Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA news and argument

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

  • #16
    What's Irish ??

    I don't know all about Neanderthals and evolution from Adam ,but I do know a lot of people probably don't know what they have.Irish is the easiest thing in the world to be. Everybody says they are Irish. People say I'm Irish 600 times a day-but I don't seem to think so or know any Irish - exactly who Is Irish??? They ought to list the real ones,so you'll know. Also some people do look alike,and if you live near them they might consider you to be,or maybe Irish is a way of bonding people together under one identity.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by SaintManx
      Since having my y chrome tested I am completely convinced that I am unconvinced that science has yet to figure out a way to prove relationships. It IS based entirely on probabilities and also based on one single theory-that there was one set of parents first and foremost. This supposition is and probably never will be proven.
      The science of population genetics is not based on any "one single theory", much less the theory that there was every one set of parents for the whole human race.

      The observation that each distinct non-recombinant genetic locus can be traced back to a single ancestor is a conclusion of geneticists, not an assumption on which the science of genetics rests.

      Comment


      • #18
        How do you explain it then?

        Originally posted by vineviz
        The science of population genetics is not based on any "one single theory", much less the theory that there was every one set of parents for the whole human race.

        The observation that each distinct non-recombinant genetic locus can be traced back to a single ancestor is a conclusion of geneticists, not an assumption on which the science of genetics rests.
        Geneticists claim that we are all related if we go back far enough-does not that imply that we all sprang from one set of parents?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SaintManx
          Geneticists claim that we are all related if we go back far enough-does not that imply that we all sprang from one set of parents?
          No, not one set of parents.

          The claim, which seems to be accepted as scientifically valid, is that everyone living today is descended from a man who lived about 60-70,000 years ago. And also, everyone living today is descended from a woman who lived about 150,000 years ago.

          Obviously, given the time lapse between the two individuals, they never knew each other and never were a "set" of parents. Both were thought to have lived in East Africa.

          The theory, again generally accepted, is that various other mtDNA and yDNA lines existed but died out, leaving only these two lines to be the ancestor of all living individuals today.

          Mike

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SaintManx
            So, where did we evolve from? I am not being condescending but rather, truly interested.
            a) Probable answer: Some guy who lived in Africa or the Middle East and had a bunch of sons and, in a few generations, was, essentially, the father of a fairly large city. And maybe the men in this city got involved with smelting heavy metals, getting high on natural hallucinogens or some other activity that affected their Y chromosomes, so unrelated guys developed similar, compatible mutations, and they quickly developed enough mutations that they were a lot different from other early people.

            b) Fun answer: Er ... maybe those monolith guys in 2001, um, designed us. :-)

            I think the current Intelligent Design movement in the United States is really annoying. (If you want to accept the biblical account of creation is inerrant, and you're convinced you understand exactly what it means, fine, but then, why do you think God couldn't create perfect scientific proof for evolution, anyway? There is no particular reason that God would necessarily leave any traces of Creation to find through science, so no particular reason for the biblical Intelligent Design approach to find anything other than perfect evidence for the theory of evolution.)

            On the other hand: there's no particular reason that space aliens, early reptile people, some earlier race of non-Homo sapiens people, etc. couldn't have created us. Or that we sprang from viral or bacterial material that rained down on the Earth from space and that originally came from Venus, Mars, the Jovian moons, interstellar space or even another star system. We simply don't have any evidence that we understand to support this perspective. But, if we accept just for fun the possibility that one of these notions could be true, the questions would be:

            - Is there any kind of evidence we could find in earthly genetic material that would support the idea that primitive life came here from space, or that alien people or whoever disrupted natural evolution and fiddled with our DNA?

            - Suppose anyone, even people in modern times, have bred people for particular traits, are there any statistical tests or other tests we could perform that could distinguish artificially assisted breeding from the effects of natural evolution?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SaintManx
              Geneticists claim that we are all related if we go back far enough-does not that imply that we all sprang from one set of parents?
              For one thing, the each distinct genetic locus has a MRCA for the whole population but each locus has a different MRCA. That fact alone tells you that there is not just one set of parents, but rather a whole "cloud" of parents

              This can easily be understood by thinking about a typical family.

              For example, my cousin Tony and I have a MRCA two generations ago (our grandfather Emilio). But I don't have "one set" of grandparents: I have two. Tony also has two sets of grandparents, and one set of his grandparents are unrelated to me.

