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.

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