On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:18:34 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:20:29 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > REPLY: > > > TAF, your thoughts are interesting. Thomas A. Kunkel wrote back on Feb 26 2004, concerning DNA Replication Fidelity . . . > > > > 12 years is a terribly long time in molecular biology terms. Any how, a discussion of how cellular polymerases optimize mutation frequency does nothing to affect the demonstrated consequences - enough mutations for divergens, not so much as to disguise shared origins. > > > > > One, two, four, eight – lessons from dividing cells > > > January 6, 2016 by Wei Theng Poh > > > > > > "By probing the mechanism(s) that leads to cells extinguishing checkpoint signaling in the presence of the DNA damage > > > > Note even remotely relevant. Here is a clue: DNA damage is not the same as DNA mutations. > > > > > Scientists propose an algorithm to study DNA faster and more accurately > > > January 18, 2016 > > > > > > "Bioinformatics is a very topical subject; every new sequenced genome > > > raises so many additional questions that scientists simply do not have > > > time to answer them all." > > > > And in what way is this even remotely relevant? Yes, with anywhere from millions to billions of nucleotides, encoding the signals for replication, transcription, translation.stability and function, there is so much information to be studied that interesting aspects than there are scientists to study them. This in no way invalidates the answer from any specific questions we do ask. > > > > These are all just completely irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > It is intentionally and willfully misleading, to suggest, by companies, in > > > public notices or by groups like this, as if you have all the answers; > > > > Perhaps you want to try this again. It makes no sense. > > > > > that current genetics can provide to unsuspecting new or advanced > > > genealogy researchers, connective genetic data sets to written record > > > sources. > > > > Again, try English. > > > > > The power of positive prediction of similar results over time, is subject > > > to cellular functions not yet fully understood, as noted in more current > > > publications; > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > and, which cells, from research undertaken and reviewed, in the recent > > > past, have been found to be sensitive, re: DNA, to harmful drugs > > > ingestion. > > > > Irrelevant > > > > > Genetic data conclusions, at present, are like a beautiful 4th of July > > > celebration, one great find after another lights the headlines sky, each > > > having its 15 seconds of glory, then flowing down as burnt embers as a > > > new theory and postulations follow the wake; ever learning, approximately, > > > but not finding ultimate truth. > > > > Ultimate truth is unattainable, and that goes for science, history or theology (although I guess in the latter it could be said that you can achieve ultimate truth, and someone else can, but the two will be different ultimate truths). In science we don't have the ultimate truth behind gravity, but we can still measure it and characterize it and see that it follows certain principles, but our understanding of it too is subject to revision/optimization. That doesn't mean one day you will fly off into space. You suggest you won't accept DNA until we have the ultimate truth, but such an answer to life, the universe and everything is so complex we can't even frame the question. > > > > What you have 'discovered' by your Google search for DNA is not novel and it is not something that overturns the current model of genetics, any more than 'discovering' that some years do not have 365 days invalidates all chronology. The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already been fully integrated into our understanding, and a full paradigm shift that would be required to subvert our understanding of DNA inheritance will not come from Googling for Wikipedia pages, decade-old science articles and over-blown stories from the popular press. > > > > taf > > ---------------- > REPLY: > Non-Identafible Pedigrees and a Bayesian Solution dated 26 Feb 2016 > . . . > Abstract. > "Some methods aim to correct or test for relationships or to reconstruct the pedigree, or family tree. We show that these methods cannot resolve ties for correct relationships due to identifiability of the pedigree likelihood which is the probability of inheriting the data under the pedigree model. This means that no likelihood-based method can produce a correct pedigree inference with high probability. This lack of reliability is critical both for health and forensics applications. . . . This means that errors in pedigree prediction have dramatic effects on downstream analysis." > . . . > "Half-Cousins and Full-Cousins Relationships. To the best of our knowledge Donnelly [5] was the first to remark that pairs of pedigrees either of the half-cousin or of the full-cousin type and having equal numbers of edges are non-identifiable" . . . "Fig. 2. Half-cousins and grand-half-avuncular relationships are non-identifiable even when there is a third individual of interest." . . . "These examples mean that the likelihood alone is not a practical tool for testing relationships, for inferring pedigrees, or for correcting pedigrees that have relationship errors since the pedigrees under consideration might be non-identifiable." > > In suggesting a potential solution, mention is made that: > "As yet, all these details are an open problem." > > That "The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already been fully integrated into our understanding" falls into the category of comic DNA fantasy. --------------------------- ADDENDUM: (pdf)from Cornell University Library; Open access to 1,154,307 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.08183.pdf

