not me), Autosomal DNA can even
answer the question "Are my legal parents... my biological parents?"

As can Y DNA and mtDNA. Notable is the case of the Jefferson Y typing. The family that funded the study was rather dissatisfied when they scientists involved failed to inform them of the negative (for them but not for Hemings) results until they heard about it on the news.*

Well sort of.
Let's say your legal father and his brother have identical Y-DNA. The Y test cannot distinguish between whether your father is your biological father, or whether his brother is.
The Autosomal however can.
With the mother it's even worse, because the mtDNA doesn't change that often.
You may not be able to tell if your legal mother, is your biological mother, or whether it's her first cousin, using mtDNA.
But the Autosomal will make it crystal clear.

Dear Will, actually through Y DNA testing Stewart Baldwin has managed to prove that one of his Baldwin ancestors was the biological son of a Maybury however he hasn't managed to prove the exact one although he has cicumstantial evidence for one specific suspect.

[wjhonson]

Post by Paulo Canedo

Post by wjhonson

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
By the way, as some people have found out (not me), Autosomal DNA can even
answer the question "Are my legal parents... my biological parents?"

As can Y DNA and mtDNA. Notable is the case of the Jefferson Y typing. The family that funded the study was rather dissatisfied when they scientists involved failed to inform them of the negative (for them but not for Hemings) results until they heard about it on the news.*

Well sort of.
Let's say your legal father and his brother have identical Y-DNA. The Y test cannot distinguish between whether your father is your biological father, or whether his brother is.
The Autosomal however can.
With the mother it's even worse, because the mtDNA doesn't change that often.
You may not be able to tell if your legal mother, is your biological mother, or whether it's her first cousin, using mtDNA.
But the Autosomal will make it crystal clear.

Dear Will, actually through Y DNA testing Stewart Baldwin has managed to prove that one of his Baldwin ancestors was the biological son of a Maybury however he hasn't managed to prove the exact one although he has cicumstantial evidence for one specific suspect.

Let's say that you have a ten generation path from yourself to some purported ancestor who should be a Baldwin.

Y-DNA can *never* tell you at what point in this ten generations your NPE or surname-swap occurred.

Autosomal DNA can.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
Let's say that you have a ten generation path from yourself to some
purported ancestor who should be a Baldwin.
Y-DNA can *never* tell you at what point in this ten generations your
NPE or surname-swap occurred.
Autosomal DNA can.

Not likely, not over 10 generations. That is a pipe dream.

taf

[Stewart Baldwin]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Let's say that you have a ten generation path from yourself to some
purported ancestor who should be a Baldwin.
Y-DNA can *never* tell you at what point in this ten generations your
NPE or surname-swap occurred.

If you refuse to allow the use of Occam's razor in your arguments, then
no DNA tests (Y, mt, or autosomal) can ever tell you anything beyond
shadow of a doubt.  For example, even an autosomal paternity test is
only 99.99+% reliable, because the alleged father might have had an
identical twin (or other equally rare possibilities).  If you allow
Occam's razor in your arguments, then the exact generation can SOMETIMES
be narrowed down in a Y-DNA test as follows:

1. If two testees have a good paper trail male-line ancestry back to two
siblings, and their Y-DNA has an extremely close match, then it is
likely that those ancestors really were siblings, and that the paper
trail and genetic lines match at least that far.  If more testees who
are direct male line descendants are added to the mix, the confidence
goes up to the point of reasonable certainty.

2. If a mutation occurs, and there are enough testees, it is sometimes
possible to tell exactly which man was the mutant.  In that case, the
direct male line descendants of that man can be identified (again with
reasonable confidence) by having that mutation.

3. If mutations happen to occur in two consecutive generations in such a
way that both individuals can be identified, then the exact generation
can sometimes be determined.

If you add NPE's to the mix, then there is the additional difficulty
that it would often be difficult to use DNA to distinguish between a
single adultery at one point in time or multiple adulteries between the
same couple one generation later.  Even then, there are scenarios which
would allow you to decide between the two.

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Autosomal DNA can.

Not likely, not over 10 generations. That is a pipe dream.

I agree with this mostly, but (because of ambiguous interpretations in
the above sentences) I'm not sure how much.  I agree that even if we
allow for what technology will be available in the near future, it will
be rare for autosomal DNA to prove an exact relationship 10 generations
back, but I still think that it is likely that good cases that far back
will turn up from time to time, due to occasional lucky circumstances. 
I do not expect that it will ever be a typical situation.

Stewart Baldwin

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Stewart Baldwin

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Let's say that you have a ten generation path from yourself to some
purported ancestor who should be a Baldwin.
Y-DNA can *never* tell you at what point in this ten generations your
NPE or surname-swap occurred.

If you refuse to allow the use of Occam's razor in your arguments, then
no DNA tests (Y, mt, or autosomal) can ever tell you anything beyond
shadow of a doubt.  For example, even an autosomal paternity test is
only 99.99+% reliable, because the alleged father might have had an
identical twin (or other equally rare possibilities).  If you allow
Occam's razor in your arguments, then the exact generation can SOMETIMES
1. If two testees have a good paper trail male-line ancestry back to two
siblings, and their Y-DNA has an extremely close match, then it is
likely that those ancestors really were siblings, and that the paper
trail and genetic lines match at least that far.  If more testees who
are direct male line descendants are added to the mix, the confidence
goes up to the point of reasonable certainty.
2. If a mutation occurs, and there are enough testees, it is sometimes
possible to tell exactly which man was the mutant.  In that case, the
direct male line descendants of that man can be identified (again with
reasonable confidence) by having that mutation.
3. If mutations happen to occur in two consecutive generations in such a
way that both individuals can be identified, then the exact generation
can sometimes be determined.
If you add NPE's to the mix, then there is the additional difficulty
that it would often be difficult to use DNA to distinguish between a
single adultery at one point in time or multiple adulteries between the
same couple one generation later.  Even then, there are scenarios which
would allow you to decide between the two.

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Autosomal DNA can.

Not likely, not over 10 generations. That is a pipe dream.

I agree with this mostly, but (because of ambiguous interpretations in
the above sentences) I'm not sure how much.  I agree that even if we
allow for what technology will be available in the near future, it will
be rare for autosomal DNA to prove an exact relationship 10 generations
back, but I still think that it is likely that good cases that far back
will turn up from time to time, due to occasional lucky circumstances. 
I do not expect that it will ever be a typical situation.
Stewart Baldwin

=================================
As a current point of interest, there is the contemplated "Human Cell Atlas: The plan to map every cell in your body". . . . "Our bodies are made up of least 37 trillion cells, and scientists are teaming up around the world to map every single one of them." . . . "We have 50,000 genes, but not all cells express all 50,000 of those genes. They only express a subset of those and that subset determines whether a cell becomes a muscle cell or a liver cell or a kidney cell." . . . "Dr Teichmann said comprehensive maps of all the cells in the body could have a huge impact on how we diagnose, monitor and treat disease." "They could also help scientists understand how genetic variants impact disease risk, define drug toxicities, discover better therapies, and advance regenerative medicine," she said. . . . "We want to try to capture age, gender, ethnicity and also environmental context because that can also influence how our cells behave," Dr Naik said. . . . "other cell types such as brain tissue needed to be obtained from people who have agreed to donate their tissues to science when they died." . . . "All the anonymous data will be put on a huge open source database built with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative." New typical?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-11-17/human-cell-atlas-the-plan-to-map-every-cell-in-your-body/9127096

[taf]

Post by Paulo Canedo
Dear Will, actually through Y DNA testing Stewart Baldwin has managed to
prove that one of his Baldwin ancestors was the biological son of a Maybury

Here we are getting into the semantics to an extent, but Stewart did not do this with DNA alone - he did it with DNA and genealogical sources combined. The claim Will was refuting was that you cannot prove genealogical relationships with DNA alone, and he is right that you can,. but only in very limited circumstances.

(And if we want to get really pedantic, Stewart did not 'prove' this, just demonstrated that this was the most parsimonious explanation of his DNA results - in other words, his Baldwin could have been son of a Smith, who was in turn son of a Marbury, or alternatively, a true Baldwin may have bedded a whole lot of Marburys, such that all the Marburys now have a Baldwin haplotype, but he can reasonably apply Occam's Razor here and cpnclude that the most likely explanation involves a single crypto-paternity event whereby his Baldwin was fathered by a Marbury.)

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.
Both Will and I have vouched that current DNA tests can be used to solve longstanding genealogical problems in one's own ancestry (I did so just today). And Nathan told you that his firm, ProGenealogists, routinely and successfully uses DNA tests to identify the parentage and ancestry of adopted children.
If everything is as speculative, as you say, this would simply not be possible.
By the way, for those interested in getting their DNA tested, I see that Ancestry is currently running a special for $79. Shipping would be extra.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

================================
No goal posts have been moved. And my answers remain the same. Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence. One's family or ethnic descent.] The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No.

Two approaches to DNA findings, (1) unbiased, and (2) biased (speculative).
(1) Goats, bookworms, a monk’s kiss: Biologists reveal the hidden history of ancient gospels - Interesting points: "researchers applied it to the Gospel of Luke. They found that the book's cover was made of the skin of roe deer, a species common in the United Kingdom. But the strap was made from a larger deer species, either native red deer or fallow deer introduced from continental Europe, possibly by the Normans after their invasion in 1066. Fiddyment speculates that the book may have captured a transitional moment when native roe deer were declining and landowners and monasteries stocked parks with bigger deer." . . . "the York Gospels, thought to have been written around 990 C.E. DNA from this book's eraser shavings showed that, aside from some sheep, its pages were mostly calfskin—mainly from female calves, which was unexpected because cows were usually allowed to grow up to bear offspring. Historic records report that a cattle disease struck the area from 986–988 C.E., so perhaps many sick and stillborn calves were used for parchment, says zooarchaeologist Annelise Binois-Roman of the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/goats-bookworms-monk-s-kiss-biologists-reveal-hidden-history-ancient-gospels

(2) Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites
"One of those sources is the Bible’s Old Testament, which suggests a grisly end for many Canaanites: After the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God ordered them to destroy Canaan and its people (though other passages suggest that some Canaanites may have survived). But did that really happen? Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." . . . "Marc Haber, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., extracted enough DNA from the ancient skeletons to sequence the whole genomes of five Canaanite individuals, all around 3700 years old." Biblical calculations show that Ephraim was a son of Joseph, and Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation, prior to his death at age 110, or circa 1701/1641 B.C. So, 3700 years old is 1683 BC. Ephraim was the father of Beriah, he father of Resheph, he the father of Telah, he the father of Tahan, he the father of Laadan, he the father of Ammihud, he the father of Elishama, he the father of Non or Nun, the father of Jehoshua - Joshua - Oshea, attested to in the records of Josephus; with the said Joshua noted by genealogist Archibald F. Bennett. So, presented from an unbiased and professional genealogical research standpoint, the findings invalidate the documentary hypothesis theories, traditionally known as: J, E, P, and D; for the Torah and the Deuteronomy history, from Joshua to Kings; as, some modern historians incorrectly state that the Torah was gradually recorded as the Hebrew Bible, between the 5th century B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. Nevertheless, let the record show, that the witness of proof is missing, and replaced with theoretical commentary, with no written foundation, as per "Canaanites’ genes came from local farmers who settled the Levant about 10,000 years ago"; etc. Cherry picking. Why is this so? Because the real DNA witness is that Joshua is a real figure in ancient history, as is Moses, etc. And that means, the records are contemporaneously kept, and handed down records. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them", is credible witness, from a genealogical research standpoint, that not only did Moses, the man, have the intelligent ability to read and write and carve records into stone, but also that the God of Moses could talk, read and write.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-counters-biblical-account-mysterious-canaanites
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/beriah_1421.htm
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-5.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#D.__FRAGMENTED_PEDIGREES_OF_THE_TRIBE_OF_EPHRAIM
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-ex/34.html?lang=xho&clang=eng

[P J Evans]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by Douglas Richardson
< Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.
Both Will and I have vouched that current DNA tests can be used to solve longstanding genealogical problems in one's own ancestry (I did so just today). And Nathan told you that his firm, ProGenealogists, routinely and successfully uses DNA tests to identify the parentage and ancestry of adopted children.
If everything is as speculative, as you say, this would simply not be possible.
By the way, for those interested in getting their DNA tested, I see that Ancestry is currently running a special for $79. Shipping would be extra.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