              My grandfather Emilio is the MRCA for our y-chromosome, but the MRCA for our mtDNA lived many, many years ago in a place far, far away. The MRCA for our D3S1358 marker was a completely different person yet.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by vineviz
                For one thing, the each distinct genetic locus has a MRCA for the whole population but each locus has a different MRCA. That fact alone tells you that there is not just one set of parents, but rather a whole "cloud" of parents

                This can easily be understood by thinking about a typical family.

                For example, my cousin Tony and I have a MRCA two generations ago (our grandfather Emilio). But I don't have "one set" of grandparents: I have two. Tony also has two sets of grandparents, and one set of his grandparents are unrelated to me.

                My grandfather Emilio is the MRCA for our y-chromosome, but the MRCA for our mtDNA lived many, many years ago in a place far, far away. The MRCA for our D3S1358 marker was a completely different person yet.
                I understand that, but, how are you and I related then? Would not the possibility exist that we are not related? If what you are saying is correct, if we had a hundred sets of parents at genesis, then there is a possibility that we are not all related.

                Science has based all of their research on the only evidence that they have which is probably incomplete. So, therefore, the conclusions are incomplete. The only way that we are all related is if we sprung from one set of parents at the beginning.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by SaintManx
                  I understand that, but, how are you and I related then? Would not the possibility exist that we are not related? If what you are saying is correct, if we had a hundred sets of parents at genesis, then there is a possibility that we are not all related.

                  Science has based all of their research on the only evidence that they have which is probably incomplete. So, therefore, the conclusions are incomplete. The only way that we are all related is if we sprung from one set of parents at the beginning.
                  Read my posting last night on the previous page. I try to state in clear language why you are mistaken in your characterization of population genetics saying that there is only "one set of parents" for everyone living today. That is not the theory, which my posting addresses.

                  Also, Bob Chasm has a good posting in this thread also which explains on what basis population genetics can say that all yDNA lines existing today descend from one man. Here's what he says:

                  Originally posted by bob_chasm
                  All science is relative and based on probabilities. In this case, all you have to do is find one human being that doesnt carry that Y chromosomal Adam polymorphism (SNP) and you can disprove the single paternal ancestor theory. Afterall, none of the apes not even Neandertal carried it, but all humans seem to.

                  regards,

                  bob
                  So, if you want to prove population genetics wrong, take his suggestion and find a man who doesn't have the SNP that all men tested have been found to have. Until you or someone else does that, population genetics' theory (about a single man being the ancestor of all men living today) will stand.

                  Mike

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MMaddi
                    Read my posting last night on the previous page. I try to state in clear language why you are mistaken in your characterization of population genetics saying that there is only "one set of parents" for everyone living today. That is not the theory, which my posting addresses.

                    Also, Bob Chasm has a good posting in this thread also which explains on what basis population genetics can say that all yDNA lines existing today descend from one man. Here's what he says:



                    So, if you want to prove population genetics wrong, take his suggestion and find a man who doesn't have the SNP that all men tested have been found to have. Until you or someone else does that, population genetics' theory (about a single man being the ancestor of all men living today) will stand.

                    Mike
                    Mike,

                    Perhaps I am misreading you, but your tone seems to be a bit aggressive of which I am not deserving.

                    FTDNA mandates that we are all related, this is the company in which I entrusted my dna with. Are they using the term "related" in the layman sense like mother to son,etc. or, in the technical sense that we are all animals? This could be the root of my confusion.

                    You seem to think (and I wish that you would stop putting words into my mouth)that I am out to prove science wrong. That I simply throw away centuries of scientific research away because of my humble beliefs. That simply is not the case. I think things through in a sensitive and logical manner and ask a lot of questions.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SaintManx
                      I understand that, but, how are you and I related then? Would not the possibility exist that we are not related? If what you are saying is correct, if we had a hundred sets of parents at genesis, then there is a possibility that we are not all related.

                      Science has based all of their research on the only evidence that they have which is probably incomplete. So, therefore, the conclusions are incomplete. The only way that we are all related is if we sprung from one set of parents at the beginning.
                      1. There is nothing in the evolutionary history of the human genome that can accurately be referred to as a "genesis".
                      2. There is no group of people that can be accurately referred to as "science".
                      3. We are all related in multiple ways even though we did not spring from one set of parents.