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:20:29 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > REPLY: > > TAF, your thoughts are interesting. Thomas A. Kunkel wrote back on Feb 26 2004, concerning DNA Replication Fidelity . . . > > 12 years is a terribly long time in molecular biology terms. Any how, a discussion of how cellular polymerases optimize mutation frequency does nothing to affect the demonstrated consequences - enough mutations for divergens, not so much as to disguise shared origins. > > > One, two, four, eight – lessons from dividing cells > > January 6, 2016 by Wei Theng Poh > > > > "By probing the mechanism(s) that leads to cells extinguishing checkpoint signaling in the presence of the DNA damage > > Note even remotely relevant. Here is a clue: DNA damage is not the same as DNA mutations. > > > Scientists propose an algorithm to study DNA faster and more accurately > > January 18, 2016 > > > > "Bioinformatics is a very topical subject; every new sequenced genome > > raises so many additional questions that scientists simply do not have > > time to answer them all." > > And in what way is this even remotely relevant? Yes, with anywhere from millions to billions of nucleotides, encoding the signals for replication, transcription, translation.stability and function, there is so much information to be studied that interesting aspects than there are scientists to study them. This in no way invalidates the answer from any specific questions we do ask. > > These are all just completely irrelevant. > > > > > > It is intentionally and willfully misleading, to suggest, by companies, in > > public notices or by groups like this, as if you have all the answers; > > Perhaps you want to try this again. It makes no sense. > > > that current genetics can provide to unsuspecting new or advanced > > genealogy researchers, connective genetic data sets to written record > > sources. > > Again, try English. > > > The power of positive prediction of similar results over time, is subject > > to cellular functions not yet fully understood, as noted in more current > > publications; > > Nonsense. > > > and, which cells, from research undertaken and reviewed, in the recent > > past, have been found to be sensitive, re: DNA, to harmful drugs > > ingestion. > > Irrelevant > > > Genetic data conclusions, at present, are like a beautiful 4th of July > > celebration, one great find after another lights the headlines sky, each > > having its 15 seconds of glory, then flowing down as burnt embers as a > > new theory and postulations follow the wake; ever learning, approximately, > > but not finding ultimate truth. > > Ultimate truth is unattainable, and that goes for science, history or theology (although I guess in the latter it could be said that you can achieve ultimate truth, and someone else can, but the two will be different ultimate truths). In science we don't have the ultimate truth behind gravity, but we can still measure it and characterize it and see that it follows certain principles, but our understanding of it too is subject to revision/optimization. That doesn't mean one day you will fly off into space. You suggest you won't accept DNA until we have the ultimate truth, but such an answer to life, the universe and everything is so complex we can't even frame the question. > > What you have 'discovered' by your Google search for DNA is not novel and it is not something that overturns the current model of genetics, any more than 'discovering' that some years do not have 365 days invalidates all chronology. The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already been fully integrated into our understanding, and a full paradigm shift that would be required to subvert our understanding of DNA inheritance will not come from Googling for Wikipedia pages, decade-old science articles and over-blown stories from the popular press. > > taf ---------------- REPLY: Non-Identafible Pedigrees and a Bayesian Solution dated 26 Feb 2016 . . . Abstract. "Some methods aim to correct or test for relationships or to reconstruct the pedigree, or family tree. We show that these methods cannot resolve ties for correct relationships due to identifiability of the pedigree likelihood which is the probability of inheriting the data under the pedigree model. This means that no likelihood-based method can produce a correct pedigree inference with high probability. This lack of reliability is critical both for health and forensics applications. . . . This means that errors in pedigree prediction have dramatic effects on downstream analysis." . . . "Half-Cousins and Full-Cousins Relationships. To the best of our knowledge Donnelly [5] was the first to remark that pairs of pedigrees either of the half-cousin or of the full-cousin type and having equal numbers of edges are non-identifiable" . . . "Fig. 2. Half-cousins and grand-half-avuncular relationships are non-identifiable even when there is a third individual of interest." . . . "These examples mean that the likelihood alone is not a practical tool for testing relationships, for inferring pedigrees, or for correcting pedigrees that have relationship errors since the pedigrees under consideration might be non-identifiable." In suggesting a potential solution, mention is made that: "As yet, all these details are an open problem." That "The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already been fully integrated into our understanding" falls into the category of comic DNA fantasy.