================================
No goal posts have been moved. And my answers remain the same. Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence. One's family or ethnic descent.] The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No.
Two approaches to DNA findings, (1) unbiased, and (2) biased (speculative).
(1) Goats, bookworms, a monk’s kiss: Biologists reveal the hidden history of ancient gospels - Interesting points: "researchers applied it to the Gospel of Luke. They found that the book's cover was made of the skin of roe deer, a species common in the United Kingdom. But the strap was made from a larger deer species, either native red deer or fallow deer introduced from continental Europe, possibly by the Normans after their invasion in 1066. Fiddyment speculates that the book may have captured a transitional moment when native roe deer were declining and landowners and monasteries stocked parks with bigger deer." . . . "the York Gospels, thought to have been written around 990 C.E. DNA from this book's eraser shavings showed that, aside from some sheep, its pages were mostly calfskin—mainly from female calves, which was unexpected because cows were usually allowed to grow up to bear offspring. Historic records report that a cattle disease struck the area from 986–988 C.E., so perhaps many sick and stillborn calves were used for parchment, says zooarchaeologist Annelise Binois-Roman of the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/goats-bookworms-monk-s-kiss-biologists-reveal-hidden-history-ancient-gospels
(2) Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites
"One of those sources is the Bible’s Old Testament, which suggests a grisly end for many Canaanites: After the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God ordered them to destroy Canaan and its people (though other passages suggest that some Canaanites may have survived). But did that really happen? Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." . . . "Marc Haber, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., extracted enough DNA from the ancient skeletons to sequence the whole genomes of five Canaanite individuals, all around 3700 years old." Biblical calculations show that Ephraim was a son of Joseph, and Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation, prior to his death at age 110, or circa 1701/1641 B.C. So, 3700 years old is 1683 BC. Ephraim was the father of Beriah, he father of Resheph, he the father of Telah, he the father of Tahan, he the father of Laadan, he the father of Ammihud, he the father of Elishama, he the father of Non or Nun, the father of Jehoshua - Joshua - Oshea, attested to in the records of Josephus; with the said Joshua noted by genealogist Archibald F. Bennett. So, presented from an unbiased and professional genealogical research standpoint, the findings invalidate the documentary hypothesis theories, traditionally known as: J, E, P, and D; for the Torah and the Deuteronomy history, from Joshua to Kings; as, some modern historians incorrectly state that the Torah was gradually recorded as the Hebrew Bible, between the 5th century B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. Nevertheless, let the record show, that the witness of proof is missing, and replaced with theoretical commentary, with no written foundation, as per "Canaanites’ genes came from local farmers who settled the Levant about 10,000 years ago"; etc. Cherry picking. Why is this so? Because the real DNA witness is that Joshua is a real figure in ancient history, as is Moses, etc. And that means, the records are contemporaneously kept, and handed down records. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them", is credible witness, from a genealogical research standpoint, that not only did Moses, the man, have the intelligent ability to read and write and carve records into stone, but also that the God of Moses could talk, read and write.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-counters-biblical-account-mysterious-canaanites
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/beriah_1421.htm
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-5.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#D.__FRAGMENTED_PEDIGREES_OF_THE_TRIBE_OF_EPHRAIM
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-ex/34.html?lang=xho&clang=eng

NOT MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY.
You really should post this where it belongs - in a mythology/religion group.
Please stop spamming *this* group with it.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by P J Evans

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by Douglas Richardson
< Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.
Both Will and I have vouched that current DNA tests can be used to solve longstanding genealogical problems in one's own ancestry (I did so just today). And Nathan told you that his firm, ProGenealogists, routinely and successfully uses DNA tests to identify the parentage and ancestry of adopted children.
If everything is as speculative, as you say, this would simply not be possible.
By the way, for those interested in getting their DNA tested, I see that Ancestry is currently running a special for $79. Shipping would be extra.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

================================
No goal posts have been moved. And my answers remain the same. Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence. One's family or ethnic descent.] The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No.
Two approaches to DNA findings, (1) unbiased, and (2) biased (speculative).
(1) Goats, bookworms, a monk’s kiss: Biologists reveal the hidden history of ancient gospels - Interesting points: "researchers applied it to the Gospel of Luke. They found that the book's cover was made of the skin of roe deer, a species common in the United Kingdom. But the strap was made from a larger deer species, either native red deer or fallow deer introduced from continental Europe, possibly by the Normans after their invasion in 1066. Fiddyment speculates that the book may have captured a transitional moment when native roe deer were declining and landowners and monasteries stocked parks with bigger deer." . . . "the York Gospels, thought to have been written around 990 C.E. DNA from this book's eraser shavings showed that, aside from some sheep, its pages were mostly calfskin—mainly from female calves, which was unexpected because cows were usually allowed to grow up to bear offspring. Historic records report that a cattle disease struck the area from 986–988 C.E., so perhaps many sick and stillborn calves were used for parchment, says zooarchaeologist Annelise Binois-Roman of the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/goats-bookworms-monk-s-kiss-biologists-reveal-hidden-history-ancient-gospels
(2) Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites
"One of those sources is the Bible’s Old Testament, which suggests a grisly end for many Canaanites: After the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God ordered them to destroy Canaan and its people (though other passages suggest that some Canaanites may have survived). But did that really happen? Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." . . . "Marc Haber, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., extracted enough DNA from the ancient skeletons to sequence the whole genomes of five Canaanite individuals, all around 3700 years old." Biblical calculations show that Ephraim was a son of Joseph, and Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation, prior to his death at age 110, or circa 1701/1641 B.C. So, 3700 years old is 1683 BC. Ephraim was the father of Beriah, he father of Resheph, he the father of Telah, he the father of Tahan, he the father of Laadan, he the father of Ammihud, he the father of Elishama, he the father of Non or Nun, the father of Jehoshua - Joshua - Oshea, attested to in the records of Josephus; with the said Joshua noted by genealogist Archibald F. Bennett. So, presented from an unbiased and professional genealogical research standpoint, the findings invalidate the documentary hypothesis theories, traditionally known as: J, E, P, and D; for the Torah and the Deuteronomy history, from Joshua to Kings; as, some modern historians incorrectly state that the Torah was gradually recorded as the Hebrew Bible, between the 5th century B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. Nevertheless, let the record show, that the witness of proof is missing, and replaced with theoretical commentary, with no written foundation, as per "Canaanites’ genes came from local farmers who settled the Levant about 10,000 years ago"; etc. Cherry picking. Why is this so? Because the real DNA witness is that Joshua is a real figure in ancient history, as is Moses, etc. And that means, the records are contemporaneously kept, and handed down records. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them", is credible witness, from a genealogical research standpoint, that not only did Moses, the man, have the intelligent ability to read and write and carve records into stone, but also that the God of Moses could talk, read and write.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-counters-biblical-account-mysterious-canaanites
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/beriah_1421.htm
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-5.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#D.__FRAGMENTED_PEDIGREES_OF_THE_TRIBE_OF_EPHRAIM
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-ex/34.html?lang=xho&clang=eng

NOT MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY.
You really should post this where it belongs - in a mythology/religion group.
Please stop spamming *this* group with it.

=====================================
I only try to answer valid questions presented to me. "Scientific Proof Is A Myth". Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA do not prove the theory of evolution. At some point, scientists extrapolate. This point is when written records have ended, here on earth, circa 4.000 B.C., or, when scientists have severely limited this written record to include only secular data sources. DNA scientific findings are not final, and "postulates, rules, or logical steps" are still changing over time, in describing human ancestry, and in particular, by those theories that are contrary to stated words of the Creator of the Universe. Thus, contentious assumptions are invalid, because all certain rules are not known, that can be successfully applied for all situations possible over generations of time. Please note: "It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary." So scientists themselves say "science" is indeed a "religion" based upon "leaps of faith", done out of self-conviction.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

[P J Evans]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by P J Evans

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by Douglas Richardson
< Presently, everything is inconsistent and ridiculous speculations.
Both Will and I have vouched that current DNA tests can be used to solve longstanding genealogical problems in one's own ancestry (I did so just today). And Nathan told you that his firm, ProGenealogists, routinely and successfully uses DNA tests to identify the parentage and ancestry of adopted children.
If everything is as speculative, as you say, this would simply not be possible.
By the way, for those interested in getting their DNA tested, I see that Ancestry is currently running a special for $79. Shipping would be extra.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

================================
No goal posts have been moved. And my answers remain the same. Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?[Definition of ancestor in English: A person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended; this does not include admissible, living forensic evidence. One's family or ethnic descent.] The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No.
Two approaches to DNA findings, (1) unbiased, and (2) biased (speculative).
(1) Goats, bookworms, a monk’s kiss: Biologists reveal the hidden history of ancient gospels - Interesting points: "researchers applied it to the Gospel of Luke. They found that the book's cover was made of the skin of roe deer, a species common in the United Kingdom. But the strap was made from a larger deer species, either native red deer or fallow deer introduced from continental Europe, possibly by the Normans after their invasion in 1066. Fiddyment speculates that the book may have captured a transitional moment when native roe deer were declining and landowners and monasteries stocked parks with bigger deer." . . . "the York Gospels, thought to have been written around 990 C.E. DNA from this book's eraser shavings showed that, aside from some sheep, its pages were mostly calfskin—mainly from female calves, which was unexpected because cows were usually allowed to grow up to bear offspring. Historic records report that a cattle disease struck the area from 986–988 C.E., so perhaps many sick and stillborn calves were used for parchment, says zooarchaeologist Annelise Binois-Roman of the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/goats-bookworms-monk-s-kiss-biologists-reveal-hidden-history-ancient-gospels
(2) Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites
"One of those sources is the Bible’s Old Testament, which suggests a grisly end for many Canaanites: After the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God ordered them to destroy Canaan and its people (though other passages suggest that some Canaanites may have survived). But did that really happen? Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." . . . "Marc Haber, a geneticist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., extracted enough DNA from the ancient skeletons to sequence the whole genomes of five Canaanite individuals, all around 3700 years old." Biblical calculations show that Ephraim was a son of Joseph, and Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation, prior to his death at age 110, or circa 1701/1641 B.C. So, 3700 years old is 1683 BC. Ephraim was the father of Beriah, he father of Resheph, he the father of Telah, he the father of Tahan, he the father of Laadan, he the father of Ammihud, he the father of Elishama, he the father of Non or Nun, the father of Jehoshua - Joshua - Oshea, attested to in the records of Josephus; with the said Joshua noted by genealogist Archibald F. Bennett. So, presented from an unbiased and professional genealogical research standpoint, the findings invalidate the documentary hypothesis theories, traditionally known as: J, E, P, and D; for the Torah and the Deuteronomy history, from Joshua to Kings; as, some modern historians incorrectly state that the Torah was gradually recorded as the Hebrew Bible, between the 5th century B.C. and the 2nd century B.C. Nevertheless, let the record show, that the witness of proof is missing, and replaced with theoretical commentary, with no written foundation, as per "Canaanites’ genes came from local farmers who settled the Levant about 10,000 years ago"; etc. Cherry picking. Why is this so? Because the real DNA witness is that Joshua is a real figure in ancient history, as is Moses, etc. And that means, the records are contemporaneously kept, and handed down records. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them", is credible witness, from a genealogical research standpoint, that not only did Moses, the man, have the intelligent ability to read and write and carve records into stone, but also that the God of Moses could talk, read and write.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-counters-biblical-account-mysterious-canaanites
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/beriah_1421.htm
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-5.htm
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#D.__FRAGMENTED_PEDIGREES_OF_THE_TRIBE_OF_EPHRAIM
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-ex/34.html?lang=xho&clang=eng

NOT MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY.
You really should post this where it belongs - in a mythology/religion group.
Please stop spamming *this* group with it.

=====================================
I only try to answer valid questions presented to me. "Scientific Proof Is A Myth". Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA do not prove the theory of evolution. At some point, scientists extrapolate. This point is when written records have ended, here on earth, circa 4.000 B.C., or, when scientists have severely limited this written record to include only secular data sources. DNA scientific findings are not final, and "postulates, rules, or logical steps" are still changing over time, in describing human ancestry, and in particular, by those theories that are contrary to stated words of the Creator of the Universe. Thus, contentious assumptions are invalid, because all certain rules are not known, that can be successfully applied for all situations possible over generations of time. Please note: "It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary." So scientists themselves say "science" is indeed a "religion" based upon "leaps of faith", done out of self-conviction.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

Oh so much wrong in this.
You need to spend some time taking basic biology classes, as well as history of science.

[wjhonson]

Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.

With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"

By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.
With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"
By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

==========================
Epic, be definition, is: "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation." So what? Biblical records are not epic. They are concurrent testamentary records by living individuals. That is the difference.

[wjhonson]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.
With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"
By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

==========================
Epic, be definition, is: "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation." So what? Biblical records are not epic. They are concurrent testamentary records by living individuals. That is the difference.

Actually Genesis is not a concurrent testamentary record by a living individual.
There are no Christian churches that believe that Noah actually wrote anything, let alone Shem or Cain.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.
With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"
By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

==========================
Epic, by definition, is: "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation." So what? Biblical records are not epic. They are concurrent testamentary records by living individuals. That is the difference.

Actually Genesis is not a concurrent testamentary record by a living individual.
There are no Christian churches that believe that Noah actually wrote anything, let alone Shem or Cain.

=====================================================

Really? Polling and analysis, dated 13 Feb 2013, by the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture - - - 106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." Scripture Biography Comprehending All The Names Mentioned In The Old and New Testaments notes estate dispositions. "The right of eminent domain is the claim of sovereignty by the state over all property within the state." In the beginning, the "State" was Patriarchal; biblical record grantees Adam and Eve, were given co-equal, legal and lawful, exclusive dominion rights. It is tremendously obvious: records were handed down entitlement records, to the valid heirs of property rights, from the very first entries in the records themselves, just like today's business or real estate records, according to kept covenants of proper social - civil discourse.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=wfhYmehZtHwC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=testamentary+covenant+posterity+records&source=bl&ots=kE-E9z7ZaN&sig=ATKdXW5K2IZ7aCOrFD2_0Sdd1D4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXopSUzd_XAhUOwmMKHfSNDFMQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=testamentary%20covenant%20posterity%20records&f=false
http://www.rodneychrisman.com/2011/02/03/biblical-examples-of-property-transactions/

[wjhonson]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.
With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"
By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

==========================
Epic, by definition, is: "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation." So what? Biblical records are not epic. They are concurrent testamentary records by living individuals. That is the difference.

