On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:32:51 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 4:47:56 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > > You lost all potential credibility of your argument when you said: > > > > "Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah..." > > ------------------- > REPLY: > I believe you have a distorted perception. "Isaac Newton’s discoveries were so numerous and varied that many consider him to be the father of modern science." > . . . "Newton was knighted in 1705 and upon his death in 1727 was the first scientist given the honor of burial in Westminster Abbey." > http://www.who2.com/bio/sir-isaac-newton/ > > Newton's study of biblical chronology did not make him less credible. Not as a mathematician, nor as a physicist, but you don't often see Newton cited as a credible historian or theologian. There is a reason for that. > On the other hand, as mentioned heretofore, for which I am most hotly contested: > > I think DNA research applications for genealogical research are > directly related and equivalent to fingerprinting. [Even identical twins > (who share their DNA) do not have identical fingerprints.] Here you risk the analogy fallacy. Just because DNA can be viewed like fingerprints doesn't mean that something true of fingerprints must be true of DNA. > So if we want an ancestry background check, we should gather all the > family fingerprints and put them all together and compare them, both > for the father's side and the mother's side. And now it is no longer a risk - you have gone and said complete drivel based on your analogy. Fingerprints are not inherited. > Then, with the same degree of confidence of determining DNA "matches", > we should be able to directly trace back all our ancestry. Yes, No, > Maybe? Biometric [identification utilizing a physical attribute that is > unique to every human] includes [iris recognition, the use of dental > records in forensic dentistry, the tongue and DNA profiling, also known > as genetic fingerprinting.] The problem I have with all of this is the > logic behind the big story, because I am told that DNA is the "engine" > that creates all of this unique identification in every human being. Whoever told you this was pulling your leg (or perhaps you heard only what you wanted to hear). Much of forensic dentistry has to do with the dental work you have had done - fillings, bridges, caps, etc, and has nothing to do with genetics. Fingerprint formation in not genetic. The patterning in the iris has a genetic component but the specific pattern is the result of random cell growth and distribution arising from the genetic base. Biometrics like bone measurement again have a genetic components, but likewise have strong environmental influence (e.g. nutrition, diet, etc). Pretty much nothing you have said here is at all applicable. > So, the issue is not with the continuous replication > process which is so nicely discussed exactingly in family history DNA > related venues, it is with the very fact that everyone who is a human > being is individually genetically altered. True, but these are not complete rearrangements of the genetic information. The vast majority of DNA is unaltered, and the vast majority of genetic markers remain unchanged from generation to generation - there is just enough change over time that lineages diverge and can be distinguished, but little enough that they can still be recognized as deriving from the same lineage even after scores of generations. > And unless you can trace genealogy created patterns in fingerprints, iris > recognition, or some other form of biometric identification, you certainly > cannot with confidence, trace back with any degree of certainty, unique > DNA profiling, Apple, meet orange. The entire framework of your argument is based on factually incorrect information and flawed assumptions. >This is of course my own personal opinion on the matter, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. I am reminded of a study that was done that showed the people who were most sure of something were not those who had the correct information, but those who did not but lacked the self-awareness to consider the possibility they might be wrong. taf