Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family History cost.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I didnt claim that the English are Scandinavian-Germans.You are one of the people who uses the term Anglo-Saxon for the English.
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    Tell the English that they are all Scandinavian-Germans which is the meaning of Anglo-Saxon.

    Comment


    • #32
      Javelin
      It will take you about 20 years to catch up with me.I dont need a scientist to do my thinking for me.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        Javelin
        It will take you about 20 years to catch up with me.I dont need a scientist to do my thinking for me.
        Well, we can't all be where you are -- thankfully.

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=Javelin;363094]Ah,

          http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org

          QUOTE]

          The British wasted a lot of money and time on this project.All they had to do was to test remains found from the period before the Romans and after.They would have learned a lot more.
          I watched a documentary about graves from the Anglo-Saxon period being found beside a Ring Barrow.This suggests to me that these people were buried beside their ancestors and werent Saxons.Everthing found in England after the Roman period is refered to as Anglo-Saxon.So the English have wiped out their own natives.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            Javelin
            It will take you about 20 years to catch up with me.I dont need a scientist to do my thinking for me.
            You are quite entertaining 1798 I will give you that.
            I admire your confidence in your own abilities, but I am yet to see your credibility demonstrated.

            Referencing peer-reviewed journal articles, books and other media to support statements allows forum members to engage in critical thinking and rational discussion. Such articles don't have to be purely based on genetics, including references from anthropological, archaeological and cultural sources would add perspective to the discussions.

            If one person claims to that "they don't need evidence" then we are not in a discussion, and the person adds no value to the greater understanding of the group.

            Here's a flowchart that may help:

            http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-cont...Discussion.jpg

            It is a simple request to ask someone to provide evidence for their statements. If this is too difficult at the time, perhaps make the group aware of this and state "from the patterns I have seen in [insert appropriate database or FTDNA group results]..."

            I don't recall anyone stating that they implore scientists to do their thinking for them.

            Is this your perception of people who contribute to these forums?
            Your perception of scientists?
            Your perception of research?
            Or all of the above?

            Comment


            • #36
              Does anyone know what this argument is about? I'm not sure if "we're" talking about A) the Irish being culturally different/unique or B) the Irish being genetically different/unique... or C) something else altogether?

              1796: i'm not sure if you took offense to my comment that we're mostly all mutts and thus the concept of ethnicity from a genetic perspective is over-rated. For me, ethnicity is a time stamp. Now I'm American. Before I was Scottish, then Irish then maybe who knows what etc...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by N21163 View Post
                You are quite entertaining 1798 I will give you that.
                I admire your confidence in your own abilities, but I am yet to see your credibility demonstrated.

                Referencing peer-reviewed journal articles, books and other media to support statements allows forum members to engage in critical thinking and rational discussion. Such articles don't have to be purely based on genetics, including references from anthropological, archaeological and cultural sources would add perspective to the discussions.

                If one person claims to that "they don't need evidence" then we are not in a discussion, and the person adds no value to the greater understanding of the group.

                Here's a flowchart that may help:

                http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-cont...Discussion.jpg

                It is a simple request to ask someone to provide evidence for their statements. If this is too difficult at the time, perhaps make the group aware of this and state "from the patterns I have seen in [insert appropriate database or FTDNA group results]..."

                I don't recall anyone stating that they implore scientists to do their thinking for them.

                Is this your perception of people who contribute to these forums?
                Your perception of scientists?
                Your perception of research?
                Or all of the above?
                If I gave a reference to any of the scientists on R1b,which one of them will I choose? They all have different theories. I have given my thoughts on different subjects whether I am right or wrong but they are mine.Some people are getting uptight about it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by djknox View Post
                  Does anyone know what this argument is about? I'm not sure if "we're" talking about A) the Irish being culturally different/unique or B) the Irish being genetically different/unique... or C) something else altogether?

                  1796: i'm not sure if you took offense to my comment that we're mostly all mutts and thus the concept of ethnicity from a genetic perspective is over-rated. For me, ethnicity is a time stamp. Now I'm American. Before I was Scottish, then Irish then maybe who knows what etc...
                  djknox I think you meant to address 1798 not me. I'm not part of this conversation. Oh dear, I might have to request a new username so I'm not confused with anyone else. I understand though mine is very similar.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    If I gave a reference to any of the scientists on R1b,which one of them will I choose? They all have different theories. I have given my thoughts on different subjects whether I am right or wrong but they are mine.Some people are getting uptight about it.
                    Hmmm, I'll try again...

                    "It is a simple request to ask someone to provide evidence for their statements. If this is too difficult at the time, perhaps make the group aware of this and state "from the patterns I have seen in [insert appropriate database or FTDNA group results].."

                    If you cannot find a theory that supports your thoughts/views...then perhaps state this and state how you arrived at your conclusions i.e. did you analyse patterns from some results in a group project on FTDNA, or on ysearch etc. This will help us to understand where you are coming from.

                    Just a thought.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It has recently come to my attention that it is possible to selectively block forumites by going to User CP (top left) and clicking on Edit Ignore List from the left menu: just thought I would share that tip with all of you.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Javelin View Post
                        It has recently come to my attention that it is possible to selectively block forumites by going to User CP (top left) and clicking on Edit Ignore List from the left menu: just thought I would share that tip with all of you.
                        Thanks for that tip and when you are at it could you tell all the forumites the correct age and place of origin of R-M269.
                        Last edited by 1798; 26 May 2013, 04:15 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                          Thanks for that tip and when you are at it could you tell all the forumites the correct age and place of origin of R-M269.
                          According to this the current dna test cant give an accurate age of R-M269 there under estimating the age.

                          they argue that current analytical tools are unsuitable for dating the expansion of R-M269
                          dates based on the analysis of conventional DNA markers may have been "systematically underestimated"
                          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by madman View Post
                            According to this the current dna test cant give an accurate age of R-M269 there under estimating the age.


                            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012
                            You have a quote: "dates based on the analysis of conventional DNA markers may have been 'systematically underestimated'." And the BBC article you linked to is headlined, "DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins."

                            However, buried in the middle of the article is a quote from one of the authors of the study: "But Dr Capelli stressed that his study could not answer the question of when the ubiquitous R-M269 expanded in Europe, although his lab is carrying out more work on the subject.

                            "At the moment it's not possible to claim anything about the age of this lineage," he told BBC News, "I would say that we are putting the ball back in the middle of the field."

                            Quite a different picture of what this study says. Beware headlines and news articles on science developments - some journalists are selling sizzle, not the steak.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I don't see any evidence that they factored the distribution of L23, L51, L11, P312 & U106 into this study.

                              Timothy Peterman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X