Actually Genesis is not a concurrent testamentary record by a living individual.
There are no Christian churches that believe that Noah actually wrote anything, let alone Shem or Cain.

=====================================================
Really? Polling and analysis, dated 13 Feb 2013, by the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture - - - 106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more

OK now we are getting to the nut of the matter.
So these authors were not as you claimed "concurrent" authors. Rather they were inspired authors, acting under the influence of God, who made them write whatever God wanted written.


The authors of the Bible, did not actually witness what they wrote in other words. They wrote what God dictated.

That's your position?

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
Oddly I was just wondering the other day, how Young Earth Creationists were going to respond to the leaps that are being made with DNA and evolution.
With Tinney it appears you just wear a black-out helmet and scream "I see nothing!"
By the way Gilgamesh is not "by definition" the "oldest piece of epic Western liternature". It is "by evidence" the oldest.

==========================
Epic, by definition, is: "a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation." So what? Biblical records are not epic. They are concurrent testamentary records by living individuals. That is the difference.

Actually Genesis is not a concurrent testamentary record by a living individual.
There are no Christian churches that believe that Noah actually wrote anything, let alone Shem or Cain.

=====================================================
Really? Polling and analysis, dated 13 Feb 2013, by the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture - - - 106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more

OK now we are getting to the nut of the matter.
So these authors were not as you claimed "concurrent" authors. Rather they were inspired authors, acting under the influence of God, who made them write whatever God wanted written.
The authors of the Bible, did not actually witness what they wrote in other words. They wrote what God dictated.
That's your position?

==============================================================
That is the Catholic Church position, as I noted heretofore, in response to you incorrect statement. Nevertheless, with emendations, I will repeat and extend, including available documented sources, stated to have been written anciently.

Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature, going back to 4000 BC. For example, an item taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh, in Tablet VI.  . . . "Anu addressed princess Ishtar, saying: "If you demand the Bull of Heaven from me, there will be seven years of empty husks for the land of Uruk. Have you collected grain for the people! Have you made grasses grow for the animals?" Ishtar addressed Anu, her father, saying: "I have heaped grain in the granaries for the people, I made grasses grow for the animals, in order that they might eat in the seven years of empty husks. I have collected grain for the people, I have made grasses grow for the animals." When Anu heard her words, he placed the noserope of the Bull of Heaven in her hand. Ishtar led the Bull of Heaven down to the earth." Biblical remake by Mesopotamians, of the Joseph in Egypt and Seven Years of Famine. "The interpretation of dreams in ancient Mesopotamia can be found in its literature, such as the famous Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis." It is immediately obvious, from a professional genealogical research standpoint, that the Gilgamesh legend was compiled by a group of magicians, like those in the court of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, who severely resisted the ancient prophet Moses. I note that Joseph was thirty years old when he married Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, Prince and Priest of On, ca 1781/1721 B.C.; the Gilgamesh writing was concocted after this period. Indeed, that: "Gilgmesh was buried at the bottom of the Euphrates when the waters parted upon his death." This was taken from actual history of Moses dividing the sea for the Israelite nation to pass through on dry land, time wise to have been undertaken before Joshua died. Truth, as in records research, testifies of itself. Or, to put it in other words, professional genealogical research expertise comes by evaluating current alleged statements of fact, past alleged statements of fact, and that the fact projections of these evidences will be repeated again, for alleged future generations. Intelligent observation is independent of the dimension of time. Contradictory evidence derived from non-believers, is found in the beginning of record keeping, and exists so today. Faith based records note contradictions. Skeptics delete the full exposition of their opposites, for fear of exposure by comparison, as in all parts of society today. Scripture Biography Comprehending All The Names Mentioned In The Old and New Testaments notes estate dispositions. "The right of eminent domain is the claim of sovereignty by the state over all property within the state. "In the beginning, the "State" was Patriarchal; biblical record grantees Adam and Eve, were given co-equal, legal and lawful, exclusive dominion rights. It is tremendously obvious: records were handed down entitlement records, to the valid heirs of property rights, from the very first entries in the records themselves, just like today's business or real estate records, according to kept covenants of proper social - civil discourse. For established genealogically recognized kinship links, see subset reference from Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics - Kinship Terms.
https://www.ancient.eu/gilgamesh/
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab6.htm
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/41
http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/egyptian-dream-book-001621
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/oneiromancy-and-dream-predictions-ancient-mesopotamia-005726
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/ascension-gilgamesh-did-epic-hero-actually-exist-008782?nopaging=1
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93
https://books.google.com/books?id=wfhYmehZtHwC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=testamentary+covenant+posterity+records&source=bl&ots=kE-E9z7ZaN&sig=ATKdXW5K2IZ7aCOrFD2_0Sdd1D4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXopSUzd_XAhUOwmMKHfSNDFMQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=testamentary%20covenant%20posterity%20records&f=false
http://www.rodneychrisman.com/2011/02/03/biblical-examples-of-property-transactions/
http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/592-ehll-kinship-terms/file
. . . The most explicit description of the various kinship units in ancient Israel is found in Joshua 7: 16-18. Joshua first begins his identity search, by calling out the "tribe"; next the "clan" within the "tribe"; next the "house" within the "clan" within the "tribe"; next the "male individuals" within the "house" within the "clan" within the "tribe". The record indicates therefore the hierarchy of kinship and the relationship between kinship units, going back to the time of Moses; which descends from the time of Joseph in Egypt, going back to Abraham and his fathers, back to the time of Shem, son of Noah, and backwards in time, up and until the time of Adam and Eve. Jeff A. Benner states: "When we look at all the names of Adam's descendent we find that all the names from Adam to Noah and his children are Hebrew names, meaning that their name has a meaning in Hebrew. For instance, Methuselah (Genesis 5:21) is Hebrew for "his death brings" (The flood occurred the year that he died)." I state contextually, that the Biblical records indicate pre-flood name identities followed a similar pattern of patriarchal name meanings, later found in ancient Hebrew usage, and along with similar kinship patterns found in the genealogies, validates that these records are historical renditions, in their general substance and outlines, as handed down, contemporaneously written records. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus, further confirm record continuity; namely: "But I shall endeavor, hereafter, to delineate the chronology running back from myself to the beginning of the creation, for the records have come into my hands, which I hold unto this present time." Point in fact: "Within the domestic setting, there are two types of 'male servant', the one purchased with silver . . . and the one born in the household . . ." When Jesus Christ was betrayed by one of His own apostles, for thirty pieces of silver, it was the exact price paid anciently to a master of a slave who was killed (Exodus 21:32), indicating total High Priest contempt of Jesus Christ, as someone foreign born, outside the House of Israel. The payment was made to the traitorous apostle, as if he was the master of Jesus Christ. Jehovah was turned over to the authority of Rome, as a total outcast; a firstborn male goat sin offering, murdered, His innocent blood first dripping from every pore of His body, because of His extreme anguish for the wickedness of all mankind, in the garden of Gethsemane, and then spilt when gored upon the cross, by a Roman spear, at the hill of Golgotha, just outside the city wall of Jerusalem.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/josh/7?lang=eng
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_history.html
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1.28

[Nathan Murphy]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature, going back to 4000 BC. For example, an item taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh, in Tablet VI.  . . .

Headline: Tinney's Cuneiform Discussion Disrupts Holiday DNA Sales

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Nathan Murphy

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature, going back to 4000 BC. For example, an item taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh, in Tablet VI.  . . .

Headline: Tinney's Cuneiform Discussion Disrupts Holiday DNA Sales

================================================
I seriously doubt it. It is Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer D-NY,who has called on the United States Federal Trade Commission "to investigate DNA test companies due to concerns about personal info being sold to third parties." Blame him, not me. I am just a genealogist, with no economic axes to grind, beginning to update, Theses and Dissertations for the ending year of 2017, and before, for "Family History" and Genealogy. I have already posted Dissertation: Ph. D., Information Studies Drexel University 2017, re: Finding Family Facts in the Digital Age : Family History Research and Production Literacies - It presents a model of the information behaviors of family history researchers, as well as a literacies framework, which visualizes the skills and knowledge needed to conduct accurate family history research and produce accurate family histories in the digital age. Secondly, I have just posted from a Medieval perspective: Origen y evolución de las fortalezas bajomedievales en la parte suroeste de la provincia de Lugo - [Abstract] Origin and evolution of four late medieval fortress: Pambre, Amarante, San Miguel das Penas y San Paio de Narla, which are located in “la Ulloa ” and “Narla” (southwest of Lugo). . . . includes "(building: Donjon, main building and turret), chapel, coats of arms, storied windows, fireplace, stone sings, lineage and genealogy." Good input appreciated.
https://www.upi.com/Schumer-wants-DNA-test-companies-investigated-warns-info-sold-to-third-parties/5651511750462/
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#YEAR_2017
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArquitectura_rom%25C3%25A1nica_en_Galicia&edit-text=&act=url

[wjhonson]

But none of what you have written in this long thread, touches on the title, at all.

Can DNA answer a specific question about any individual ancestry.

Many people have given you specific examples of questions that have been answered.

Why do you continue to post things about Gilgamesh?
That's really random and not pertaining to the title of your thread.

Why not post about Hammurabi or Squid.
Why can't you answer the exact points made instead of this rambling nonsense that makes people think you're off balance?

[Vance Mead]

Please do not feed the troll
Or he’ll never crawl back in his hole
You should not and can’t
Respond to his rant
Don’t touch with a ten foot long pole.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Vance Mead
Please do not feed the troll
Or he’ll never crawl back in his hole
You should not and can’t
Respond to his rant
Don’t touch with a ten foot long pole.

=====================================
I like your poetry. It reminds me of the balance needed in doing family genealogy and history research, taking additionally into account, all forms of romance literature and hagiography; or, the biography of individuals mentioned in any of the world's spiritual traditions, such as Gilgamesh, or even Adam, as love is core to marriage ties, and the central bonding of all real pedigrees. I therefore refer both you and Will Johnson to the Abstract for: Communicating Across Time : Female Genealogies in the Medieval Literary Imagination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[This dissertation, “Communicating Across Time: Female Genealogies in the Medieval Literary Imagination,” explores the range of genealogical forms, alternative to patrilineage, that British writers used to depict the transmission of women’s power across time in early-twelfth to late-fourteenth-century literature. By taking an expansive definition of genealogy and exploring romance and hagiography, it highlights a widespread and persistent interest in medieval literature in the ways female characters record their legacies and communicate these legacies to future generations. By examining genealogy in these literary terms, this study revises current understandings of a core aspect of medieval culture and expands current definitions of what constitutes medieval historiography. Though patrilineal genealogy has been widely studied, we currently have little vocabulary to talk about female genealogies. Broadly stated, genealogy in this study describes the author’s description of a deliberate communication from the past that explains, curates or contests contemporary social-political landscapes, and to make claims to the future.

Patrilineage, which became the main system of genealogy from the twelfth century, idealized the transmission of power – name, land holdings, and the legend of a common ancestor – from father to son. Even the notion that women possessed power and stories to communicate threatened a system that relied on mothers as passive genealogical vehicles. Aristocratic women, as landholders, heirs, politicians and religious leaders, did of course have legacies to communicate. Because medieval women’s claims to land and power were more mobile and less standardized than men’s, this dissertation is less interested in what female protagonists communicate across time and more interested in how - the means and processes of communication. This study’s focus on alternative female genealogies also highlights new ways of understanding literary representations of medieval maternity. In the texts examined, motherhood is not limited to the domestic, bodily and momentary, but is a political and agential role that is actively managed by the woman herself, often in conjunction with other forms of written and verbal communication.

Literary texts reveal the various, and often unexpected, means medieval writers and readers imagined for women’s cross-temporal communications. Female characters frequently employ alternative genealogical ‘bodies’ to that of a male child, actively revising the topos of women as simply the bodily matter and means for a male line. The characters inscribe their claims to land, power and spirituality through footprints in rocks, blood-impressed doors, tenderly-handled books, a mother’s exact resemblance imprinted in her child’s face. The intimacy and deliberateness with which these women create and manage their cross-generational communications both draws on and destabilizes traditional ideals of motherhood and genealogy. The four chapters read across French, English and Latin texts, as many English readers would have done, with a focus on the genres of hagiography, romance and chronicle from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries.]
http://www.worldcat.org/title/communicating-across-time-female-genealogies-in-the-medieval-literary-imagination/oclc/1004780204&referer=brief_results

If you don't get the point, it is this. Adam and Eve is in fact real romantic, emotional in its presentation; namely, Eve became fallen and begged her husband Adam to partake also, so that they could continue to be together, even in death. Adam sacrificed eternal blissful existence, so that he could cleave to his wife. Gilgamesh, on the other hand, is total, kingdom centered fabrications of origin.
Eve sustained Adam as her head, the patriarchal order, because he died with her.
Cuneiform references to Gilgamesh are a cycle of Sumerian murder mystery novels.
The most comprehensive telling of the Gilgamesh legend, (twelve-tablet Standard Babylonian Version); presented by exorcist-priest (mašmaššu) Sîn-lēqi-unninni.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
But none of what you have written in this long thread, touches on the title, at all.
Can DNA answer a specific question about any individual ancestry.
Many people have given you specific examples of questions that have been answered.
Why do you continue to post things about Gilgamesh?
That's really random and not pertaining to the title of your thread.
Why not post about Hammurabi or Squid.
Why can't you answer the exact points made instead of this rambling nonsense that makes people think you're off balance?

