Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic Di
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic Di
Ancient and Modern Genealogies:
Genealogy As an Academic Discipline
Daniel Wagner, Professor of Materials Science at
the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel,
considers Genealogy As an Academic Discipline, at:
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
Professor Wagner notes that "The Book of Genesis
may be viewed as the first archival source of
(Jewish) genealogical records."
Alphabetic History of Civilization:
Ancient and Modern Genealogies
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
This site evaluates historical knowledge
as it relates to ancient and modern genealogies.
Information gleaned from social contexts,
both secular and religious, are reviewed,
using modern genealogical research specialist
standards: to properly reconstruct and correctly
portray real historical lives and family pedigrees.
Cultural, religious and family tradition, (their
stated facts and viewpoints), are surveyed within
given ancient contexts of primary and secondary
record sources, as handed down for the benefit
of our modern generation. Modern claims of
genealogical attachment to biblical records
are noted, with remarks.
An additional continued evaluation of ancient records
concerns The BOOK [Stick] of JUDAH, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm
All "future significant academic contributions from
areas new to traditional genealogy", must be based
upon and generated by established primary records.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Genealogy As an Academic Discipline
Daniel Wagner, Professor of Materials Science at
the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel,
considers Genealogy As an Academic Discipline, at:
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
Professor Wagner notes that "The Book of Genesis
may be viewed as the first archival source of
(Jewish) genealogical records."
Alphabetic History of Civilization:
Ancient and Modern Genealogies
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
This site evaluates historical knowledge
as it relates to ancient and modern genealogies.
Information gleaned from social contexts,
both secular and religious, are reviewed,
using modern genealogical research specialist
standards: to properly reconstruct and correctly
portray real historical lives and family pedigrees.
Cultural, religious and family tradition, (their
stated facts and viewpoints), are surveyed within
given ancient contexts of primary and secondary
record sources, as handed down for the benefit
of our modern generation. Modern claims of
genealogical attachment to biblical records
are noted, with remarks.
An additional continued evaluation of ancient records
concerns The BOOK [Stick] of JUDAH, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm
All "future significant academic contributions from
areas new to traditional genealogy", must be based
upon and generated by established primary records.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
John Brandon
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Oh lawsy, not you people again ...
-
Gjest
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Postings like this are why historians do not consider genealogy
anything close to being an academic discipline.
anything close to being an academic discipline.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
In message of 5 Jun, jonmeltzer@gmail.com wrote:
What is 'this'?
Or is this a self-relective post which is referring to itself and
explains why it is far from an academic discipline?
Related to the infamous exam question of
"Is this a question?"
to which the grade one reply was
"Yes, if this is an answer"
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Postings like this
What is 'this'?
are why historians do not consider genealogy anything close to being
an academic discipline.
Or is this a self-relective post which is referring to itself and
explains why it is far from an academic discipline?
Related to the infamous exam question of
"Is this a question?"
to which the grade one reply was
"Yes, if this is an answer"
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
jonmeltzer@gmail.com wrote:
academic discipline is whether it is an academic discipline.
There are NO requirements other than that. It is completely
totally circular.
The usual reason why a proposed new discipline is accepted
is usually .... politics, either "real" (i.e. any field
that espouses total junk or even falsehoods is easily
accepted if it is politically accepted by the very far left
wing) or acacemic (e.g. Chemical Engineering departments
adding the particle "bio" somewhere in their name.)
Doug MCDonald
Postings like this are why historians do not consider genealogy
anything close to being an academic discipline.
The ONLY thing that determines whether a subject is an
academic discipline is whether it is an academic discipline.
There are NO requirements other than that. It is completely
totally circular.
The usual reason why a proposed new discipline is accepted
is usually .... politics, either "real" (i.e. any field
that espouses total junk or even falsehoods is easily
accepted if it is politically accepted by the very far left
wing) or acacemic (e.g. Chemical Engineering departments
adding the particle "bio" somewhere in their name.)
Doug MCDonald
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
In article <e641kq$l16$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
The first part of this sentence is also perfectly applicable to the
other end of the (U.S.) political spectrum (though the right-wing
endeavors are more evident in public secondary than in 'higher'
education), but let's leave that aside here, shall we?
What Jon Melzer meant is that the original post made no sense. The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
What is missing from Jon's syllogism is the idea that historians look
down their noses at genealogy because so much pernicious
pseudo-scholarship can (and does) pass without comment there; this
confirms it in their minds as a non-discipline. But I agree with you,
Doug, that in reality 'academic' disciplines like history are no better
policed for BS than ones like genealogy. The irony is that genealogy
*ought* to be self-evidently positivist (it is the ultimate
Personengeschichte), but of course it embraces vast jungles of BS all
its own.
Nat Taylor
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
jonmeltzer@gmail.com wrote:
Postings like this are why historians do not consider genealogy
anything close to being an academic discipline.
The ONLY thing that determines whether a subject is an
academic discipline is whether it is an academic discipline.
There are NO requirements other than that. It is completely
totally circular.
The usual reason why a proposed new discipline is accepted
is usually .... politics, either "real" (i.e. any field
that espouses total junk or even falsehoods is easily
accepted if it is politically accepted by the very far left
wing) or academic (e.g. Chemical Engineering departments
adding the particle "bio" somewhere in their name.)
The first part of this sentence is also perfectly applicable to the
other end of the (U.S.) political spectrum (though the right-wing
endeavors are more evident in public secondary than in 'higher'
education), but let's leave that aside here, shall we?
What Jon Melzer meant is that the original post made no sense. The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
What is missing from Jon's syllogism is the idea that historians look
down their noses at genealogy because so much pernicious
pseudo-scholarship can (and does) pass without comment there; this
confirms it in their minds as a non-discipline. But I agree with you,
Doug, that in reality 'academic' disciplines like history are no better
policed for BS than ones like genealogy. The irony is that genealogy
*ought* to be self-evidently positivist (it is the ultimate
Personengeschichte), but of course it embraces vast jungles of BS all
its own.
Nat Taylor
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Genealogy As an Academic Discipline
My wife once taught at a community college where the president of the
college had her PhD in "Gender Equity."
Incredible!
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 08:56 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:
college had her PhD in "Gender Equity."
Incredible!
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 08:56 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:
The ONLY thing that determines whether a subject is an
academic discipline is whether it is an academic discipline.
There are NO requirements other than that. It is completely
totally circular.
The usual reason why a proposed new discipline is accepted
is usually .... politics, either "real" (i.e. any field
that espouses total junk or even falsehoods is easily
accepted if it is politically accepted by the very far left
wing) or acacemic (e.g. Chemical Engineering departments
adding the particle "bio" somewhere in their name.)
-
Gjest
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Nathaniel Taylor schrieb:
Well said, Nat. Every time I look at the OP's verbiage, I get a
headache from the sheer lack of logic - a sort of motion sickness from
travelling into a world without meaning, I suspect. Presumably
therefore we can strip away yet another spelling error from the
original post, this time in the sig:
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{*bot* editions]
What Jon Melzer meant is that the original post made no sense. The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
Well said, Nat. Every time I look at the OP's verbiage, I get a
headache from the sheer lack of logic - a sort of motion sickness from
travelling into a world without meaning, I suspect. Presumably
therefore we can strip away yet another spelling error from the
original post, this time in the sig:
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{*bot* editions]
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
.. . . The post
NOT so, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor.
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
This mathematical model supports the Alphabetic
History of Civilization construct, as show in
Ancient and Modern Genealogies, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
Joseph T. Chang "received the William Clyde DeVane
Medal", "the oldest and highest award for distinguished
scholarship and teaching in Yale College."
I refer you to: Chang, Joseph T. (1999),
Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals,
Advances in Applied Probability 31(4), 1002-26.
Pseudo-scholarly irrelevant "Mitochondrial Eve" in
non-discernment postings of what is 'scholarly'
'genealogical' or 'academic', have been posted.
"by chance, nearly all modern Europeans are descendants
of one of seven 'clan mothers' who lived at different
times during the Ice Age. Drawing upon archeological
and climatic records, Sykes spins seven informative
and gracefully imagined tales of how these 'daughters
of Eve' eked out a living on the frozen plains."
Thus we have promoted, in all of its medieval glory,
these 'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'
imagined tales. With brilliant intelligence, we
are informed that Mitochondrial Eve "very probably
lived less than a quarter of a million years ago".
a tale worthy of King Arthur (since we "still aren't
sure that he ever actually lived"); or perhaps the
"200,000-year-old "Eve"; or perhaps "dating 10,000
to 25,000 years ago"; or perhaps "'Mitochondrial Eve'
our Unique Ancestor 150,000 years ago, or 'Lara'
(100,000 years ago)"; or perhaps "between 15,000
and 45,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA";
or, perhaps other theories and other ideas and
other mothers and other ETC; all of course most
'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'. NOT.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
.. . . The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
REPLY:
NOT so, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor.
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
This mathematical model supports the Alphabetic
History of Civilization construct, as show in
Ancient and Modern Genealogies, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
Joseph T. Chang "received the William Clyde DeVane
Medal", "the oldest and highest award for distinguished
scholarship and teaching in Yale College."
I refer you to: Chang, Joseph T. (1999),
Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals,
Advances in Applied Probability 31(4), 1002-26.
Pseudo-scholarly irrelevant "Mitochondrial Eve" in
non-discernment postings of what is 'scholarly'
'genealogical' or 'academic', have been posted.
