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

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

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