=====================================================

The balance needed in doing family genealogy and history research, takes additionally into account, all forms of romance literature and hagiography; or, the biography of individuals mentioned in any of the world's spiritual traditions, such as Gilgamesh, or even Adam, as pure love (charity) is core to marriage ties, and the central bonding of all real pedigrees. The point is this: Adam and Eve is in fact real romantic, emotional in its presentation; namely: Eve became fallen and begged her husband Adam to partake also, so that they could continue to be together, even in death. Adam sacrificed eternal blissful existence, so that he could cleave to (remain with) his wife. This was an intellectual decision, not one generated from physical desires, as Adam was still in an innocent state, as a little boy or an infant, before he partook of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Gilgamesh, on the other hand, is total, kingdom centered fabrications of origin, based on force. Eve voluntarily sustained Adam as her head (her desire), the patriarchal order, because he died with her, and for her and their future posterity. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Any valiant man or woman, following in the footsteps of Adam and Eve, would sacrifice in an instant, their own lives, to save the lives of their own children, or each other. Cuneiform references to Gilgamesh are a cycle of Sumerian murder mystery novels. The most comprehensive telling of the Gilgamesh legend, (twelve-tablet Standard Babylonian Version); it is presented as being compiled by exorcist-priest (mašmaššu) Sîn-lēqi-unninni.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/communicating-across-time-female-genealogies-in-the-medieval-literary-imagination/oclc/1004780204&referer=brief_results
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/11.3,11
https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AEn-l%C4%93qi-unninni

[taf]

Post by P J Evans
Oh so much wrong in this.
You need to spend some time taking basic biology classes, as well as history of science.

I had decided to quit this thread in spite of the inane material being posted, but there is something here of value to medieval genealogy, though you would never know it.

The problem will not be solved by the contributor being exposed to more information, because of a philosophical disconnect. There is a right way and a wrong way to approach scholarship in all fields, and Mr. Tinney is the poster-child for the wrong way.

Approach 1: decide what the truth is. Look for evidence, and evaluate it based on how well it agrees with the truth. Data consistent with the truth are embraced wholeheartedly. Irrelevant data is frequently taken out of context to appear to support the truth, but if a datum is inconsistent with the truth, then some reason is sought to explain it away, to reject it. What typifies Approach 1 is that there are absolute answers, and those answers are not subject to change as more data appears. They are fixed in stone.

Approach 2: decide what the question is. Look for evidence, and evaluate it based on criteria independent of the question (in genealogy, how proximate it is temporally, geographically, etc., whether it has a general tradition for accuracy, what the author's motivations might have been). From the data, generate a provisional answer to the question, and seek more evidence. Repeatedly reevaluate the answer based on new data, and if a reliable source provides contradictory evidence, reject the answer and start again. What typifies Approach 2 is that all conclusions are subject to reevaluation, based on the evidence available. Nothing is fixed in stone, even the most straightforward of conclusions. There is no truth, just an answer currently most consistent with the data

Mr. Tinney is applying Approach 1, where he knows THE TRUTH and it is just a question of accepting or rejecting evidence based on its conformity to that TRUTH. What he is decrying as the failure of science, that nothing is 'proven', is actually its feature - it is fundamental to the process of science and all scholarship that there are not absolute answers and that conclusions are subject to revision as the answer is repeatedly reweighed against the evidence. This is polar opposite Mr. Tinney's religion-based approach, where his personal interpretation of holy scriptures provides an absolute truth against which all evidence is to be weighed.

To be successful at medieval genealogy, rather than simply being a collector of medieval names, one must follow approach 2. It is critical that one evaluate the quality of the sources independently, not based on their conformity with the desired descent, and it is likewise critical to follow the data where they lead. Due to an inherent phenomenon called 'confirmation bias', it is all too easy to dismiss data that disprove a hypothesized descent or connection in favor of other data that support it, simply because connections are more aesthetically pleasing than blank space in the pedigree, but this must be resisted. Likewise, one has to view all connections, however invested one is in them being correct, as provisional and be willing to throw them out if better evidence (or an unbiased reevaluation of the prior evidence) shows that the conclusion was not as well supported as you had led yourself to believe, whether this means substituting a better (more accurate) answer for the old one, or concluding no answer is possible given the inherent insufficiency or contradictions in the data.

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

Post by P J Evans
Oh so much wrong in this.
You need to spend some time taking basic biology classes, as well as history
of science.

I had decided to quit this thread in spite of the inane material being posted, but there is something here of value to medieval genealogy, though you would never know it.
The problem will not be solved by the contributor being exposed to more information, because of a philosophical disconnect. There is a right way and a wrong way to approach scholarship in all fields, and Mr. Tinney is the poster-child for the wrong way.
Approach 1: decide what the truth is. Look for evidence, and evaluate it based on how well it agrees with the truth. Data consistent with the truth are embraced wholeheartedly. Irrelevant data is frequently taken out of context to appear to support the truth, but if a datum is inconsistent with the truth, then some reason is sought to explain it away, to reject it. What typifies Approach 1 is that there are absolute answers, and those answers are not subject to change as more data appears. They are fixed in stone.
Approach 2: decide what the question is. Look for evidence, and evaluate it based on criteria independent of the question (in genealogy, how proximate it is temporally, geographically, etc., whether it has a general tradition for accuracy, what the author's motivations might have been). From the data, generate a provisional answer to the question, and seek more evidence. Repeatedly reevaluate the answer based on new data, and if a reliable source provides contradictory evidence, reject the answer and start again. What typifies Approach 2 is that all conclusions are subject to reevaluation, based on the evidence available. Nothing is fixed in stone, even the most straightforward of conclusions. There is no truth, just an answer currently most consistent with the data
Mr. Tinney is applying Approach 1, where he knows THE TRUTH and it is just a question of accepting or rejecting evidence based on its conformity to that TRUTH. What he is decrying as the failure of science, that nothing is 'proven', is actually its feature - it is fundamental to the process of science and all scholarship that there are not absolute answers and that conclusions are subject to revision as the answer is repeatedly reweighed against the evidence. This is polar opposite Mr. Tinney's religion-based approach, where his personal interpretation of holy scriptures provides an absolute truth against which all evidence is to be weighed.
To be successful at medieval genealogy, rather than simply being a collector of medieval names, one must follow approach 2. It is critical that one evaluate the quality of the sources independently, not based on their conformity with the desired descent, and it is likewise critical to follow the data where they lead. Due to an inherent phenomenon called 'confirmation bias', it is all too easy to dismiss data that disprove a hypothesized descent or connection in favor of other data that support it, simply because connections are more aesthetically pleasing than blank space in the pedigree, but this must be resisted. Likewise, one has to view all connections, however invested one is in them being correct, as provisional and be willing to throw them out if better evidence (or an unbiased reevaluation of the prior evidence) shows that the conclusion was not as well supported as you had led yourself to believe, whether this means substituting a better (more accurate) answer for the old one, or concluding no answer is possible given the inherent insufficiency or contradictions in the data.
taf

============================
Your approach is brilliant but your conclusions are wrong. There is nothing about religious truths, as such, that motivates my commentaries. It is the fact that when records are written and handed down, their witness evidence cannot be modified by posterity, lacking faith in the beliefs or testimonies given in former generations. Isaac Newton was a real person, not a vague epic, and his scientific findings are not defined by his religious beliefs. You are a poor research fellow if you cannot see through your own inability and doubting of past records because belief systems offend you as a modern intellectual person.

[taf]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
There is nothing about religious truths, as such, that motivates my
commentaries. It is the fact that when records are written and handed
down, their witness evidence cannot be modified by posterity, lacking
faith in the beliefs or testimonies given in former generations.

What jaw-dropping irony in these two statements, the first a denial of the role of religious truths, the second an blatant avowal of religious dogma as fact in the face of contradictory evidence derived from non-believers. Pretty much speaks for itself.

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
There is nothing about religious truths, as such, that motivates my
commentaries. It is the fact that when records are written and handed
down, their witness evidence cannot be modified by posterity, lacking
faith in the beliefs or testimonies given in former generations.

What jaw-dropping irony in these two statements, the first a denial of the role of religious truths, the second an blatant avowal of religious dogma as fact in the face of contradictory evidence derived from non-believers. Pretty much speaks for itself.
taf

====================================
Wow. You need to iron out your jaw. You incorrectly stated, to begin with, that "Approach 1: decide what the truth is." This is a false premise to begin with. Truth, as in records research, testifies of itself. Or, to put it in other words, professional genealogical research expertise comes by evaluating current alleged statements of fact, past alleged statements of fact, and that the fact projections of these evidences will be repeated again, for alleged future generations. Intelligent observation is independent of the dimension of time. Contradictory evidence derived from non-believers, is found in the beginning of record keeping, and exists so today. Faith based records note contradictions. Skeptics delete the full exposition of their opposites, for fear of exposure by comparison, as in all parts of society today. "Pretty much speaks for itself."

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Your approach is brilliant but your conclusions are wrong. There is
nothing about religious truths, as such, that motivates my
commentaries. It is the fact that when records are written and handed
down, their witness evidence cannot be modified by posterity, lacking
faith in the beliefs or testimonies given in former generations. Isaac
Newton was a real person, not a vague epic, and his scientific findings
are not defined by his religious beliefs. You are a poor research
fellow if you cannot see through your own inability and doubting of
past records because belief systems offend you as a modern intellectual
person.

I am a person of religious beliefs, but this is word salad. We are,
here, not dealing with an intellect blinkered by terrible,
rationality-killing religiousness. We are dealing with a nut.

[wjhonson]

Tinney's writing sounds a bit like an AI program trying to write a response.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
Tinney's writing sounds a bit like an AI program trying to write a response.

====================================================

REPLY: I think that comes from constantly correcting and updating thousands of links, year after year, on a very large site. I find enthusiasm or interest, in the connection of data findings, such as following up on the new information concerning Ophir de España & Fernando de Montesinos’s Divine Defense of the Spanish Colonial Empire: A Mysterious Ancestral Merging of Pre-Inca and Christian Histories. There was supposed to be a manuscript purchased by Montesinos at a Lima, Peru auction. So, I mention: [Research Note: Sacred Geography, Antiquarianism and Visual Erudition: Benito Arias Montano and the Maps in the Antwerp Polygot Bible, on page 71, notes the centrepiece of Montano's pious world geography is the identification of the biblical gold-bearing region of Ophir with Peru in the New World: . . . the identification of the New World in general with the biblical Ophir went back to Columbus, and the more specific theory that Peru was Ophir had already been suggested by (Guillaume) Postel, but it was Montano who provided the philological proof, bringing into action his talents as a Hebraist (Parvaim as 'double Peru').] So, it appears to me, that it was first, theologian Benito Arias Montano, who proposed Ophir in the name of Peru, not Fernando de Montesinos. reasoning that the native Peruvians were thus descendants of Ophir and Shem. [Morphologically, parvaim . . . in Hebrew could be broken to mean double Peru. Montano claimed therefore that the verse should in fact read: ‘And this was the gold of Peru and Peru’, and not like the Vulgate, where parvaim was interpreted as a mark of high quality (probatissimum).] So, I interject, that: [The final volume of the Polyglot Bible, edited by Benito Arias Montano, printed in Antwerp by Christophe Plantin, that was published in 1571–1572, and his other published records, appear as historical source records for etymology of both words, etc., noted later by Montesinos.] Also, Yucatan province may originate from the name of the father of Ophir, Ioktan. Book of Mormon Archaeology News, closed Facebook Group, has interests that are Mesoamerican centric. On the other hand, the Jaredite Book of Ether says: "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written." So I am wondering from what original source, if any, Montesinos got the emphasis that Ophir was a divine and chosen land. Only righteous rulers who were chosen by God were allowed to rule and profit from Ophir. So, do the described wars and the territorial positioning of Ophir's descendants match the medieval archeological timeline of the Wari who lived from approximately AD 600 - AD 1000; and, if so, is this record handed down from an earlier nation of Jaredites? Was the land of Ophir identified and known prior to the division of the continents, during the days of Peleg, and also after and before the days of Noah, as a land of gold? Not computer generated AI questions.
https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=span_gradetds
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005674509
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bmaf.org/
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/2.12?lang=eng#11
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#YEAR_2017

[wjhonson]

But is there any point at which you are going to come back to the topic of this thread?

This thread is not about 98% of all the stuff you've posted here.
It's about whether DNA can answer specific questions.
That's all it's about.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by wjhonson
But is there any point at which you are going to come back to the topic of this thread?
This thread is not about 98% of all the stuff you've posted here.
It's about whether DNA can answer specific questions.
That's all it's about.

