On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . > > Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > > > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. > > Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. > > taf -------------------------------- REPLY: In conclusion, I hope, your suggestion, re: Ancestry.com, is irrelevant, to use your terms. Years ago I attended Utah Technical College, before it became UVU, "the current provider of higher education for more Utahns than any other state institution." Your statement:[lack of familiarity with the underlying principles(both the physiological mechanisms and the testing)] is an invalid comparison. It is like saying no one on this forum, because they do not understand a computer's machine language, or the concepts of Boolean algebra, in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively, can ever discuss concepts or information provided by more simple computer language interfaces. There are many languages used in computers and many diagrams presented showing how they developed and cross comparisons of why they were developed and for which use they are best suited. In fact, come to think of it, TAF, you have just given me the idea of why comic DNA fantasy is so really stupid. It is like saying, if I transpose a computer back in time, 4.5 billion years in the past, it will transmogrify over time,(surprisingly, magically, strangely, and grotesquely)into Boolean algebra. This can be described eloquently by credentialed policy makers, to the lesser, contemptible unlearned masses,(to the joy of all animal creatures and human biological specimens), whose instincts were all originally formed with simple understandings of yes-no reactions), that all computers, past, present, and future, originated genetically, from a 0 and a 1. DUHHH! NOT SO! Complexity, for those who have any understanding of astronomy, exists universally, and is found, within the time frame of modern research, among all galactic formations. And, for those who have studied ancient astronomical observation; same findings. http://www.academic-genealogy.com/science.htm#physical