Hi there I'm investigating the extinction of the line of Bowes of Barnes (just west of Bishopwearmouth in County Durham) and the short-lived ownership of Barnes by William Haddock (who may be a forefather of mine). I think I have established that a lot of what was said in Surtees etc. is incorrect, and especially the 1640 date for Haddock marrying a Bowes daughter. It would appear that instead 1640 was when William Bowes married Ann Ventris with whom he had issue, two of whom survived when the Barnes estate went through the Compounding process after William Bowes' death in 1649 / 50. One of the two children was another William Bowes who died in about 1662 and my hypothesis is that the other was a Mary, who had married William Haddock by 1666 when there is baptism record for their son George, although there is also a reference to a second William Haddock who was presumably born earlier. The estate was sold in two tranches in the late 1660's / early 1670's, I suspect because it was already burdened by Bowes' family debts (although Surtees etc. blame the Haddocks' mismanagement), although the elder William Haddock was still described as "of Barnes" when he was buried in 1679. The only subsequent reference to these Haddocks is in the context of a court case over tithes when widow Elizabeth Haddock and her son Nicholas get a mention. My presumption is that they are the relict and son of the younger William. Despite most of the church records now being available on line there are too many Haddock lines in Sunderland to identify which is which, which is made worse by the effects of the Civil War etc. on those records, which means I have not been able to trace details for the Haddock-Bowes marriage, the birth / baptism of the Bowes children or the younger William Haddock, or his subsequent marriage. Searching for Bowes Barnes on this forum drew a blank, but there seems to have been continued interest in earlier generations of this family and I was was wondering whether anyone had looked into these aspects and would be willing to share their knowledge with me. Regards James Haddock

> An example of DNA overturning last century's historical-record based genealogy is Archibald Bennett's conclusion about the origin of the North Carolina Allred family (now known to be ancestral to Pres. Obama). Bennett's theories were overturned by YDNA evidence. Patchy records have been discovered, which Allred missed that corroborate the migrations revealed by YDNA analysis. > > Archibald Bennett is considered to be one of the top Mormon genealogists of the twentieth century. If his conclusions can be invalidated by DNA evidence, anyone's can. > > I summed up this discovery by the Allred Family Organization on FamilySearch's Blog "DNA vs. 1940s Professional Genealogist" https://familysearch.org/blog/en/dna-1940s-professional-genealogist/ > > Nathan I believe this is exactly the sort of thing Thomas Tinney is afraid of and why he is so anti-DNA. So far his arguments have sounded more like someone grasping at straws and trying desperately to suppress the use of DNA rather than making a real, evidence-based, case against it. As an amateur genealogist and historian I'm interested in going where the evidence leads, not to where I want it to lead. I'm not always crazy about where it leads, but I'd rather know the truth. I see DNA as a tool to assist me in my genealogical and historical research. It is not THE tool, but A tool to be used in conjunction with other, more traditional, tools. Peter D. A. Warwick

The professional genealogical community I participate in is currently worried that conclusions about genealogical relationships they reached in the twentienth century using historical documents will be overturned by new DNA evidence made available in the twenty-first century. > > > > Nathan An example of DNA overturning last century's historical-record based genealogy is Archibald Bennett's conclusion about the origin of the North Carolina Allred family (now known to be ancestral to Pres. Obama). Bennett's theories were overturned by YDNA evidence. Patchy records have been discovered, which Allred missed that corroborate the migrations revealed by YDNA analysis. Archibald Bennett is considered to be one of the top Mormon genealogists of the twentieth century. If his conclusions can be invalidated by DNA evidence, anyone's can. I summed up this discovery by the Allred Family Organization on FamilySearch's Blog "DNA vs. 1940s Professional Genealogist" https://familysearch.org/blog/en/dna-1940s-professional-genealogist/ Nathan