"by chance, nearly all modern Europeans are descendants
of one of seven 'clan mothers' who lived at different
times during the Ice Age. Drawing upon archeological
and climatic records, Sykes spins seven informative
and gracefully imagined tales of how these 'daughters
of Eve' eked out a living on the frozen plains."
Thus we have promoted, in all of its medieval glory,
these 'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'
imagined tales. With brilliant intelligence, we
are informed that Mitochondrial Eve "very probably
lived less than a quarter of a million years ago".
a tale worthy of King Arthur (since we "still aren't
sure that he ever actually lived"); or perhaps the
"200,000-year-old "Eve"; or perhaps "dating 10,000
to 25,000 years ago"; or perhaps "'Mitochondrial Eve'
our Unique Ancestor 150,000 years ago, or 'Lara'
(100,000 years ago)"; or perhaps "between 15,000
and 45,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA";
or, perhaps other theories and other ideas and
other mothers and other ETC; all of course most
'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'. NOT.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
In article <44862D1D.5050506@sbcglobal.net>,
"V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr." <vctinney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
There must be some software that can write like this. Off-topic, but
just today I was looking at a couple of web-based 'Lorem ipsum'
generators. There's also the 'Shakespearean insult' applet that I
remember seeing around the net for a while.
For those of you outside New England who might not be familiar with all
our genealogical oddities, I earlier drew a comparison with Charles
Augustus Fernald, a New Hampshire physician and author of the 1909 book
with the following title:
_Universal international genealogy and of the ancient Fernald families,
with chronology from Creation found in the discovered rolls, primitive
Bible, squares, Hebrew, Aegyptian, and other languages, from a study of
thirty-four languages, alphabets of three hundred, records from one
hundred and forty cemeteries, ancient and modern coins, inscriptions,
thirty thousand books, medals, monuments, mounds, Moabite genealogy
stone, obelisks, manuscripts, papyrus prisse, pyramids, relicts, sacred
records, for monumental purposes, honoring God, countries, states, and
families, in truth, by Charles Augustus Fernald_.
Purportedly a genealogy of the family of Renald Fernald, an early
colonist in New England, it traces a male line through Capetian-Valois
kings, Roman senators and Egyptian pharaohs back to Adam. As others
have noted (including Walter Goodwin Davis and Dave Greene), the Fernald
book has to be seen to be believed, but even the phrasing of its title
invites comparison with our Tinneybot.
Nat Taylor
"V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr." <vctinney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
. . . The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
REPLY:
NOT so, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor.
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
This mathematical model supports the Alphabetic
History of Civilization construct, as show in
Ancient and Modern Genealogies, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
Joseph T. Chang "received the William Clyde DeVane
Medal", "the oldest and highest award for distinguished
scholarship and teaching in Yale College."
I refer you to: Chang, Joseph T. (1999),
Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals,
Advances in Applied Probability 31(4), 1002-26.
Pseudo-scholarly irrelevant "Mitochondrial Eve" in
non-discernment postings of what is 'scholarly'
'genealogical' or 'academic', have been posted.
"by chance, nearly all modern Europeans are descendants
of one of seven 'clan mothers' who lived at different
times during the Ice Age. Drawing upon archeological
and climatic records, Sykes spins seven informative
and gracefully imagined tales of how these 'daughters
of Eve' eked out a living on the frozen plains."
Thus we have promoted, in all of its medieval glory,
these 'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'
imagined tales. With brilliant intelligence, we
are informed that Mitochondrial Eve "very probably
lived less than a quarter of a million years ago".
a tale worthy of King Arthur (since we "still aren't
sure that he ever actually lived"); or perhaps the
"200,000-year-old "Eve"; or perhaps "dating 10,000
to 25,000 years ago"; or perhaps "'Mitochondrial Eve'
our Unique Ancestor 150,000 years ago, or 'Lara'
(100,000 years ago)"; or perhaps "between 15,000
and 45,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA";
or, perhaps other theories and other ideas and
other mothers and other ETC; all of course most
'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'. NOT.
Respectfully yours ...
There must be some software that can write like this. Off-topic, but
just today I was looking at a couple of web-based 'Lorem ipsum'
generators. There's also the 'Shakespearean insult' applet that I
remember seeing around the net for a while.
For those of you outside New England who might not be familiar with all
our genealogical oddities, I earlier drew a comparison with Charles
Augustus Fernald, a New Hampshire physician and author of the 1909 book
with the following title:
_Universal international genealogy and of the ancient Fernald families,
with chronology from Creation found in the discovered rolls, primitive
Bible, squares, Hebrew, Aegyptian, and other languages, from a study of
thirty-four languages, alphabets of three hundred, records from one
hundred and forty cemeteries, ancient and modern coins, inscriptions,
thirty thousand books, medals, monuments, mounds, Moabite genealogy
stone, obelisks, manuscripts, papyrus prisse, pyramids, relicts, sacred
records, for monumental purposes, honoring God, countries, states, and
families, in truth, by Charles Augustus Fernald_.
