Hi Mike, The odd thing is that gravity remains a theory which has never been proven. You know it, I know it and everybody else knows it, but scientifically it remains only a theory. It seems that now could be the time to let the new genetics "Next Generation" SNP testing have a rest, to have a shake-down over time. Yeah, that could take some time, but eventually the genetic testing companies will need to come to common terms which will be applicable to all. On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Mike W <mwwdna@gmail.com> wrote: > Doug, > > I don't know if you've seen that DF49xM222 project admins submitted some > new SNPs to FTDNA that are now being offered by them a la carte. The irony > is that the project admins didn't even submit them to ISOGG's Ybrowse yet > and went ahead with their "ZP" series labeling. (I think one of the guys is > named Peter but I'm not sure where the "P" comes from.) Anyway, FTDNA > adopted those labels. The irony is a few months ago people thought FTDNA > would confuse things more by creating a new labeling system for SNPs. > Instead, they got out of the labeling business and are using whatever is > out there include the hobbyist "DF", "Z" labeling, FGC's "FGC" labeling and > even BISDNA's "S" labeling. Ultimately they have become most supportive of > interoperability and are the most agnostic. > > I'm not saying FTDNA doesn't have warts though. They clearly do. Believe > me, I feel the pain as an admin. > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM, tuulen <tuulen@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi David and All, > > > > And so could this be a good time for all of us to stand up, to scream and > > shout and to DEMAND that a "universal" genetic code become employed? > > > > That is, a genetic terminology, language or code of test results which > > could be equally applicable between all such genetic testing agencies? > > > > That actually could be of good use to the testing companies as perhaps > > their clients could then have fewer doubts or questions. > > > > Yeah, this is only the M222 board and we are only the little guys, but > that > > kind of proposal could begin here. > > > > Doug Morrison > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:00 PM, David Wilson <dcw1000@live.com> wrote: > > > > > Let me correct this once again. FGC449, AKA S7072, is equivalent to > M222, > > > not S7073. I had forgotten that there is one Chromo2 tester who is > > derived > > > for > > > S7072 but ancestral for S7073. > > > > > > Thanks to David Maclennan for questioning me on this. Good catch. > > > > > > David Wilson > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > > > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:00 AM > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] FGC449 (corrected subject) > > > > > > Sorry for the bad subject in the preceding post. At least I called the > > SNP > > > by the right name in the text! > > > > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > > > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:54 AM > > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com; dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: [R-M222] DF449 > > > > > > FGC449 is synonymous with S7072 (position 8157356) and, in our current > > > knowledge, equivalent to S7073. Maybe we can divide them eventually and > > > maybe not, but if we can it will probably take many more FG and Big Y > > tests > > > to find the evidence that will split them. > > > > > > > > > > > > David Wilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

With all due respect, Doug, if you are going to demand scientific rigor, simplification, and universal practice of such in genomic nomenclature (which I support and is not a bad thing), you should adhere to the same standards. A "theory" in science can never be proven, but can be disproven. You see, unlike the common denotation of the word, in science a theory is not some WAG or speculative guess, but rather is a rigorous framework, which may be mathematical in nature, which holds all known facts and by means of which predictions of experimental outcomes can be made. Thus the classical theory of gravity which is generally attributed largely to I. Newton, i.e. F = G (m_1 m_2 /r^2 ), and is used to calculate the orbits of planets as ellipses and not circles, to calculate the trajectory of artillery shells, and more -- much more -- was overturned and replaced with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity around 1916 in which Newton's law of universal gravity becomes a geometric property of spacetime. Newton's equation above was replaced with the Einstein Field Equations, which are a system of partial differential equations. General Relativity [Theory] has passed every challenge thrown at it so far with flying colors. For most ordinary purposes, General Relativity Theory of Gravity reduces to Classical Gravitational Theory, so while Newton was not entirely wrong, he was not entirely right either. Newtonian gravity cannot explain how spacetime can be distorted by mass for example. Einstein's General Relativity Theory of Gravity demands it. From the Wikipedia article on Theory, the scientific use of the word is defined as: /In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[6] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[7] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8]/ In your zeal and plea for consistency and sanity in genomics nomenclature, below, you are misusing and, perhaps misunderstanding, the notion of "theory." Hope this helps. Walter Freeman On 6/13/2014 12:01 AM, tuulen wrote: > Hi Mike, > > The odd thing is that gravity remains a theory which has never been proven. > You know it, I know it and everybody else knows it, but scientifically it > remains only a theory. >