                      If this topic is interesting to you, I suggest that you figure out some way to understand it. I'm always happy to answer any questions you have in this forum, as are others. But maybe there are methods that would be more effective.

                      I recommend the following Wikipedia articles, along the the external links they cite.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

                      These links are particularly interesting:

                      http://www.roberts-publishers.com/wakeley/Chapter1.pdf
                      http://walnut.usc.edu/~magnus/papers/wiley.pdf
                      http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by SaintManx
                        Mike,

                        Perhaps I am misreading you, but your tone seems to be a bit aggressive of which I am not deserving.

                        FTDNA mandates that we are all related, this is the company in which I entrusted my dna with. Are they using the term "related" in the layman sense like mother to son,etc. or, in the technical sense that we are all animals? This could be the root of my confusion.

                        You seem to think (and I wish that you would stop putting words into my mouth)that I am out to prove science wrong. That I simply throw away centuries of scientific research away because of my humble beliefs. That simply is not the case. I think things through in a sensitive and logical manner and ask a lot of questions.
                        I apologize if my tone came across as aggressive. I think it's more accurate to describe it as frustrated rather than aggressive.

                        Let me be honest with you, because I have gotten a strong idea reading your various postings what the problem is that you're having.

                        I have tried to be helpful with you and given you some guidance about your R1b haplotype and what it may indicate beyond your specific paper trail genealogy, which you stated in a posting leads you back to 1632 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Once I discovered that your legal surname is Castronovo and that you have paternal line ancestors from Bagheria, Sicily (as stated in your ysearch account), I invited you to join the Sicily Project, which you did. After just a few days as a member of the project, you withdrew. I suppose this has something to do with your belief that you are descended from Matthias St. John from England whose line was in Massachusetts in 1632, which does not really fit in much with a Sicilian paternal line. I even suggested that you might rejoin the Sicily Project after you have sorted out all the questions in your mind.

                        Let me digress from my main point to tell you that I ran a comparison of your haplotype, at 25 markers, with two known descendants of Matthias St. John, a descendant of Ezra St. John (born c. 1845) and a person labelled "identification pending." Your haplotype and these 4 others are found on the website of the St. John surname project, at www.familytreedna.com/public/StJohn I used a yDNA haplotype comparison utility, which is well-regarded among genetic genealogists, found at http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html

                        These are the results of that comparison. The standard way to compare haplotypes with this utility is with FTDNA’s mutation rate, 30 years per generation and a 50% confidence interval (CI). CI refers to probabilities, with a 50% CI meaning that it’s probable that the figure for “Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor” (TMCRA) represents the middle of the probability range – 50% of the cases should be above that TMCRA and 50% below it. Using those default criteria, the utility shows that your TMCRA to the two descendants of Matthias and the descendant of Ezra is between 1,230 and 1,410 years ago. The one labeled “identification pending” has the same range of TMCRA to the other three. In contrast, the TMCRA among the 3 descendants of Matthias and Ezra have a TMCRA range of 90-240 years among them, clearly indicating that those three are of the same paternal line.

                        Next, I changed the CI to 1%, meaning that the comparison computes the chances of a TMCRA in the lowest 1% of the probability range. This shows that your TMCRA range in comparison to the descendants of Matthias and Ezra declines to 450-570 years. This still makes it very unlikely that you are related to this paternal line. So then I used a generation length of 25 years, which most genealogists consider too low (28-30 is considered acceptable) and CI of 1%. This shows you with a TMCRA range of 375-475 years, with the 375 in comparison to the descendant of Ezra and the 475 to the known descendants of Matthias. This still clearly excludes that your paper trail to an ancestor in 1632 in Massachsetts along with the thinly stretched DNA test evidence proves that you are a desendant of the Matthias St. John from whom the other surname project members are descended.

                        OK, now back to my main point, which is my belief of the core problem all your postings are reflecting. Most people, confronted with all this evidence, would say, “Well, perhaps my paper trail evidence is mistaken and I should go back and double-check that and see if I am overlooking something.” Instead, you insist that all the principles of genetic genealogy must be wrong and your paper trail is correct. In other words, you don’t want to accept the evidence that proves your beliefs wrong. Of course, that’s your choice and your right.