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > REPLY: > TAF, your thoughts are interesting. Thomas A. Kunkel wrote back on Feb 26 2004, concerning DNA Replication Fidelity . . . 12 years is a terribly long time in molecular biology terms. Any how, a discussion of how cellular polymerases optimize mutation frequency does nothing to affect the demonstrated consequences - enough mutations for divergens, not so much as to disguise shared origins. > One, two, four, eight – lessons from dividing cells > January 6, 2016 by Wei Theng Poh > > "By probing the mechanism(s) that leads to cells extinguishing checkpoint signaling in the presence of the DNA damage Note even remotely relevant. Here is a clue: DNA damage is not the same as DNA mutations. > Scientists propose an algorithm to study DNA faster and more accurately > January 18, 2016 > > "Bioinformatics is a very topical subject; every new sequenced genome > raises so many additional questions that scientists simply do not have > time to answer them all." And in what way is this even remotely relevant? Yes, with anywhere from millions to billions of nucleotides, encoding the signals for replication, transcription, translation.stability and function, there is so much information to be studied that interesting aspects than there are scientists to study them. This in no way invalidates the answer from any specific questions we do ask. These are all just completely irrelevant. > > It is intentionally and willfully misleading, to suggest, by companies, in > public notices or by groups like this, as if you have all the answers; Perhaps you want to try this again. It makes no sense. > that current genetics can provide to unsuspecting new or advanced > genealogy researchers, connective genetic data sets to written record > sources. Again, try English. > The power of positive prediction of similar results over time, is subject > to cellular functions not yet fully understood, as noted in more current > publications; Nonsense. > and, which cells, from research undertaken and reviewed, in the recent > past, have been found to be sensitive, re: DNA, to harmful drugs > ingestion. Irrelevant > Genetic data conclusions, at present, are like a beautiful 4th of July > celebration, one great find after another lights the headlines sky, each > having its 15 seconds of glory, then flowing down as burnt embers as a > new theory and postulations follow the wake; ever learning, approximately, > but not finding ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is unattainable, and that goes for science, history or theology (although I guess in the latter it could be said that you can achieve ultimate truth, and someone else can, but the two will be different ultimate truths). In science we don't have the ultimate truth behind gravity, but we can still measure it and characterize it and see that it follows certain principles, but our understanding of it too is subject to revision/optimization. That doesn't mean one day you will fly off into space. You suggest you won't accept DNA until we have the ultimate truth, but such an answer to life, the universe and everything is so complex we can't even frame the question. What you have 'discovered' by your Google search for DNA is not novel and it is not something that overturns the current model of genetics, any more than 'discovering' that some years do not have 365 days invalidates all chronology. The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already been fully integrated into our understanding, and a full paradigm shift that would be required to subvert our understanding of DNA inheritance will not come from Googling for Wikipedia pages, decade-old science articles and over-blown stories from the popular press. taf

Hello to all of the members in Genealogy Medieval. I am trying to search for some information about the wives's names that were married into the Collin's Family. The Collin's Family it is in the Colson, Davis, Hills, Van Hoven: friends, presidents, royalty & Ancient Genealogy Research. This is from Paul Davis. What I am trying to look for is the names of the wives of the following people below; Peter Collins Birth: About 1220 Adam Collins Birth: About 1250 Geoffrey Collins Birth: About 1283 Bowdler Birth: About 1290 William Collins Birth: About 1315 Elizabeth Acton Birth: About 1315 Roger Collins Birth: About 1335 John Collins Birth: About 1355 ? Bernard Birth: About 1360 Roger Collins Birth: About 1380 in: Shropshire County, England Daughter Middleton Birth: About 1385 in: Middleton, Shropshire, England Thank you and Sincerely, Bradley Johnson

Hello to all of the members in Medieval Genealogy. I would like to ask for information about the wives who were married into the Lingen. The Lingen family are descendants from Turstin "The Fleming" De Wigmore. Here are the following husband's names and information as well. John Lingen Birth: About 1340 in Herefordshire County, England Death: 1382 in: Herefordshire County, England John Lingen Birth: About 1306 in: Lingen, Herefordshire, England Death: 1340 in: Market Drayton, Shropshire, England John De Lingen Birth: About 1280 in: Lingen, Herefordshire, England Ralph De Lingen Birth: About 1256 Ralph De Wigmore Birth: About 1225 Any information about the wives and their family's it will be appreciated. Thank you and Sincerely, Bradley Johnson