=========================================
You have it all backwards. I quote: "DNA testing only works with traditional paper trail genealogy, not instead of it!" If you cannot create an authentic paper trail in the first place, it is just imagination, or meaningless scientific speculation.

[wjhonson]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
But is there any point at which you are going to come back to the topic of this thread?
This thread is not about 98% of all the stuff you've posted here.
It's about whether DNA can answer specific questions.
That's all it's about.

=========================================
You have it all backwards. I quote: "DNA testing only works with traditional paper trail genealogy, not instead of it!" If you cannot create an authentic paper trail in the first place, it is just imagination, or meaningless scientific speculation.

Utterly incorrect.

If two people take the Autosomal DNA test, without ever having met or suspected that they might be related, it can conclusively show that they are in fact mother and daughter.

Outside of any paper trail.

Address that point.

[P J Evans]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by wjhonson
Tinney's writing sounds a bit like an AI program trying to write a response.

====================================================
REPLY: I think that comes from constantly correcting and updating thousands of links, year after year, on a very large site. I find enthusiasm or interest, in the connection of data findings, such as following up on the new information concerning Ophir de España & Fernando de Montesinos’s Divine Defense of the Spanish Colonial Empire: A Mysterious Ancestral Merging of Pre-Inca and Christian Histories. There was supposed to be a manuscript purchased by Montesinos at a Lima, Peru auction. So, I mention: [Research Note: Sacred Geography, Antiquarianism and Visual Erudition: Benito Arias Montano and the Maps in the Antwerp Polygot Bible, on page 71, notes the centrepiece of Montano's pious world geography is the identification of the biblical gold-bearing region of Ophir with Peru in the New World: . . . the identification of the New World in general with the biblical Ophir went back to Columbus, and the more specific theory that Peru was Ophir had already been suggested by (Guillaume) Postel, but it was Montano who provided the philological proof, bringing into action his talents as a Hebraist (Parvaim as 'double Peru').] So, it appears to me, that it was first, theologian Benito Arias Montano, who proposed Ophir in the name of Peru, not Fernando de Montesinos. reasoning that the native Peruvians were thus descendants of Ophir and Shem. [Morphologically, parvaim . . . in Hebrew could be broken to mean double Peru. Montano claimed therefore that the verse should in fact read: ‘And this was the gold of Peru and Peru’, and not like the Vulgate, where parvaim was interpreted as a mark of high quality (probatissimum).] So, I interject, that: [The final volume of the Polyglot Bible, edited by Benito Arias Montano, printed in Antwerp by Christophe Plantin, that was published in 1571–1572, and his other published records, appear as historical source records for etymology of both words, etc., noted later by Montesinos.] Also, Yucatan province may originate from the name of the father of Ophir, Ioktan. Book of Mormon Archaeology News, closed Facebook Group, has interests that are Mesoamerican centric. On the other hand, the Jaredite Book of Ether says: "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written." So I am wondering from what original source, if any, Montesinos got the emphasis that Ophir was a divine and chosen land. Only righteous rulers who were chosen by God were allowed to rule and profit from Ophir. So, do the described wars and the territorial positioning of Ophir's descendants match the medieval archeological timeline of the Wari who lived from approximately AD 600 - AD 1000; and, if so, is this record handed down from an earlier nation of Jaredites? Was the land of Ophir identified and known prior to the division of the continents, during the days of Peleg, and also after and before the days of Noah, as a land of gold? Not computer generated AI questions.
https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=span_gradetds
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005674509
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bmaf.org/
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/2.12?lang=eng#11
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#YEAR_2017

This group is about MEDIEVAL genealogy, not your much-repeated mythical biblical descent.
Can you pay attention to this, for a change, instead of spamming us with irrelevant and FICTITIOUS genealogical crap?

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

This group is about MEDIEVAL genealogy, not your much-repeated mythical biblical descent. Can you pay attention to this, for a change, instead of spamming us with irrelevant and FICTITIOUS genealogical crap?
=================================
I have never presented in full, Research Notes: Section K, as now follows. Copious links are included within the proposed items of interest. Mormons, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; their founding Prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr., presented many of the locations within this report, from his documented sources, as factual persons, places, and things. Since the said Church has the largest genealogical organization in the world, I felt it was part of my professional genealogical research specialist duty, without preemptive bias, to evaluate all of these circumstances out in my own mind, comparing current popular DNA projections into Africa, with these details, to see if there was corroborating data sets, one way or the other, and if so, without hostile intent, and without takings sides to obtain a foregone conclusion, where the records would lead, and thus find the evidences necessary to confidently evaluate medieval institutional data sets attached to Noah.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#012
. . .
- Ophir de España & Fernando de Montesinos’s Divine Defense of the Spanish Colonial Empire: A Mysterious Ancestral Merging of Pre-Inca and Christian Histories - provides longest version of Andean genealogy, one hundred and three Andean rulers instead of the traditional eleven to thirteen that were included in the other colonial chronicles from the 16th & 17th centuries. Montesinos argues throughout his chronicle that the Incas, along with all Andeans, are actually descendants of one of Noah's grandsons named Ophir. This discussed by Miguel Cabello de Balboa, in Miscelánea antártica (1586) and Gegorio Garcia, in Origen de los indios de el Nuevo Mundo e Indias Occidentales (1607). "According to Montesinos, Ophir and his family were the first to arrive to Peru, and subsequently the territory was named after this biblical descendant." . . .first Andean rulers were Christian-like because they kept the commandments, received revelations, and used a precise calendar that corresponded with the biblical timeline. [Manuscript purchased by Montesinos at Lima, Peru auction.] [Research Note: Sacred Geography, Antiquarianism and Visual Erudition: Benito Arias Montano and the Maps in the Antwerp Polygot Bible, on page 71, notes the centrepiece of Montano's pious world geography is the identification of the biblical gold-bearing region of Ophir with Peru in the New World: . . . the identification of the New World in general with the biblical Ophir went back to Columbus, and the more specific theory that Peru was Ophir had already been suggested by (Guillaume) Postel, but it was Montano who provided the philological proof, bringing into action his talents as a Hebraist (Parvaim as 'double Peru').] [Montesinos "is generally viewed as either a creative and misleading colonial story teller or as a fortunate buyer" of one of the rarest versions of pre-Inca history.] Book II Andean history stands pre-eminent in colonial Latin American literature. [Book II discusses how Noah's descendants used quillqa for thirty-five hundred years to write and keep records . . .] Reference Comparison - Peru is Ophir. First, it was theologian Benito Arias Montano, who proposed Ophir as being the same as Peru, not Fernando de Montesinos, reasoning that the native Peruvians were thus descendants of Ophir and Shem. [Morphologically, parvaim . . . in Hebrew could be broken to mean double Peru. Montano claimed therefore that the verse should in fact read: ‘And this was the gold of Peru and Peru’, and not like the Vulgate, where parvaim was interpreted as a mark of high quality (probatissimum). Thus, the final volume of the Polyglot Bible, edited by Benito Arias Montano, printed in Antwerp by Christophe Plantin, that was published in 1571–1572, and his other published records, appears as historical source records for etymology of both words, and noted questioned translations of Hebrew words, by Fernando de Montesinos.] [The Quito manuscript : an Inca history preserved by Fernando de Montesinos] [Montesinos emphasizes that Ophir was a divine and chosen land. Only righteous rulers who were chosen by God were allowed to rule and profit from Ophir, like Kings David and Solomon.] "And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine." Similar to Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 5) writings. However, it is mentioned: [described wars and the territorial positioning of Ophir's descendants match the archeological timeline of the Wari who lived from approximately 600 AD - 1000 AD.] [Nevertheless, "in Chapter 1, the first Andean rulers were Christian-like because they kept the commandments, received revelations, and used a precise calendar that corresponded with the biblical timeline." . . . "Slowly, even though there are moral cycles similar to those found in the Bible, Andean or Ophirian society distance themselves from God. War, greed, and struggles for dominance and power corrupt the Andean world until the final arrival of the Spaniards." Compare with Jaredite Book of Ether 2: "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written."] [Mesoamerican Yucatan province may originate from the name of the father of Ophir, Ioktan.] [Research Note: The traditional history of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church states that Joktan's sons, which would include Ophir, took "no part in the tower building, and that they were thus allowed to preserve the original Ge'ez language -- which their descendants, the Agazyan, carried across the Red Sea into Ethiopia as they mixed with the Cushitic and Agaw people to form the hybrid Habesha race. This has exact parallel in The Book of Ether 1, and as further expanded in Ether 3.] - Central and Southern Andes, 500–1000 A.D. | Chronology | Heilbrunn Timeline - ZARAHEMLA and THE RIVER SIDON: "Caffeinated"* BYU System Eclipsed ["Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, . . .". Peru is between: landing south of the Isthmus of Darien or northern Chile landing. OPHIR is the name of a region in the ancient Near East mentioned once: ISAIAH section of the Book of Mormon. Jaredites - O.T. "great tower" time frame.] Was the land of Ophir identified and known prior to the division of the continents, during the days of Peleg, and also after and before the days of Noah, as a land of gold? Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, reconstructed connections to present day gold mining and Pangaea, shows a pattern of finds from the United States, flowing down through Middle and Central America, parallel South American and African continental connections, to deposits within southern South Africa; to India, Indonesia and Australia; also, tributary connection into northwest United States, Canada, Alaska, to Russian Siberia and Middle East regions. Biblical and other texts, suggest that the identification of regions by large river systems, indicates ancient use of these waterways for transport and travel (D&C 61). "Behold, I, the Lord, in the beginning blessed the waters; but in the last days, by the mouth of my servant John, I cursed the waters. Wherefore, the days will come that no flesh shall be safe upon the waters. And it shall be said in days to come that none is able to go up to the land of Zion upon the waters, but he that is upright in heart. And, as I, the Lord, in the beginning cursed the land, even so in the last days have I blessed it, in its time, for the use of my saints, that they may partake the fatness thereof." The mention of gold and other precious metals gave sign posts to the posterity of Adam, for determination of location in relation to various family migrations, from the region of the first human homestead, situated near the garden of Eden. And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence. . . . And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters. ARCHIVED: https://archive.is/vWus0
- Unrolling History: Fifteenth-century Political Culture and Perceptions (pdf copy) on the Canterbury Roll - a fifteenth-century genealogical chronicle roll that traces the succession of English kings from Noah until the Wars of the Roses.
- Leaves of Gold Gallery - FLP Lewis MsE201
- Leaves of Gold - Exhibition Checklist
- Medieval & Renaissance Manuscripts | The Morgan Library & Museum
- The Wall Edition ("Noah" Group Manuscripts)
- Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, Rolls 39
- Cambridge, King’s College, MS 43
- Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives, 2-TDE/K/
- London, British Library, Additional MS 18002
- London, British Library, Sloane MS 2732A
- London, College of Arms, MS Box 28, no. 5
- London, College of Arms, MS Box 28, no. 12
- London, Society of Antiquaries of London, MS 570
- Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame, Hesburgh Library, cod. Lat. D. 3
- Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marshall MS 135
- Oxford, Queen’s College, MS 167
- Wall Handbook to the Maude Roll (1919) (pdf)
- Tours of the British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts
- An Introduction to Illuminated Manuscripts by the British Library
- The British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Your approach is brilliant but your conclusions are wrong. There is
nothing about religious truths, as such, that motivates my
commentaries. It is the fact that when records are written and handed
down, their witness evidence cannot be modified by posterity, lacking
faith in the beliefs or testimonies given in former generations. Isaac
Newton was a real person, not a vague epic, and his scientific findings
are not defined by his religious beliefs. You are a poor research
fellow if you cannot see through your own inability and doubting of
past records because belief systems offend you as a modern intellectual
person.

I am a person of religious beliefs, but this is word salad. We are,
here, not dealing with an intellect blinkered by terrible,
rationality-killing religiousness. We are dealing with a nut.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
http://nielsenhayden.com
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/

=================================================
REPLY: [The idea that participants in institutions like the Royal Society of London were morally enjoined to be trustworthy and truth-telling because they were English gentlemen is dependent upon the knowledge-making practises of those who interpreted and guaranteed the rules by which gentility could be identified, and these practises embedded an epistemic culture that was founded on legal, biblical, geographical, and biological discourse represented by the Heralds and the College of Arms. The Law of Arms gave the heralds the authority and framework within which they could recognise, adjudicate, and “know” gentility.] . . . THE OTHES OF HERAUDES . . . [Item ye shal promise to your power to forsake all vices, and take you to all virtues, and to be no comyn goerse to tavernes, the which might cause unvirtuousness and uncleane language, . . .]

Powerful Arms and Fertile Soil: (pdf copy) English Identity and the Law of Arms in Early Modern England - Status and authority of the English gentleman is derived from the uniquely English interpretation and administration of the Law of Arms by the officers of the College of Arms -- the heralds. This research examines questions of honour, genealogy, and law, as they were understood by the heralds, and their role in creating an English identity during the early modern period.
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/17032
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/17032/3/kennedy_cr_thesis.pdf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, it is worth repeating. Good Reasoning does require
repeating -- each time a bit of genealogical nonsense rears its
head.

...New Audience & Climate of Opinion -- each time, over time.

