On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:34:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > thus DNA proof is mecurial, and being of human origins, also subject to > unknown moral value systems, Sorry, no. There is no moral value system involved. Just G, A, T & C: SNPs, STRs and INDELs. > Example: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; re: "We describe the conflict > between population genetics and individual-based genetics and the pitfalls > of over-simplistic genetic interpretations, arguing that although the > tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and > strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces. And this is supposed to be an example of what? Well, another case of deceptive source usage on your part? The quote comes from the abstract of the same paper you cited yesterday without reading, and you STILL haven't read this paper, have you? It is entirely inappropriate to argue that a paper supports your position without first reading it. Likewise, the paper never mentions Jefferson or Hemings, and to pretend otherwise as you do here is likewise an breach of ethical scholarship. Read the paper and quit pretending it supports your position - it doesn't, and the closest it gets to Thomas Jefferson is Jesse James. > CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool. This is as well founded as when the tobacco industry claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer - they decided the conclusion first and then used the most tenuous and unsubstantiated reasoning to justify that foregone conclusion. You don't like DNA so you have dragged this group through a convoluted set of red herrings, straw man arguments, misunderstandings and dishonest deceptions simply to pretend to justify your preconception. The conclusion that DNA analysis is worthless is patently ridiculous and completely unsupported by anything you have presented. taf