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:02:06 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:19:52 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > TAF, though you are highly learned, your statements and conclusions appear > > to me to be intentionally and willfully misleading. > > The critical part of the sentence being 'to me'. > > First an aside: If you read the actual paper these stories are reporting on (I know, you don't actually read the scholarly papers on which you base your arguments, but one can hope), you will discover that there is nothing to see here. This was not a novel discovery. It was not dramatic. These two scientists simply wrote a review - they read a bunch of papers from the research literature and they summarized that research. All of the conclusions in their paper are not their own, they are just bringing together in one place the published conclusions of others. This hardly merits a press conference, let alone all of the over-hyped reporting in the popular media. The publicity department of the University of Western Australia should be congratulated for getting a non-finding reported as if it was an actual scientific discovery. Then they should be shot for getting a non-finding reported as if it was an actual scientific discovery. > > > Chromosome segregation is the process in eukaryotes by which two sister > > chromatids formed as a consequence of DNA replication, . . . > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_segregation > > You are talking about mitosis here, where two identical chromosomes are separated into different cells. If this goes wrong and you end up with two identical copies in the same cell, how is that going to affect DNA testing? It's not because the answer is still the same - if some people have GATC and others have GAAC, then if a cell ends up with an extra copy of the same sequence, GAAC, and you test it, it will still show as GAAC. On the other hand, it could result in a cell missing the sequence all together and this will not report the other sequence - it will just produce a null result. A flaw in mitotic segregation does not change the identity of the DNA present, even if it changed the number of copies - it will give you the same result or a null result, not a different result. > > This specific report is about chromothripsis, the shattering of chromosomes that can occur in response to certain cellular insults. This usually results in cell death, but occasionally a cell patches back together all of the little pieces into a patchwork set of chromosomes, but here is the thing - all of the pieces are still the same, they are just strung together differently. Thus GATC is still GATC, even though it is now in a piece that is attached to chromosome 1 when it used to be on chromosome 15. When you do a SNP analysis, it will still show as GATC because the DNA analyses used in genetic and genealogic testing are micro-scale while the chromosomal rearrangements are macro-scale. But that is only half of the story. > > When this happens, it only happens in an occasional rare cell. Yes, that cell can give rise to a tumor, but it is just one cell. A cheek swab from someone who just smoked pot will still have 10s of thousands of normal cells for every 'shattered' one, so even if the shattering had an effect on DNA testing of that cell, which it doesn't, the signal from that cell would still be swamped by the 10,000 normal cells - you would never see the problem cell. > > When they talk about it possibly being passed down, they are referring to two entirely distinct phenomena, as again you would know had you read the paper. First, the shattering and rebuilding can theoretically happen in a gamete, in which case the progeny might have a rearranged chromosome, but all the chunks are there, just in different order, or are not there at all - again, the same result or a null result but not a changed result. They are also suggesting the possibility of epigenetic effects - these are chemical changes to the DNA that affect how it behaves in the cell, but do not affect its actual sequence - this will give you exactly the same result in DNA testing as unmodified DNA. > > So exactly which part of this is intentionally and willfully misleading? Do you have the expertise to know, or are you just the equivalent of the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings 'La, La, La' so as not to hear when someone else tries to tell them something they don't want to hear. > > taf ---------------- REPLY: TAF, your thoughts are interesting. Thomas A. Kunkel wrote back on Feb 26 2004, concerning DNA Replication Fidelity. He wrote: "interest in the fidelity of DNA copying mechanisms remains high because the balance between correct and incorrect DNA synthesis is relevant to a great deal of biology. High fidelity DNA synthesis is beneficial for maintaining genetic information over many generations and for avoiding mutations that can initiate and promote human diseases such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Low fidelity DNA synthesis is beneficial for the evolution of species, for generating diversity leading to increased survival of viruses and microbes when subjected to changing environments, and for the development of a normal immune system." . . . "To perform these tasks, cells harbor multiple DNA polymerases (2, 3), many of which have only been discovered in the past 5 years and whose cellular functions are not fully understood. These polymerases differ in many features including their fidelity. This diversity and the sequence complexity of genomes provide the potential to vary DNA synthesis error rates over a wider range than was appreciated a few years ago. . . ." http://www.jbc.org/content/279/17/16895.full One, two, four, eight – lessons from dividing cells January 6, 2016 by Wei Theng Poh "By probing the mechanism(s) that leads to cells extinguishing checkpoint signaling in the presence of the DNA damage, we hope to gain a fundamental understanding of an event that possibly confers survival advantages to cancer cells types. And that would be half the battle in thinking about how to treat this disease." http://phys.org/news/2016-01-lessons-cells.html Scientists propose an algorithm to study DNA faster and more accurately January 18, 2016 "Bioinformatics is a very topical subject; every new sequenced genome raises so many additional questions that scientists simply do not have time to answer them all." http://phys.org/news/2016-01-scientists-algorithm-dna-faster-accurately.html It is intentionally and willfully misleading, to suggest, by companies, in public notices or by groups like this, as if you have all the answers; that current genetics can provide to unsuspecting new or advanced genealogy researchers, connective genetic data sets to written record sources. The power of positive prediction of similar results over time, is subject to cellular functions not yet fully understood, as noted in more current publications; and, which cells, from research undertaken and reviewed, in the recent past, have been found to be sensitive, re: DNA, to harmful drugs ingestion. Genetic data conclusions, at present, are like a beautiful 4th of July celebration, one great find after another lights the headlines sky, each having its 15 seconds of glory, then flowing down as burnt embers as a new theory and postulations follow the wake; ever learning, approximately, but not finding ultimate truth.