Thanks for repeating it.

DSH

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:09:56 -0800 (PST), taf

Post by taf
Several essays on DNA.
I guess it is worth repeating that these contributions on DNA derive from misinterpreted Google search results and misapplication/misunderstanding of scientific findings. Nothing said about DNA or so-called secular science ('secular' science is just science that is inconveniently inconsistent with faith-based dogma) can be taken at face value, let alone be mistaken for a representation of expertise.
Yes, DNA can answer genealogical questions, if the question is phrased precisely, addresses something amenable to DNA testing, and appropriate samples are available.
taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
The answer is: No.

With all due respect, Mr. Tinney, the correct answer is yes. My recent DNA testing helped me conclusively prove the parentage of one person in my ancestry that I was unable to solve otherwise. The DNA testing was 1000

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

I meant to add that my DNA testing has proven to be astonishingly accurate. I have found near relatives for all 11 of my 12 great-great-grandparents who have extensive American ancestry. The one great-great-grandparent for whom I have not yet found any living relatives comes from a family where there are extremely few modern descendants.

So yes DNA can answer specific questions about one's ancestry.

DR

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Douglas Richardson
I meant to add that my DNA testing has proven to be astonishingly accurate. I have found near relatives for all 11 of my 12 great-great-grandparents who have extensive American ancestry. The one great-great-grandparent for whom I have not yet found any living relatives comes from a family where there are extremely few modern descendants.
So yes DNA can answer specific questions about one's ancestry.
DR

DR, I have reviewed some of your work in the past and have found it interesting, to say the least. I have a saying I like, not mine, but thoughtfully said from a highly intelligent person in history. It goes like this: "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right."
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Using information from the world of secular, modern scientific religion, I note a question placed online, in the last day or so, that: "Did Modern Humans Evolve in East Asia? Analysis of 260,000-year-old Homo sapiens Skull Undermines Out of Africa Theory" [It now appears that archaic Homo sapiens were not a genetically isolated population in Africa and that African hominins of their time were no more critical to the human story than were other groups living in China.]
https://www.ancient-code.com/modern-humans-evolve-east-asia-analysis-260000-year-old-archaic-homo-sapiens-skull-china-undermines-africa-theory/

I appreciate your opinions, but like other scholars on this list, you have no sure foundation, as migrations flow back and forth between regions, as you know.

[P J Evans]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
The answer is: No. Are there any credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, that will supplement independently, historical studies of genealogy? Again, the clear answer is: No. "Although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces." "While the limitations of the genetic-ancestry tests are complex, here we focus on a few key points: (1) the social construction of ethnic labels that are being mapped onto biology; (2) the limited geographical and cultural representation of the world’s people in existing genetic databases; and (3) the incomplete, fragmented record of the past in any person’s DNA." Reference is also made to: "Who's More Irish, You or Your Sibling? The Surprising Science Behind the Inheritance of Ethnicity" It is a given, that "most siblings have a different mix of ethnicities due to the random nature of genetic inheritance". "If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor." This uncertainty, that cannot be accurately calibrated, professionally invalidates answers to specific questions. Different segments of DNA are randomly passed down to create an individual's DNA. This shows up in variations found in the DNA of siblings, as well as in the fact that everyone has a different set of finger prints, or that in the fact that "everyone's eyes are wired differently". "DNA determines the color and structure of the iris, but its random pits, furrows, swirls, and rifts occur during fetal development, which makes every iris unique (even your two irises don’t match each other)." "Bodyprint . . . touch sensor . . . scan users’ body parts, such as ears, fingers, fists, and palms by pressing them against the display." "Cheilosopy deals with the study of elevations and depressions which form a characteristic pattern on the external surface of the lips. Lip grooves are considered to be unique and analogous to the fingerprint." "New oral features can be considered unique as a fingerprint". In fact there are "11 Body Parts Researchers Will Use to Track You". "Are toeprints unique, like fingerprints?" "Yes they are." "You're more unique than you know". . . . even identical twins have different DNA. Using second generation genome sequencing, . . . "you find that once that fertilized egg splits there are random mutations that are happening and that can be used to identify differences between twins." So the real question is: "Are Fingerprint Patterns Inherited?" Etc.? "There is an inheritance component to fingerprint patterns but the genetics of how they are inherited are complicated. (Multiple genes are involved.) Fingerprints are also affected by a person's environment while developing in the womb." . . . "Because each person's fingerprints are unique, and not even identical twins—who share the same DNA—have identical fingerprints, this also shows that fingerprints are not completely controlled by genetics." Which then brings up the final question that is not being asked generationally; namely, "Are genetics completely controlled by genetics?" The answers come: "During pregnancy, cells from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's body, where they can become part of her tissues." "The mother's body accumulates cells from each baby--and potentially functions as a reservoir, transferring cells from the older sibling into the younger one and forming more elaborate microchimeras." Studies show that DNA has changes as people age, in DNA methylation, linked to diseases like cancer and autoimmune disorders. "Mitochondrial circulating DNA (m-cirDNA) was also elevated in patients with cancer and disorders associated with massive cell damage, such as acute ischemic stroke"; remembering, at the same time, that it is Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is passed down almost unchanged from a mother to her children, allowing tracing of maternal ancestry; apparently now to be adjusted by health and age issues, as well as more elaborate microchimeras. "In the last decade, there have been increasing numbers of studies describing altered MtDNA or Mt/N in circulation in common nongenetic diseases where mitochondrial dysfunction may play a role (for review see Malik and Czajka, Mitochondrion 13:481-492, 2013). These studies are distinct from those looking at genetic mitochondrial disease and are attempting to identify acquired changes in circulating MtDNA content as an indicator of mitochondrial function. However, the methodology being used is not always specific and reproducible." In fact, "Genes May Be Linked To Tooth Decay, Gum Disease", noted by using the only one of a kind, University of Pittsburgh dental registry and the DNA Repository. Gait on.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2016.1105990
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adopting-reason/201607/dna-tests-ethnic-ancestry-in-adoption-skeptic-s-view
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/whos-more-irish-you-or-your-sibling/?o_xid=76884&o_lid=76884&o_sch=Content+Marketing
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/unique-body-parts/
http://www.christianholz.net/bodyprint.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789909
http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2014/01/new-oral-features-can-be-considered-unique-as-a-fingerprint.html
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/11-body-parts-researchers-will-use-to-track-you/
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-toeprints-unique-fingerprints
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/health/unique-body-parts/index.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/9/1165.long
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/succession-science-are-fingerprint-patterns-inherited/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414163/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032717306614
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25631009
http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/conditions/gum-disease/article/ada-04-genes-may-be-linked-to-tooth-decay-gum-disease
http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~kale/avbpa.pdf

Could you put in some paragraphs, to make your posts something better than a wall-o-text?
And also, could you keep them relevant to MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY?

[j***@gmail.com]

Please don't feed the troll

[wjhonson]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm

I feel like you want your DNA test to answer a pre-formed and particular question, as opposed to being able to answer *some* question.

So for example, you want to know if your Tinney line is Irish, and you want the DNA to say you are 40% Irish or something like that. That won't work.

However if you enter the field of DNA research with no pre-conceived question, then it certainly can answer *some* questions.

If you test yourself and your brother, it will tell you that you are brothers. So that's an answer it can give. If you test yourself and your child, it will tell you that you are the parent. So that's also an answer it can give.

Perhaps if you tell us a little more directly what question you feel like it won't tell you.

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
Perhaps if you tell us a little more directly what question you feel like
it won't tell you.

Will, don't waste your time. That he classifies DNA work as 'secular science' makes the problem evident. It produces results that invalidate one of his religious convictions, and therefor it must be dismissed as wrong/invalid/useless in its entirety. It is visceral denialism, plain and simple, and is such is immune from logic, reason or evidence to the contrary.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Visceral Denialism.

Good Term To Remember.

DSH

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:40:10 -0800 (PST), taf

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Perhaps if you tell us a little more directly what question you feel like
it won't tell you.

Will, don't waste your time. That he classifies DNA work as 'secular science' makes the problem evident. It produces results that invalidate one of his religious convictions, and therefor it must be dismissed as wrong/invalid/useless in its entirety. It is visceral denialism, plain and simple, and is such is immune from logic, reason or evidence to the contrary.
taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
Perhaps if you tell us a little more directly what question you feel like
it won't tell you.

Will, don't waste your time. That he classifies DNA work as 'secular science' makes the problem evident. It produces results that invalidate one of his religious convictions, and therefor it must be dismissed as wrong/invalid/useless in its entirety. It is visceral denialism, plain and simple, and is such is immune from logic, reason or evidence to the contrary.
taf

=============================
Your words are a mirror or reflection of yourself. As noted heretofore, genetic scholars have no sure foundation, as migrations flow back and forth between regions, worldwide, and especially prior to the global flood, when the earth was not divided. All genetic inheritance was restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah (Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in obedience to the command of God. Successive generations of their posterity, grew more "genetically distant from previous generations, as each new fertilization event contributed more genetic mistakes" to their descending lineages, (as contemporaneously recorded as a decrease of lifespan, over time), from this point forward. "Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species."
http://www.icr.org/article/darwin-vs-genetics-surprises-snags/

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
All genetic inheritance was restricted to the posterity of one family
unit, from the Patriarch Noah (Gabriel), and his children, when they
entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in obedience to the command of God.
Successive generations of their posterity, grew more "genetically
distant from previous generations, as each new fertilization event
contributed more genetic mistakes" to their descending lineages, (as
contemporaneously recorded as a decrease of lifespan, over time), from
this point forward.

This is perhaps the most sweeping genealogical statement ever made in
this forum.

The theology behind it is somewhat muddled. If the human sex act is just
a "fertilization event", then who has moral responsibility for it? If
the answer is the people involved, then why were they made needing this
method in order to reproduce as commanded from on high? If the answer is
an omnipotent and benevolent God, then how can mistakes of any kind
result from it?

As always, it's a good idea to think before posting. It's also a good
idea to think before, or failing that after, committing to an ideology
derived from folklore.

Peter Stewart

[Jason Quick]

On 19-Nov-17 10:31 AM, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: "Noah (Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in obedience to the command of God."

Could you please site a source for your 2344 B.C. date statement? I hope you know the flood story in Genesis has an older version in the Sumerian and Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh. This is no-different than Walt Disney re-hashing a story from the Brothers Grimm. I am sure the flood happened, but it was thousands of years ago, burned into the human psyche as a story caused by rapid glacial melt from the last Ice Age.

On a different note: If scientists find DNA evidence linking Native Americans to a lost tribe from Israel, would your stance on DNA change?

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Jason Quick
On 19-Nov-17 10:31 AM, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: "Noah (Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in obedience to the command of God."
Could you please site a source for your 2344 B.C. date statement? I hope you know the flood story in Genesis has an older version in the Sumerian and Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh. This is no-different than Walt Disney re-hashing a story from the Brothers Grimm. I am sure the flood happened, but it was thousands of years ago, burned into the human psyche as a story caused by rapid glacial melt from the last Ice Age.
On a different note: If scientists find DNA evidence linking Native Americans to a lost tribe from Israel, would your stance on DNA change?

=================================================
Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature. I have time only to mention one point; namely, an item taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh, in Tablet VI. . . . "Anu addressed princess Ishtar, saying: "If you demand the Bull of Heaven from me, there will be seven years of empty husks for the land of Uruk. Have you collected grain for the people! Have you made grasses grow for the animals?" Ishtar addressed Anu, her father, saying: "I have heaped grain in the granaries for the people, I made grasses grow for the animals, in order that they might eat in the seven years of empty husks. I have collected grain for the people, I have made grasses grow for the animals." When Anu heard her words, he placed the noserope of the Bull of Heaven in her hand. Ishtar led the Bull of Heaven down to the earth." Biblical remake of the Joseph in Egypt and Seven Years of Famine.
"The interpretation of dreams in ancient Mesopotamia can be found in its literature, such as the famous Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis." It is immediately obvious, from a professional genealogical research standpoint, that the Gilgamesh legend was compiled by a group of magicians, like those in the court of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, who severely resisted the ancient prophet Moses. I note that Joseph was thirty years old when he married Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, Prince and Priest of On, ca 1781/1721 B.C. the Gilgamesh writing was concocted after this period. Indeed, that: "Gilgmesh was buried at the bottom of the Euphrates when the waters parted upon his death." This was taken from actual history of Moses dividing the sea for the Israelite nation to pass through on dry land, timewise to have been undertaken before Joshua died.
https://www.ancient.eu/gilgamesh/
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab6.htm
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/41
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/oneiromancy-and-dream-predictions-ancient-mesopotamia-005726
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/ascension-gilgamesh-did-epic-hero-actually-exist-008782?nopaging=1

[Jason Quick]

Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature.

Mt Tinney.

Hebrew as a common language did not exist until 600 BCE. In its simpler forms about 1000 BCE. The older written form of Hebrew broke off from the Phoenician alphabet and the spoken word from Central Semitic. Spoken word Hebrew has a common ancestor to the spoken word Sumerian (Gilgamesh)language about 3000 BCE at the earliest.

Written form Hebrew past Phoenician derives from Hieroglyphs. Written form Cuneiform as in Gilgamesh, comes from the common parent of both Hieroglyphs and Cuneiform, which is basically scratching symbols on rocks. Again we are looking at a 3000 BCE minimum time-frame for a common ancestor.

