On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:02:00 PM UTC-7, P J Evans wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:59:08 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:42:59 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > > > REPLY: > > > > Your commentary is not impressive. > > > > > > Mr. Tinney's denialism has again led him to distort the scientific record. > > > > > > taf > > ====================================================== > > REPLY: Wow! What scientific record are you talking about? I'm sure you know that [UCL (Univeresity College London) is one of the world's very best universities, consistently placed in the global top 20 in a wide range of world rankings. The school is currently 7th in the QS World University Rankings (2015/16) > > http://www.academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm > > > > UCL News has just posted, as of 29 June 2016, their newest finding, that "Our ancestors evolved three times faster in the 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs than in the previous 80 million years, according to UCL researchers. The team found the speed of evolution of placental mammals – a group that today includes nearly 5000 species including humans – was constant before the extinction event but exploded after, resulting in the varied groups of mammals we see today." . . . "Our findings refute those of other studies which overlooked the fossils of placental mammals present around the last mass extinction. . . ." The scientific record are you talking about changes from day to day; it is theory from uncertain findings vs new theory and unsure findings. > > So it is always, "What is the current position?" This may generously be defined as falling into the category: scientific inquiry; NEVER as real scientific fact. > > https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0616/290616-ancestor-evolution-post-dinosaurs > > > > Problematical theories > > . . . > > Alternative theories of human origins > > The story of human origins is complicated. Many of the genetic studies cited in support of the Out of Africa hypothesis have been based on analysis of Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Yet Y-DNA and mtDNA represent only a tiny fraction of the human genome, and we have until recently been reliant on the analysis of DNA extracted from contemporary people. The surviving Y-DNA and mtDNA lines represent only a subset of those present in the ancestral population. Advances in ancient DNA testing in the last few years are now beginning to transform our understanding and knowledge. [Transform the facts? It appears to me scientists are moving deck chairs around on the ship Titanic.] > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories > > > > Debunking Genetic Astrology > > . . . [ Recently, exciting progress has been made in recovering DNA from ancient burial sites, but it remains broadly true that making inferences into the past from DNA requires assumptions and mathematical models, and input from other fields such as history, archaeology and studies of historic geography and climate. New DNA genotyping and sequencing technology, and improved statistical models, have accelerated progress, but inferences still need to be accompanied by caveats about the assumptions and approximations made, and by assessments of uncertainty. . . .] > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > Biblical associations are allowed to be discussed at UCL. If you remember, I clearly indicated DNA was invalid as a conversion resource tool, since Biblical human physical bodies, of those ancient "saints", are DNA resurrected; the DNA of Jesus Christ was immortal, at least on His male Father's side: He, the first fruits for mankind's resurrection. LDS theology of course makes DNA assertions problematic, since its Missouri for the home of Adam and Eve, and instantaneous pangea did not occur until post flood. However, it can be noted, that prior to pangea, Missouri was actually not really that far away from continental Africa. with human and animal travel being more universal within one combined land mass. > > Mr. Tinney does not distort the scientific record; he compares input from all written records, religious or secular, comparing it with developing postulation. > > https://www.google.com/search?q=pangea&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVx_HNodHNAhVBRGMKHadTD6gQsAQIKg&biw=1600&bih=727 > > UCL news on prehistorical evolution of mammals is not relevant to this newsgroup. Neither is evolution of humans. > And religious beliefs about DNA and genealogy are suspect at best, and bogus most of the time. (I include the Book of Mormon in the category of bogus.) REPLY: You seem to have missed: [Roughly 1,000 years ago one’s direct medieval male ancestor, . . .] Use Your DNA to Rediscover Your Irish Heritage "A painless commercial ancestral Y chromosome DNA test will potentially provide one with the names of many hundreds of individuals with whom one shares a common male ancestor, but what often perplexes people is how one can match many individuals with different surnames? The answer is quite simple. Roughly 1,000 years ago one’s direct medieval male ancestor, the first for example to call himself ‘Bowes’ was living in close proximity to others with whom he was related but who assumed other surnames like Carroll, Dooley and Kelly. Given that 1,200 years have passed since paternally inherited surnames first appeared, there will be many descendants of those individuals, some of whom will today will undergo commercial ancestral DNA testing. Hence the Surnames of one’s medieval ancestor’s neighbours will be revealed in today’s DNA test results." http://www.irishorigenes.com/ This is just one of the subsets of a more complex discussion at: Dubious commercial claims . . . Genetic homeland case reports [Genetic homeland case reports are offered by Tyrone Bowes through his Irish Origenes, Scottish Origenes and English Origenes websites. The reports purport to pinpoint the place of origin of one's patrilineal ancestors one thousand years ago based on the results of a 37-marker Y-DNA test from Family Tree DNA. However, the methodology used in the reports does not appear to have been subjected to systematic testing or scientific peer review, and the reports make a number of false assumptions and fail to quantify or report uncertainty. See Debbie Kennett's critique of the Origenes' genetic homeland case reports for a summary of the problems. See also Debbie's letter in the August 2014 issue of Family Tree Magazine.] . . . http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies