Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

12 marker or 25 marker to determine where my paternal line came from?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    I know the most recent ethnic group that I belong to so I don't need the Big-Y test.
    So do I. I did not say to identify the ethnic group, but rather to understand the ethnic group's genesis, expansion, and survival over the centuries.

    Ironically, even some ethnic groups whose medieval and modern history is well-documented (e.g., the English) have unanswered questions:
    - Many historians question the quantitative accuracy of such written records
    - Historians also debate the ethnic group's prehistory (before written records appear in that region).
    Last edited by lgmayka; 29 August 2014, 02:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
      So do I. I did not say to identify the ethnic group, but rather to understand the ethnic group's genesis, expansion, and survival over the centuries.
      I don't think that is possible even if every man in Europe took the Big-Y test.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I don't think that is possible even if every man in Europe took the Big-Y test.
        Actually they are very much starting to link some expansions of technologies with certain genetic markers. Where they there and can say with 100% certainly that's the truth? No. Is the genetic, archeological, and history research likely to help confirm or refute historical accounts as being more probabilistically accurate? Yes.

        It's always easy to say no and look smart. Take a bit more than that to leave the house though.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by B52 View Post
          Actually they are very much starting to link some expansions of technologies with certain genetic markers. Where they there and can say with 100% certainly that's the truth? No. Is the genetic, archeological, and history research likely to help confirm or refute historical accounts as being more probabilistically accurate? Yes.

          It's always easy to say no and look smart. Take a bit more than that to leave the house though.
          If they dna test all of the Beaker burial remains in Ireland and Britain it will not give one an accurate picture of all the dna groups that were in both regions at that time.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 1798 View Post
            If they dna test all of the Beaker burial remains in Ireland and Britain it will not give one an accurate picture of all the dna groups that were in both regions at that time.
            That's not what was said. They are beginning to link technology expansions with the appearance of DNA markers. You'll also note that there are concepts called theory and axioms and as such isn't fact with 100% proof it's is theory. And it is certainly better theory with much better statistical evidence.

            No one is on here claiming they are going to learn the life histories of every individual that's ever lived. Note, that knowing the DNA profiles of all those individuals is a subset of that. That is ridiculous claim and no one in these forums have made such a claim.

            I am trained in mathematics. If you want to look smart go refute axioms. Nothing is these DNA forums meets the requirement of being an axiom.

            Stop distorting the general intent of other posters because you are bored.

            That's what identifies you as a troll: you are in these forums arguing a theory isn't an axiom. Duh.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by B52 View Post
              That's not what was said. They are beginning to link technology expansions with the appearance of DNA markers. You'll also note that there are concepts called theory and axioms and as such isn't fact with 100% proof it's is theory. And it is certainly better theory with much better statistical evidence.

              No one is on here claiming they are going to learn the life histories of every individual that's ever lived. Note, that knowing the DNA profiles of all those individuals is a subset of that. That is ridiculous claim and no one in these forums have made such a claim.

              I am trained in mathematics. If you want to look smart go refute axioms. Nothing is these DNA forums meets the requirement of being an axiom.

              Stop distorting the general intent of other posters because you are bored.

              That's what identifies you as a troll: you are in these forums arguing a theory isn't an axiom. Duh.
              I can write on these forums until FTDNA stops me. It is obvious that I stepped on your little toes or the toes of some of your "friends". You need to chill out.

              Comment

              Working...
              X