Again thanks to taf and John Watson John: Yes, for the death 1210, Clarence-Smith cites the Pipe Rolls, PRS 26 NS, p.35. Taf: "I would not put my position that strong without reading or rereading the scholarly underpinnings of the 'preferred' version and C-S's alternative. I would say that anyone who draws a conclusion based solely on landholding (as opposed to documented inheritance) without taking the possibility of enfeoffment into account, has left a noteworthy gap in their analysis." Yes, but the snippets of evidence are small and the argument seems simple. He says CP asserts it was a free marriage when it was not. And then secondly he points to the clear evidence for an enfeoffed heiress being bought by the Bassets. "[Ralph] was dead by Michaelmas 1210, leaving a daughter under age whose custody and marriage had been granted to Alan Bassett for 100 marks. It is not therefore surprising to find at the death of Sir Philip Basset of Wycombe, younger son of this Alan, in 1271, that he held under Sir Matthew de Lovaine the manor of Wix 'by courtesy of England of the inheritance of Helewisia his wife'." Clarence Smith J. A., (1966), "Hastings of Little Easton (part 1)", Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, Part 1. For the information at the death of Philip Basset, IPM 56 H3, Calendar I, No. 807, p.273 He names the place in CP and gives a clear argument: "G. W. Watson in the article on Despenser in the Complete Peerage, IV, p.261, says that Sir Hugh Despenser married "Aline, da. & h. of Sir Philip Basset of Wycombe, Bucks.... by his first wife Wawise, da. of Sir Matthew de Lonavine of Little Easton, Essex," to which is appended a footnote: "She had, in free marriage, the manor of Wix, Essex, by the service of 20s. a year. Some genealogists say that she was da. of John de Grey of Eaton, Bucks." Her fathering on Sir Matthew de Lovaine has no other support than the quite unwarranted assumption that she held Wix in free marriage: in fact she held it by inheritance as the Inquisition specifies, and Sir Matthew was her overlord but not her father." Best Regards Andrew

I've just come across a claim of descent for Thomas Lawrence, husband of Joan Antrobus, from Edward III. It is claimed that Gary Boyd Roberts. Here are links to the person who made the original claim: http://nutfieldgenealogy.blogspot.ca/2013/08/tombstone-tuesday-cathedral-at-toledo.html and to the person who reported it: http://todmar.net/ancestry/lawrence_main.htm I know the line from Thomas Lawrence to Charlemagne has been proven by Greene, but am skeptical of this claim. Peter D. A. Warwick

> So exactly which part of this is intentionally and willfully misleading? Do you have the expertise to know, or are you just the equivalent of the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings 'La, La, La' so as not to hear when someone else tries to tell them something they don't want to hear. > > taf TAF, I've been telling genetic genealogists about this conversation on the ISOGG Facebook group and you're become a celebrity over there! ---Nathan

