I agree with TAF that this argument is getting tiresome. The longer it goes on the more irrelevant your arguments get. You are clearly grasping at straws. It is very obvious will not accept DNA as a legitimate tool for whatever reason; in part because of your Mormon faith, but a large measure, I suspect, because you fear it. I think we’d all have more respect for you if you just came out and said this. I am a Christian and DNA testing for genealogy does not bother me. I also have an interest in science and that helps to take away the fear of using DNA for genealogy. However I am very concerned about the abuse of DNA testing, but that's a very different argument from this one. In short it's time to move on. As I said you will never accept DNA testing for genealogy no matter what TAF and others say. And to continue the argument because you don’t want to let go, in my opinion, serves no useful purpose. Peter D. A. Warwick

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:01:39 AM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote: > I agree with TAF that this argument is getting tiresome. The longer it goes on the more irrelevant your arguments get. You are clearly grasping at straws. It is very obvious will not accept DNA as a legitimate tool for whatever reason; in part because of your Mormon faith, but a large measure, I suspect, because you fear it. I think we’d all have more respect for you if you just came out and said this. I am a Christian and DNA testing for genealogy does not bother me. I also have an interest in science and that helps to take away the fear of using DNA for genealogy. However I am very concerned about the abuse of DNA testing, but that's a very different argument from this one. > > In short it's time to move on. As I said you will never accept DNA testing for genealogy no matter what TAF and others say. And to continue the argument because you don’t want to let go, in my opinion, serves no useful purpose. > > Peter D. A. Warwick -------------------------------- REPLY: 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.] . . . [Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is more noticeable.] However, experimental evolution, extrapolated in real time, does suggest that in infinite time and space, there would have developed life forms that would have become so complex as to evolve over time to the point that they could overcome death and live forever in all types of environments. In fact, that is essentially part of the objectives in current cancer research, to determine what turns off, on, or redirects the positive signals in healthy cells. Date: April 14, 2016 Source: Institute of Cancer Research Summary: Cancer cells use a mutant gene to coerce neighboring healthy tissue into helping with the disease's growth and spread, a major new study reports. Healthy cells are persuaded to release unique growth signals which cancer cells can use to multiply but cannot secrete themselves, researchers found. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414144213.htm This is like a genetic rerun of [Dracula's attempt to move from Transylvania to England so that he may find new blood and spread the undead curse, and of the battle between Dracula and a small group of men and women led by Professor Abraham Van Helsing.] My assertions are not irrelevant. TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, whom I highly admire, and who has given great service to medieval genealogy. He does not know, however, the totality of the field of research, re: DNA; genetics, etc. Neither do I or any other man on earth; and, he knows that and I don't assert that; yet, 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. >From a Philosophy standpoint: [In several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates promulgates the idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.]Baird, Forrest E.; Kaufmann, Walter, eds. (2008). Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6. The Mormon faith, as you incorrectly suggest, does not cause me to fear anything. The Mormons are not Zion, they have not created Zion;, some try to live Zion, but it is not a done deal. The love of God and the Merits of Jesus Christ are the only things that sustain me, and I fear and tremble daily before Them, because of my own known imperfections, but not any man. Nevertheless, the ideas of Socrates are found in the Remarks by President Brigham Young, made in the Tabernacle, in Great Salt Lake City, March 16, 1862 [It is often remarked that we do not understand things alike, but I am of the opinion that the inhabitants of the earth understand in the spirit, or, in other words, in the intelligent portion of their organisms, nearer alike than they have power to communicate. We believe we are entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost in extent according to the discretion and wisdom of God and our faithfulness; which gift brings all things to our remembrance, past, present, and to come, that are necessary for us to know, and as far as our minds are prepared to receive the knowledge of God revealed by that all-wise Agent. The Holy Ghost is God's minister, and is delegated to visit the sons and daughters of men. All intelligent beings pertaining to this earth are instructed from the same source.] . . . This includes TAF, who is an honorable, intelligent being. Reported By: G. D. Watt.http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=09&disc=48 For your information, I have had, in my younger years, the opportunity to read completely through every volume of the Journal of Discourses; it is compelling. I will accept DNA testing for genealogy if and when it can be properly taught.

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