The oldest version of Genesis is from the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest scroll in the horde is dated 600-1000 BCE. (MUR 17)

So your source is faith.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Gilgamesh, is listed by definition, in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, as being "the oldest piece of epic Western literature", which is totally false, as it was composed from Hebrew Biblical Literature.
Mt Tinney.
Hebrew as a common language did not exist until 600 BCE. In its simpler forms about 1000 BCE. The older written form of Hebrew broke off from the Phoenician alphabet and the spoken word from Central Semitic. Spoken word Hebrew has a common ancestor to the spoken word Sumerian (Gilgamesh)language about 3000 BCE at the earliest.
Written form Hebrew past Phoenician derives from Hieroglyphs. Written form Cuneiform as in Gilgamesh, comes from the common parent of both Hieroglyphs and Cuneiform, which is basically scratching symbols on rocks. Again we are looking at a 3000 BCE minimum time-frame for a common ancestor.
The oldest version of Genesis is from the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest scroll in the horde is dated 600-1000 BCE. (MUR 17)
So your source is faith.

==================================================

My source is established genealogically recognized kinship links and word meanings. See: Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. This BrillOnline Reference Work was Edited by: Geoffrey Khan Associate editors: Shmuel Bolozky, Steven Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, Tamar Zewi. In 4 Vols., it costs $1,357.00. Publication Date: August 2013.
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics
http://www.brill.com/encyclopedia-hebrew-language-and-linguistics
Tags: Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics | Daniel O. McClellan
https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/tag/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics/
Subset reference from Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics - Kinship Terms
http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/592-ehll-kinship-terms/file
. . . The most explicit description of the various kinship units in ancient Israel is found in Joshua 7: 16-18. Joshua first begins his identity search, by calling out the "tribe"; next the "clan" within the "tribe"; next the "house" within the "clan" within the "tribe"; next the "male individuals" within the "house" within the "clan" within the "tribe". The record indicates therefore the hierarchy of kinship and the relationship between kinship units, going back to the time of Moses; which descends from the time of Joseph in Egypt, going back to Abraham and his fathers, back to the time of Shem, son of Noah, and backwards in time, up and until the time of Adam and Eve. Jeff A. Benner states: "When we look at all the names of Adam's descendent we find that all the names from Adam to Noah and his children are Hebrew names, meaning that their name has a meaning in Hebrew. For instance, Methuselah (Genesis 5:21) is Hebrew for "his death brings" (The flood occurred the year that he died)." I state contextually, that the Biblical records indicate pre-flood name identities followed a similar pattern of patriarchal name meanings, later found in ancient Hebrew usage, and along with similar kinship patterns found in the genealogies, validates that these records are historical renditions, in their general substance and outlines, as handed down, contemporaneously written records.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/josh/7?lang=eng
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_history.html

[taf]

'. . .Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple
levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common
ancestry in the first place."
http://www.icr.org/article/darwin-vs-genetics-surprises-snags/

So as proof you are not a DNA denialist, you quote outright lies from the hilarious web site of evolution denialists. Well done. Next you will argue that NASA never went to the moon because they brought back rocks but you read on the internet that it is made of green cheese. In repeating this bat-crap crazy nonsense from the ICR you are bearing false witness.

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

'. . .Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple
levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common
ancestry in the first place."
http://www.icr.org/article/darwin-vs-genetics-surprises-snags/

So as proof you are not a DNA denialist, you quote outright lies from the hilarious web site of evolution denialists. Well done. Next you will argue that NASA never went to the moon because they brought back rocks but you read on the internet that it is made of green cheese. In repeating this bat-crap crazy nonsense from the ICR you are bearing false witness.
taf

================
As I remember, I actually saw a TV presentation of the moon landing, in an electronics class, when it was in process. I do not deny I have DNA. Seriously?

[taf]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
As I remember, I actually saw a TV presentation of the moon landing, in
an electronics class, when it was in process. I do not deny I have DNA.
Seriously?

You have presented material here that denies or grossly distorts central tenets of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, genetics, etc., and yet because you admit to having DNA you expect your views are to be taken seriously.

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
As I remember, I actually saw a TV presentation of the moon landing, in
an electronics class, when it was in process. I do not deny I have DNA.
Seriously?

You have presented material here that denies or grossly distorts central tenets of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, genetics, etc., and yet because you admit to having DNA you expect your views are to be taken seriously.
taf

===================================
taf, there is a difference between a conversation and personality attack. I like your formidable thought processes on an intellectual level, even though you have avoided mentioning the findings of the global mathematical modelling approach, which assures all of us today, who live on the planet earth, "that every individual alive several thousand years ago (2,000-5,000BC, depending on the parameters of the model), assuming they left descendants, was the ancestor of every living person today. Everyone." Therefore, from a mathematical model, sterile within itself, without father or mother, beginning of days or end of years, purely scientific, it is a fact that, indubitably: All genetic inheritance was restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah (Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in obedience to the command of God. Successive generations of their posterity, grew more "genetically distant from previous generations, as each new fertilization event contributed more genetic mistakes" to their descending lineages, (as contemporaneously recorded as a decrease of lifespan, over time), from this point forward. In other words, the surviving record does comport to genetic analysis, in the contemporaneously recording of a decrease of lifespan in posterity. Now, not being rude, but from a genealogical research standpoint, there are numerously attested written records, presented as coming from both ancient and modern sources, that reconfirm different age longevity in humans, as being credible. Since this is denied or grossly distorted by central tenets of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, genetics, etc., can I expect to have their views to be taken seriously; for intelligence in man not to see very explicit higher intelligence in the repetitive, creative acts of nature, begs impartiality on the part of the human intellectual creators or mortal authors themselves; acting in the similitude of a blind robot themselves.
Compassionately learn from the desires requested from physically blind people.
["Voice Navigation" turned out to be the very first enhancement to the MINDSTORMS® environment requested by one of our blind students. Within seconds of picking up a demo robot at our very first robotics meeting, he asked, "How do I turn on the sound?". I totally mistook the question he asked, thinking he was asking how to turn on sound output from the NXT. This demo program didn't output sound, so I said "It doesn't play sounds." But that wasn't his question. "How do I turn it on and navigate the menus?" he asked more forcefully this time. "Well, you can't", I answered. "At least not yet". With a bit of NXC programming, we ended up with a usable "voice navigation" system. It is far from what it could be, but much better than what we had. Our first attempt which worked well for practice and our first competition looked like this: . . .] It should be self evident that there is no difference in voice communication control and the art of the creation of this earth, as contained in the Biblical Text; that it is the true central tenet of all formed genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, etc. Yes, I expect my views to be taken seriously.
https://theconversation.com/genetic-home-testing-why-its-not-such-a-great-guide-to-your-ancestry-or-disease-risk-79604
http://www.tsbvi.edu/robotics-resources

[taf]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
I like your formidable thought processes on an intellectual level,
even though you have avoided mentioning the findings of the global
mathematical modelling approach, which assures all of us today, who
live on the planet earth, "that every individual alive several thousand
years ago (2,000-5,000BC, depending on the parameters of the model),
assuming they left descendants, was the ancestor of every living person
today.

Please stop posting nonsense. Australian aborigines of 2000 BC are not ancestral to the vast majority of humans on the planet today. It just ain't so. These mathematical models aren't what you are claiming, and they are very simplistic, not taking into account known phenomena (such as population isolation and pedigree collapse).

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Everyone." Therefore, from a mathematical model, sterile within itself,
without father or mother, beginning of days or end of years, purely
scientific, it is a fact that, indubitably: All genetic inheritance was
restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah
(Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in
obedience to the command of God.

And then you go off the deep end. Even were we to take at face value that any arbitrary person 7000 years ago is (probabilistically) ancestor to all living individuals today, it is a ludicrous non sequitur to claim that this means all humanity derived from a single incestuous kindred 4361 years ago. There is a vast body of evidence demonstrating this is not the case, but you cherry pick the one datum you can intentionally take out of context and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

You are bearing false witness again.

taf

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
I like your formidable thought processes on an intellectual level,
even though you have avoided mentioning the findings of the global
mathematical modelling approach, which assures all of us today, who
live on the planet earth, "that every individual alive several thousand
years ago (2,000-5,000BC, depending on the parameters of the model),
assuming they left descendants, was the ancestor of every living person
today.

Please stop posting nonsense. Australian aborigines of 2000 BC are not ancestral to the vast majority of humans on the planet today. It just ain't so. These mathematical models aren't what you are claiming, and they are very simplistic, not taking into account known phenomena (such as population isolation and pedigree collapse).

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Everyone." Therefore, from a mathematical model, sterile within itself,
without father or mother, beginning of days or end of years, purely
scientific, it is a fact that, indubitably: All genetic inheritance was
restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah
(Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in
obedience to the command of God.

And then you go off the deep end. Even were we to take at face value that any arbitrary person 7000 years ago is (probabilistically) ancestor to all living individuals today, it is a ludicrous non sequitur to claim that this means all humanity derived from a single incestuous kindred 4361 years ago. There is a vast body of evidence demonstrating this is not the case, but you cherry pick the one datum you can intentionally take out of context and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
You are bearing false witness again.
taf

============================
Not So. I repeat with emendations.
"Results come in the form of percentages; how much of your DNA is said to match to a current population- and this is the most important point. These percentages do not indicate where your ancestry lies because your DNA is being compared to DNA of a modern population that exists within a defined current country with geopolitical borders. At its core, this result indicates a frequency match not origins!" From a genealogical research standpoint, there are numerously attested written records, presented as coming from both ancient and modern sources, that reconfirm different age longevity in humans, as being credible. It should be self evident today, in the modern world that there is no difference in voice communication control and the art of the creation of this earth, as contained in the Biblical Text; that it is the true central tenet of all formed genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, etc. Furthermore, the authenticity of the Biblical record, as being contemporaneously factual, is found in the record showing extended lifetimes, within two distinct inbreeding family units; that of the very good, perfectly formed bodies of Adam and Eve, and their posterity, of upwards to 1,000 years each, showing little, if any inbreeding depression; then, the inbreeding of the family of Noah, and his posterity; showing by historical records, extended lifetimes, as the result of a population bottleneck, to have diminished rapidly in the first few generations after the global flood. It is only, by the understanding of results of inbreeding depression, that two key events in the Bible, literally show intelligent reason and genetic preservation to be the underlying cause of both the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, as well as Pangaea division of the earth. Both events forbade historical incest, by scattering and dividing large settlements into more precise, distanced population groupings, as the ground was first cursed, with later mentioned added rainbow atmospheric changes. This historical reality is validated in Britannica, stating: "Thus, the Samaritans, who have remained a small but distinctive group since the 8th century BC, are considerably inbred" . . . "Besides these numerically small groups, strict intracommunity marriage is strongly favoured by many populations in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and North and sub-Saharan Africa. In many of these communities, from 20 to more than 60 percent of all marriages in the current generation are intrafamilial, most commonly between first cousins." For a specific example of genetics and posterity, directly related to Jehovah, one only needs to note that "God punishes Onan with death, as God had previously punished Er for doing something wicked." . . . "Tamar’s place in the family and Judah’s posterity are secured. She gives birth to (his) twins, Perez and Zerah (Gen 38:29–30; 1 Chr 2:4), thus restoring two sons to Judah, who has lost two." Or, "at about the time of Moses in Egypt. For example, the Pharaoh married his sister as his first wife to ensure the kingdom stayed in the family. Pharaoh Akhnaton (reigned from 1379-1362 BC) had been the product of such a union and from his preserved image he is acknowledged to have been genetically deformed." Jehovah God set up a flaming sword and Cherubim to prevent fallen Adam and Eve, genetically radioactively damaged, from eating again, tree of eternal life fruit; the first American-African Cain was genetically separated; both contiguous areas in and near the present State of Missouri, North American Continent. In both cases, documented witness declares that it was the immediate presence of God, permeating into the minds and bodies of His disobedient children (guilt), that caused internal genetic malformations to physically event, not from an evolutionary process over eons of time and space.
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/genetic-ancestry-testing-race/
https://theconversation.com/genetic-home-testing-why-its-not-such-a-great-guide-to-your-ancestry-or-disease-risk-79604
http://www.tsbvi.edu/robotics-resources
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/did-adam-and-eve-commit-incest
https://www.britannica.com/topic/consanguinity#ref928457
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Samaritan
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/tamar-bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman

[P J Evans]

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
I like your formidable thought processes on an intellectual level,
even though you have avoided mentioning the findings of the global
mathematical modelling approach, which assures all of us today, who
live on the planet earth, "that every individual alive several thousand
years ago (2,000-5,000BC, depending on the parameters of the model),
assuming they left descendants, was the ancestor of every living person
today.

Please stop posting nonsense. Australian aborigines of 2000 BC are not ancestral to the vast majority of humans on the planet today. It just ain't so. These mathematical models aren't what you are claiming, and they are very simplistic, not taking into account known phenomena (such as population isolation and pedigree collapse).

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Everyone." Therefore, from a mathematical model, sterile within itself,
without father or mother, beginning of days or end of years, purely
scientific, it is a fact that, indubitably: All genetic inheritance was
restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah
(Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in
obedience to the command of God.

