Exactly, but that doesn't make them any less a Martin descendant... >From: JULIAFWOOD@aol.com >Reply-To: martin@rootsweb.com >To: martin@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [MARTIN] Martin Surname >Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:18:02 EDT > > >If they come through the females, their names wouldn't be Martin. Females >change their surname every generation. >Julia > >In a message dated 6/16/2007 1:16:29 PM Central Daylight Time, >giegerg@hotmail.com writes: > >Not if they came thru the Females... > > > > > >************************************** See what's free at >http://www.aol.com. > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >MARTIN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01

No, it doesn't make us less of Martin descent, but we don't have the Y chromosone that is carried and passed down by the male to the male. We girls are XX (an X from each parent)and guys are XY (an X from the mother and a Y from the father). It is because of the passing down of the Y that the line can be traced back only on the males. If I remember correctly it was 1958 when Watson and Crick discovered DNA. I'm sure there are many researchers on this list (and all all the lists) that were already through school by the time DNA was discovered, to say nothing of being taught in school. The older ones can not be expected to have the same understanding of DNA as the younger ones. I hope this doesn't further confuse things . Gwen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerald Gieger" <giegerg@hotmail.com> To: <martin@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [MARTIN] Martin Surname > Exactly, but that doesn't make them any less a Martin descendant... > > >>From: JULIAFWOOD@aol.com >>Reply-To: martin@rootsweb.com >>To: martin@rootsweb.com >>Subject: Re: [MARTIN] Martin Surname >>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:18:02 EDT >> >> >>If they come through the females, their names wouldn't be Martin. Females >>change their surname every generation. >>Julia >> >>In a message dated 6/16/2007 1:16:29 PM Central Daylight Time, >>giegerg@hotmail.com writes: >> >>Not if they came thru the Females... >> >> >> >> >> >>************************************** See what's free at >>http://www.aol.com. >> >>------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>MARTIN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>in the subject and the body of the message > > _________________________________________________________________ > Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. > http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARTIN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/16/07, Gwen Stuart <GStuart1@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > If I remember correctly it was 1958 when Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Almost. In 1953, Watson and Crick were the first to suggest that DNA was structured as a helix. So they are credited as discovering the *structure* of DNA. But DNA itself had been known since 1869, when it was called "nuclein" because it was found in the nuclei of cells. Drew Smith