                        I’m not trying to be mean in saying that. My main reason for being involved in genetic genealogy is that the paper trail for my great-grandfather has been exhausted, with all the evidence pointing to him having been abandoned as an infant. This coheres with a story my cousins and I heard as children, that he was the son of a nobleman and given to a Maddi family to raise. This does not convince me that he was the son of a nobleman, as exciting as that would be. But it did convince me to test my yDNA and hope for a match some day. It also convinced me to read up about genetic genealogy and learn its principles so that I could be sure that when a match came along (which may never happen), it actually tells me something about my paternal line and what is its actual associated surname.

                        So I understand completely your hopes about proving your surname’s actual associated surname. I don’t question your sincerity about your belief that you are descended from Matthias St. John. Given that your legal surname is Castronovo; you can actually cite known ancestors in Sicily; and that your yDNA test results point toward no evidence of a connection to known ancestors of Matthias St. John, I think you seriously need to look at your paper trail evidence to see if there is a mistake there.

                        I’ve done all I can to help you understand the principles of genetic genealogy and how it applies in your case. That’s all I can do. It’s up to you to accept or reject that. In any case, I think it’s better for both of us if I not post about your situation any longer.

                        Mike
                        Last edited by MMaddi; 4 January 2007, 02:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Adam

                          Originally posted by SaintManx
                          If what you are saying is correct, if we had a hundred sets of parents at genesis, then there is a possibility that we are not all related.
                          For example,

                          Assume there were 10 unrelated Adams at genesis i.e. Adam 1, Adam 2, Adam 3 .... each married to 10 different Eves Eve 1, Eve 2, Eve 3 ....

                          Suppose Adam 1's son marries Adam 2's daughter and they have a son. This son has some of Adam 2's dna from his mother, but only Adam 1's y marker. So even if Adam 2 doesnt have a son and thus nobody to carry his y marker, his dna still survives in Adam 1's son. In this way several Adam lines may have existed in the beginning and their dna survives among us. So why didnt the other Adams' Y survive? Possibly because they had sons that moved to places (in tribes) where life couldnt be sustained. Drought, volcano, sunami, floods, meteorite, glarcier, desease, war etc your guess is as good as mine. Ive seen a PBS special that speaks of a catastrophic Volcanic eruption 60 thousand years ago that effected the entire earth. Perhaps that was the agent. Who knows? However, in the end, one y line survived, the tribe in Africa - sons of Adam1 (with the dna of many Adams but Y of only one). His children walked out from Africa/ ME in waves separated at times by 10,000 years or more.

                          regards,

                          bob

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bob_chasm
                            For example,

                            Assume there were 10 unrelated Adams at genesis i.e. Adam 1, Adam 2, Adam 3 .... each married to 10 different Eves Eve 1, Eve 2, Eve 3 ....

                            Suppose Adam 1's son marries Adam 2's daughter and they have a son. This son has some of Adam 2's dna from his mother, but only Adam 1's y marker. So even if Adam 2 doesnt have a son and thus nobody to carry his y marker, his dna still survives in Adam 1's son. In this way several Adam lines may have existed in the beginning and their dna survives among us. So why didnt the other Adams' Y survive? Possibly because they had sons that moved to places (in tribes) where life couldnt be sustained. Drought, volcano, sunami, floods, meteorite, glarcier, desease, war etc your guess is as good as mine. Ive seen a PBS special that speaks of a catastrophic Volcanic eruption 60 thousand years ago that effected the entire earth. Perhaps that was the agent. Who knows? However, in the end, one y line survived, the tribe in Africa - sons of Adam1 (with the dna of many Adams but Y of only one). His children walked out from Africa/ ME in waves separated at times by 10,000 years or more.

                            regards,

                            bob
                            Bob,

                            Thanks for your response, it is thoughtful to say the least. I understand what you have been saying all along- my instincts tell me that science and the world will be telling us more and this process will evolve.

                            Cheers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by vineviz
                              1. There is nothing in the evolutionary history of the human genome that can accurately be referred to as a "genesis".
                              2. There is no group of people that can be accurately referred to as "science".
                              3. We are all related in multiple ways even though we did not spring from one set of parents.


                              If this topic is interesting to you, I suggest that you figure out some way to understand it. I'm always happy to answer any questions you have in this forum, as are others. But maybe there are methods that would be more effective.

                              I recommend the following Wikipedia articles, along the the external links they cite.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

                              These links are particularly interesting:

                              http://www.roberts-publishers.com/wakeley/Chapter1.pdf
                              http://walnut.usc.edu/~magnus/papers/wiley.pdf
                              http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
                              Thanks for the assistance. I will research these issues.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X