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:19:52 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > TAF, though you are highly learned, your statements and conclusions appear > to me to be intentionally and willfully misleading. The critical part of the sentence being 'to me'. First an aside: If you read the actual paper these stories are reporting on (I know, you don't actually read the scholarly papers on which you base your arguments, but one can hope), you will discover that there is nothing to see here. This was not a novel discovery. It was not dramatic. These two scientists simply wrote a review - they read a bunch of papers from the research literature and they summarized that research. All of the conclusions in their paper are not their own, they are just bringing together in one place the published conclusions of others. This hardly merits a press conference, let alone all of the over-hyped reporting in the popular media. The publicity department of the University of Western Australia should be congratulated for getting a non-finding reported as if it was an actual scientific discovery. Then they should be shot for getting a non-finding reported as if it was an actual scientific discovery. > Chromosome segregation is the process in eukaryotes by which two sister > chromatids formed as a consequence of DNA replication, . . . > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_segregation You are talking about mitosis here, where two identical chromosomes are separated into different cells. If this goes wrong and you end up with two identical copies in the same cell, how is that going to affect DNA testing? It's not because the answer is still the same - if some people have GATC and others have GAAC, then if a cell ends up with an extra copy of the same sequence, GAAC, and you test it, it will still show as GAAC. On the other hand, it could result in a cell missing the sequence all together and this will not report the other sequence - it will just produce a null result. A flaw in mitotic segregation does not change the identity of the DNA present, even if it changed the number of copies - it will give you the same result or a null result, not a different result. This specific report is about chromothripsis, the shattering of chromosomes that can occur in response to certain cellular insults. This usually results in cell death, but occasionally a cell patches back together all of the little pieces into a patchwork set of chromosomes, but here is the thing - all of the pieces are still the same, they are just strung together differently. Thus GATC is still GATC, even though it is now in a piece that is attached to chromosome 1 when it used to be on chromosome 15. When you do a SNP analysis, it will still show as GATC because the DNA analyses used in genetic and genealogic testing are micro-scale while the chromosomal rearrangements are macro-scale. But that is only half of the story. When this happens, it only happens in an occasional rare cell. Yes, that cell can give rise to a tumor, but it is just one cell. A cheek swab from someone who just smoked pot will still have 10s of thousands of normal cells for every 'shattered' one, so even if the shattering had an effect on DNA testing of that cell, which it doesn't, the signal from that cell would still be swamped by the 10,000 normal cells - you would never see the problem cell. When they talk about it possibly being passed down, they are referring to two entirely distinct phenomena, as again you would know had you read the paper. First, the shattering and rebuilding can theoretically happen in a gamete, in which case the progeny might have a rearranged chromosome, but all the chunks are there, just in different order, or are not there at all - again, the same result or a null result but not a changed result. They are also suggesting the possibility of epigenetic effects - these are chemical changes to the DNA that affect how it behaves in the cell, but do not affect its actual sequence - this will give you exactly the same result in DNA testing as unmodified DNA. So exactly which part of this is intentionally and willfully misleading? Do you have the expertise to know, or are you just the equivalent of the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings 'La, La, La' so as not to hear when someone else tries to tell them something they don't want to hear. taf

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:50:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:33:23 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) > > > > > > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future. > > > > I needed a good laugh. Now I am sure you are trolling us. > > > > Natural animals (humans) ingesting natural substances cannot cause "unnatural" DNA mutations. > > REPLY: > I actually stated "Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations" And his point is that there is nothing about a mutation caused by material found in nature that is inherently unnatural. taf

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:32:51 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 4:47:56 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > > You lost all potential credibility of your argument when you said: > > > > "Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah..." > > ------------------- > REPLY: > I believe you have a distorted perception. "Isaac Newton’s discoveries were so numerous and varied that many consider him to be the father of modern science." > . . . "Newton was knighted in 1705 and upon his death in 1727 was the first scientist given the honor of burial in Westminster Abbey." > http://www.who2.com/bio/sir-isaac-newton/ > > Newton's study of biblical chronology did not make him less credible. Not as a mathematician, nor as a physicist, but you don't often see Newton cited as a credible historian or theologian. There is a reason for that. > On the other hand, as mentioned heretofore, for which I am most hotly contested: > > I think DNA research applications for genealogical research are > directly related and equivalent to fingerprinting. [Even identical twins > (who share their DNA) do not have identical fingerprints.] Here you risk the analogy fallacy. Just because DNA can be viewed like fingerprints doesn't mean that something true of fingerprints must be true of DNA. > So if we want an ancestry background check, we should gather all the > family fingerprints and put them all together and compare them, both > for the father's side and the mother's side. And now it is no longer a risk - you have gone and said complete drivel based on your analogy. Fingerprints are not inherited. > Then, with the same degree of confidence of determining DNA "matches", > we should be able to directly trace back all our ancestry. Yes, No, > Maybe? Biometric [identification utilizing a physical attribute that is > unique to every human] includes [iris recognition, the use of dental > records in forensic dentistry, the tongue and DNA profiling, also known > as genetic fingerprinting.] The problem I have with all of this is the > logic behind the big story, because I am told that DNA is the "engine" > that creates all of this unique identification in every human being. Whoever told you this was pulling your leg (or perhaps you heard only what you wanted to hear). Much of forensic dentistry has to do with the dental work you have had done - fillings, bridges, caps, etc, and has nothing to do with genetics. Fingerprint formation in not genetic. The patterning in the iris has a genetic component but the specific pattern is the result of random cell growth and distribution arising from the genetic base. Biometrics like bone measurement again have a genetic components, but likewise have strong environmental influence (e.g. nutrition, diet, etc). Pretty much nothing you have said here is at all applicable. > So, the issue is not with the continuous replication > process which is so nicely discussed exactingly in family history DNA > related venues, it is with the very fact that everyone who is a human > being is individually genetically altered. True, but these are not complete rearrangements of the genetic information. The vast majority of DNA is unaltered, and the vast majority of genetic markers remain unchanged from generation to generation - there is just enough change over time that lineages diverge and can be distinguished, but little enough that they can still be recognized as deriving from the same lineage even after scores of generations. > And unless you can trace genealogy created patterns in fingerprints, iris > recognition, or some other form of biometric identification, you certainly > cannot with confidence, trace back with any degree of certainty, unique > DNA profiling, Apple, meet orange. The entire framework of your argument is based on factually incorrect information and flawed assumptions. >This is of course my own personal opinion on the matter, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. I am reminded of a study that was done that showed the people who were most sure of something were not those who had the correct information, but those who did not but lacked the self-awareness to consider the possibility they might be wrong. taf