And then you go off the deep end. Even were we to take at face value that any arbitrary person 7000 years ago is (probabilistically) ancestor to all living individuals today, it is a ludicrous non sequitur to claim that this means all humanity derived from a single incestuous kindred 4361 years ago. There is a vast body of evidence demonstrating this is not the case, but you cherry pick the one datum you can intentionally take out of context and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
You are bearing false witness again.
taf

============================
Not So. I repeat with emendations.
"Results come in the form of percentages; how much of your DNA is said to match to a current population- and this is the most important point. These percentages do not indicate where your ancestry lies because your DNA is being compared to DNA of a modern population that exists within a defined current country with geopolitical borders. At its core, this result indicates a frequency match not origins!" From a genealogical research standpoint, there are numerously attested written records, presented as coming from both ancient and modern sources, that reconfirm different age longevity in humans, as being credible. It should be self evident today, in the modern world that there is no difference in voice communication control and the art of the creation of this earth, as contained in the Biblical Text; that it is the true central tenet of all formed genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, etc. Furthermore, the authenticity of the Biblical record, as being contemporaneously factual, is found in the record showing extended lifetimes, within two distinct inbreeding family units; that of the very good, perfectly formed bodies of Adam and Eve, and their posterity, of upwards to 1,000 years each, showing little, if any inbreeding depression; then, the inbreeding of the family of Noah, and his posterity; showing by historical records, extended lifetimes, as the result of a population bottleneck, to have diminished rapidly in the first few generations after the global flood. It is only, by the understanding of results of inbreeding depression, that two key events in the Bible, literally show intelligent reason and genetic preservation to be the underlying cause of both the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, as well as Pangaea division of the earth. Both events forbade historical incest, by scattering and dividing large settlements into more precise, distanced population groupings, as the ground was first cursed, with later mentioned added rainbow atmospheric changes. This historical reality is validated in Britannica, stating: "Thus, the Samaritans, who have remained a small but distinctive group since the 8th century BC, are considerably inbred" . . . "Besides these numerically small groups, strict intracommunity marriage is strongly favoured by many populations in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and North and sub-Saharan Africa. In many of these communities, from 20 to more than 60 percent of all marriages in the current generation are intrafamilial, most commonly between first cousins." For a specific example of genetics and posterity, directly related to Jehovah, one only needs to note that "God punishes Onan with death, as God had previously punished Er for doing something wicked." . . . "Tamar’s place in the family and Judah’s posterity are secured. She gives birth to (his) twins, Perez and Zerah (Gen 38:29–30; 1 Chr 2:4), thus restoring two sons to Judah, who has lost two." Or, "at about the time of Moses in Egypt. For example, the Pharaoh married his sister as his first wife to ensure the kingdom stayed in the family. Pharaoh Akhnaton (reigned from 1379-1362 BC) had been the product of such a union and from his preserved image he is acknowledged to have been genetically deformed." Jehovah God set up a flaming sword and Cherubim to prevent fallen Adam and Eve, genetically radioactively damaged, from eating again, tree of eternal life fruit; the first American-African Cain was genetically separated; both contiguous areas in and near the present State of Missouri, North American Continent. In both cases, documented witness declares that it was the immediate presence of God, permeating into the minds and bodies of His disobedient children (guilt), that caused internal genetic malformations to physically event, not from an evolutionary process over eons of time and space.
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/genetic-ancestry-testing-race/
https://theconversation.com/genetic-home-testing-why-its-not-such-a-great-guide-to-your-ancestry-or-disease-risk-79604
http://www.tsbvi.edu/robotics-resources
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/did-adam-and-eve-commit-incest
https://www.britannica.com/topic/consanguinity#ref928457
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Samaritan
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/tamar-bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman

It isn't medieval genealogy, and is OT in any case because it's religious mythology, not genealogy.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by P J Evans

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

Post by taf

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
I like your formidable thought processes on an intellectual level,
even though you have avoided mentioning the findings of the global
mathematical modelling approach, which assures all of us today, who
live on the planet earth, "that every individual alive several thousand
years ago (2,000-5,000BC, depending on the parameters of the model),
assuming they left descendants, was the ancestor of every living person
today.

Please stop posting nonsense. Australian aborigines of 2000 BC are not ancestral to the vast majority of humans on the planet today. It just ain't so. These mathematical models aren't what you are claiming, and they are very simplistic, not taking into account known phenomena (such as population isolation and pedigree collapse).

Post by Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.
Everyone." Therefore, from a mathematical model, sterile within itself,
without father or mother, beginning of days or end of years, purely
scientific, it is a fact that, indubitably: All genetic inheritance was
restricted to the posterity of one family unit, from the Patriarch Noah
(Gabriel), and his children, when they entered the Ark, in 2344 B.C., in
obedience to the command of God.

And then you go off the deep end. Even were we to take at face value that any arbitrary person 7000 years ago is (probabilistically) ancestor to all living individuals today, it is a ludicrous non sequitur to claim that this means all humanity derived from a single incestuous kindred 4361 years ago. There is a vast body of evidence demonstrating this is not the case, but you cherry pick the one datum you can intentionally take out of context and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
You are bearing false witness again.
taf

============================
Not So. I repeat with emendations.
"Results come in the form of percentages; how much of your DNA is said to match to a current population- and this is the most important point. These percentages do not indicate where your ancestry lies because your DNA is being compared to DNA of a modern population that exists within a defined current country with geopolitical borders. At its core, this result indicates a frequency match not origins!" From a genealogical research standpoint, there are numerously attested written records, presented as coming from both ancient and modern sources, that reconfirm different age longevity in humans, as being credible. It should be self evident today, in the modern world that there is no difference in voice communication control and the art of the creation of this earth, as contained in the Biblical Text; that it is the true central tenet of all formed genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, meteorology, etc. Furthermore, the authenticity of the Biblical record, as being contemporaneously factual, is found in the record showing extended lifetimes, within two distinct inbreeding family units; that of the very good, perfectly formed bodies of Adam and Eve, and their posterity, of upwards to 1,000 years each, showing little, if any inbreeding depression; then, the inbreeding of the family of Noah, and his posterity; showing by historical records, extended lifetimes, as the result of a population bottleneck, to have diminished rapidly in the first few generations after the global flood. It is only, by the understanding of results of inbreeding depression, that two key events in the Bible, literally show intelligent reason and genetic preservation to be the underlying cause of both the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, as well as Pangaea division of the earth. Both events forbade historical incest, by scattering and dividing large settlements into more precise, distanced population groupings, as the ground was first cursed, with later mentioned added rainbow atmospheric changes. This historical reality is validated in Britannica, stating: "Thus, the Samaritans, who have remained a small but distinctive group since the 8th century BC, are considerably inbred" . . . "Besides these numerically small groups, strict intracommunity marriage is strongly favoured by many populations in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and North and sub-Saharan Africa. In many of these communities, from 20 to more than 60 percent of all marriages in the current generation are intrafamilial, most commonly between first cousins." For a specific example of genetics and posterity, directly related to Jehovah, one only needs to note that "God punishes Onan with death, as God had previously punished Er for doing something wicked." . . . "Tamar’s place in the family and Judah’s posterity are secured. She gives birth to (his) twins, Perez and Zerah (Gen 38:29–30; 1 Chr 2:4), thus restoring two sons to Judah, who has lost two." Or, "at about the time of Moses in Egypt. For example, the Pharaoh married his sister as his first wife to ensure the kingdom stayed in the family. Pharaoh Akhnaton (reigned from 1379-1362 BC) had been the product of such a union and from his preserved image he is acknowledged to have been genetically deformed." Jehovah God set up a flaming sword and Cherubim to prevent fallen Adam and Eve, genetically radioactively damaged, from eating again, tree of eternal life fruit; the first American-African Cain was genetically separated; both contiguous areas in and near the present State of Missouri, North American Continent. In both cases, documented witness declares that it was the immediate presence of God, permeating into the minds and bodies of His disobedient children (guilt), that caused internal genetic malformations to physically event, not from an evolutionary process over eons of time and space.
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/genetic-ancestry-testing-race/
https://theconversation.com/genetic-home-testing-why-its-not-such-a-great-guide-to-your-ancestry-or-disease-risk-79604
http://www.tsbvi.edu/robotics-resources
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/did-adam-and-eve-commit-incest
https://www.britannica.com/topic/consanguinity#ref928457
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Samaritan
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/tamar-bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman

It isn't medieval genealogy, and is OT in any case because it's religious mythology, not genealogy.

====================
In my update, I noted a link to: The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs, which is Medieval related, such as medieval Armenian texts: W. Lowndes Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, Armenian Texts and Studies 8 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1990); Michael E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Taken to the extreme, as done by Raphael Falco, in Cultural Genealogy: An Essay on Early Modern Myth, "All genealogy is myth." All academic genealogies are thus "myths", and science has a rootless existence? No!
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2004/the-king-follett-discourse-in-the-light-of-ancient-and-medieval-jewish-and-christian-beliefs
https://www.facebook.com/groups/170568769666249/permalink/1600363956686716/
https://books.google.com/books?id=xiolDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=religious+mythology,+not+genealogy.&source=bl&ots=1ENdH7LYCZ&sig=_b29QHDDnfAbwzk7EHr6HpyilQA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGzqWZ1s3XAhVC6GMKHRpMD88Q6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=religious%20mythology%2C%20not%20genealogy.&f=false

[Paulo Canedo]

I discovered some time ago in the archives some threads where Mr. Tinney had some wild theories in how the irish genealogies were compiled at the time Tyre submitted to Babylonia.

[d***@aol.com]

DNA alone: No
DNA + documentary evidence: Yes

[wjhonson]

Post by d***@aol.com
DNA alone: No
DNA + documentary evidence: Yes

Actually DNA alone can answer a question.

If you are adopted and do not know anything about your birth parents
And then you take the AUtosomal test, and then one of your birth parents takes it, obviously without knowing you or you knowing them

THEN, the Autosomal will conclusively show that this person is your parent

So DNA alone can answer a question

[Paulo Canedo]

Mr. Tinney please if you so much want to discuss the creation evolution controversy then go to this newsgroup https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/talk.origins because soc.genealogy.medieval doesn't approach such topics and they are to be avoided please read the FAQ.

[Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.]

Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Tinney please if you so much want to discuss the creation evolution controversy then go to this newsgroup https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/talk.origins because soc.genealogy.medieval doesn't approach such topics and they are to be avoided please read the FAQ.

============================================
I am actually updating information at Professional Library Sources.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#THESES_&_DISSERTATIONS

Can DNA Testing Answer a Specific Question About Any Individual Ancestry?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/170568769666249/permalink/1600363956686716/

Back in 2015, I note - Unrolling History: Fifteenth-century Political Culture and Perceptions (pdf copy) on the Canterbury Roll - a fifteenth-century genealogical chronicle roll that traces the succession of English kings from Noah until the Wars of the Roses. Scientific DNA culture today mimics medieval genealogy pedigrees, leapt backwards in times, for eminent intellectual status.
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#YEAR_2015
http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/canterburyroll/

Now in 2017, there is another medieval related pedigree coming out of Peru; re:
Ophir de España & Fernando de Montesinos’s Divine Defense of the Spanish Colonial Empire: A Mysterious Ancestral Merging of Pre-Inca and Christian Histories - provides longest version of Andean genealogy, one hundred and three Andean rulers instead of the traditional eleven to thirteen that were included in the other colonial chronicles from the 16th & 17th centuries. Montesinos argues throughout his chronicle that the Incas, along with all Andeans, are actually descendants of one of Noah's grandsons named Ophir. This discussed also by Cabello de Balboain, in Miscelánea Antártica (1586) and Gegorio Garcia, in Origen de los indios de el Nuevo Mundo e Indias Occidentales (1607). "According to Montesinos, Ophir and his family were the first to arrive to Peru, and subsequently the territory was named after this biblical descendant." . . . first Andean rulers were Christian-like because they kept the commandments, received revelations, and used a precise calendar that corresponded with the biblical timeline. Generations of Noah [Manuscript purchased at Lima auction. Montesinos "is generally viewed as either a creative and misleading colonial story teller or as a fortunate buyer" of one of the rarest versions of pre-Inca history.] Book II Andean history stands pre-eminent in colonial Latin American literature.[Book II discusses how Noah's descendants used quillqa for thirty-five hundred years to write and keep records . . .] Reference Comparison - Peru is Ophir.[Montesinos emphasizes that Ophir was a divine and chosen land. Only righteous rulers who were chosen by God were allowed to rule and profit from Ophir, like Kings David and Solomon.] "And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine." Similar to Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 5) writings. However, it is mentioned:[described wars and the territorial positioning of Ophir's descendants match the archeological timeline of the Wari who lived from approximately 600 AD - 1000 AD.] ZARAHEMLA and THE RIVER SIDON: "Caffeinated"* BYU System Eclipsed ["Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, . . .". Peru is between: landing south of the Isthmus of Darien or landing in northern Chile. OPHIR is the name of a region in the ancient Near East mentioned once: ISAIAH section of the Book of Mormon. Jaredites -O.T. "great tower" time frame.]
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/professionallibrarysources.htm#YEAR_2017
https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=span_gradetds