On Jun 7, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Thomas.Milton.Tinney@lists2.rootsweb.com, Sr. via wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:59:07 AM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote: >>> >>> The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. >>> >>> >> Shennong is a myth. therefor, nothing literary can be historically attributed to him > > https://books.google.com/books?id=NjC-eTffFeQC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Medicine+in+China,+A+History+of+Pharmaceutics&source=bl&ots=S5OTqXaa_9&sig=wcGIE7XSe1eDuX2nYfYYVp8l9ac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRyeHVq5bNAhXJLmMKHRw-DbI4ChDoAQg4MAc#v=onepage&q=Medicine%20in%20China%2C%20A%20History%20of%20Pharmaceutics&f=false > > being mentioned in a book does not make shennong or his work historical. what you quote pertains to a literary history, NOT an historical one

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:19:52 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:30:38 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > Anyhow, had you read the scientific paper that the news features you cited were referring to (a common feature of this conversation - you not reading material you are using for your arguments) you would see that this report is not about mutation, per se, but about chromosome shattering and epigenetic effects, neither of which is going to affect genealogical DNA testing in the slightest. > > > REPLY: > TAF, though you are highly learned, your statements and conclusions appear to me to be intentionally and willfully misleading. Chromosome segregation is the process in eukaryotes by which two sister chromatids formed as a consequence of DNA replication, . . . > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_segregation Wow, just in the nick of time. You see, I am scheduled to give a lecture in 25 minutes, on chromosome segregation, to a group of 30 undergraduates. What with only research papers and reviews from the scholarly literature, along with textbooks in cell biology, molecular biology and genetics to go from, obviously I would have been operating from a position of ignorance. Who can possibly derive factual information from sources like that? Now, though, since I have glanced at a Wikipedia page, I too am an expert. I will have to delay a further response until later - I have a lecture to rewrite. taf

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:59:07 AM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote: > > > > The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. > > > > > Shennong is a myth. therefor, nothing literary can be historically attributed to him https://books.google.com/books?id=NjC-eTffFeQC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Medicine+in+China,+A+History+of+Pharmaceutics&source=bl&ots=S5OTqXaa_9&sig=wcGIE7XSe1eDuX2nYfYYVp8l9ac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRyeHVq5bNAhXJLmMKHRw-DbI4ChDoAQg4MAc#v=onepage&q=Medicine%20in%20China%2C%20A%20History%20of%20Pharmaceutics&f=false

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:30:38 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations > > over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using > > DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research > > applications, past, present or future. > > > {smirk} You are punking us, aren't you? Saying the the existence of mutation invalidates all DNA analysis is like saying that one scribe who makes spelling mistakes invalidates the use of all manuscripts as genealogical sources. Actually, it's more ridiculous than that. Random mutation, whether caused by normal spontaneous biochemical processes or by mutagens, is not a deficit of DNA analysis, it is a feature of it. Without random mutation everyone would have exactly the same DNA, and it would indeed be useless. > > Anyhow, had you read the scientific paper that the news features you cited were referring to (a common feature of this conversation - you not reading material you are using for your arguments) you would see that this report is not about mutation, per se, but about chromosome shattering and epigenetic effects, neither of which is going to affect genealogical DNA testing in the slightest. > > taf ---------------------- REPLY: TAF, though you are highly learned, your statements and conclusions appear to me to be intentionally and willfully misleading. Chromosome segregation is the process in eukaryotes by which two sister chromatids formed as a consequence of DNA replication, . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_segregation

> > The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. > > Shennong is a myth. therefor, nothing literary can be historically attributed to him