Purportedly a genealogy of the family of Renald Fernald, an early
colonist in New England, it traces a male line through Capetian-Valois
kings, Roman senators and Egyptian pharaohs back to Adam. As others
have noted (including Walter Goodwin Davis and Dave Greene), the Fernald
book has to be seen to be believed, but even the phrasing of its title
invites comparison with our Tinneybot.
Nat Taylor
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
This is appropriately named - it is a construct. It is concocted with a
motivation that could only be said to be religious, and does not follow
any of the established methodologies of the fields (history and
genealogy) with which it purports to relate. It is theology, nothing more.
Who cares!
This is like parading out the LSD-fried surfer-dude with the Nobel prize
as an expert on AIDS (not only is he entirely unqualified to speak on
that particular subject, his actions are morally reprehensible in taking
advantage of his irrelevant award to get himself back in the news,
promoting an ignorant denialism the promulgation of which is _actually_
killing people - - - sorry for holding back, should I tell you what I
really think?).
Medals be damned, let the work of this Yale awardee speak for itself.
Note the word "probability" - it was a statistical study, having nothing
to do with actual historical, genealogical, anthropological or genetic
realities.
Speaking of non-discernment, that accurately describes my condition when
faced with this sentence, if that is what it is. It reads like the
obtuse syntax of the ancient Viking bardic poetry.
And here "spins" and "imagined tales" are the operative descriptors.
These apples and oranges . . . . It is not the existence of these female
ancestors that are imagined - it is their biographies. Long ago another
biograpgy was given a common human female ancestor, but I don't see you
dismissing that one; a curious double standard, it would seem.
With brilliant intelligence, we
False analogy, as we can be scientifically certain that mt Eve actually
lived - even you believe in a female-line ancestor common to all living
humans who lived more recently than 250,000 years ago, I bet.
If you wish to deny science and the entire scholarly framework upon
which the mt Eve result is based, that is a philosophical position with
as much validity as any other, I suppose, but you will have a hard time
convincing anyone that any result derived from this scholarly framework
is rendered unscholarly by the sole criterion that it disagrees with
your theology (or worse, the approach you use here, an expression of
personal incredulity), nor does this denial render 'alternative'
"scholarly" approaches of equal value solely because the conclusions
they allow one to reach conform to your personal whim.
or perhaps the
Thereby showing that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of
this scholarly work (or all schalorly work for that matter - here is a
free clue: it is not the scholarly work reported with an indication of
imprecission that should raise concern, but that which is overly precise).
This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly is
that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established by
the respective fields of scholarship. That you are offended by the
conclusions neither changes who is doing it nor their methodologies. It
is scholarly, like it or not.
It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is studied
by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the standards of
those academics and institutions - again, your personal distaste for it
neither changes the identity, the location, nor the practices. It is
academic.
It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford Ancestors
makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they know the truth
of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
taf
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
. . . The post
came from a copious spewer of pious and pseudo-scholarly irrelevancies
couched in the passive voice, a sort of latter-day Charles Augustus
Fernald. He appears to function almost like a 'bot, in his
non-discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
REPLY:
NOT so, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor.
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
This mathematical model supports the Alphabetic
History of Civilization construct, as show in
Ancient and Modern Genealogies, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
This is appropriately named - it is a construct. It is concocted with a
motivation that could only be said to be religious, and does not follow
any of the established methodologies of the fields (history and
genealogy) with which it purports to relate. It is theology, nothing more.
Joseph T. Chang "received the William Clyde DeVane
Medal", "the oldest and highest award for distinguished
scholarship and teaching in Yale College."
Who cares!
This is like parading out the LSD-fried surfer-dude with the Nobel prize
as an expert on AIDS (not only is he entirely unqualified to speak on
that particular subject, his actions are morally reprehensible in taking
advantage of his irrelevant award to get himself back in the news,
promoting an ignorant denialism the promulgation of which is _actually_
killing people - - - sorry for holding back, should I tell you what I
really think?).
Medals be damned, let the work of this Yale awardee speak for itself.
I refer you to: Chang, Joseph T. (1999),
Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals,
Advances in Applied Probability 31(4), 1002-26.
Note the word "probability" - it was a statistical study, having nothing
to do with actual historical, genealogical, anthropological or genetic
realities.
Pseudo-scholarly irrelevant "Mitochondrial Eve" in
non-discernment postings of what is 'scholarly'
'genealogical' or 'academic', have been posted.
Speaking of non-discernment, that accurately describes my condition when
faced with this sentence, if that is what it is. It reads like the
obtuse syntax of the ancient Viking bardic poetry.
"by chance, nearly all modern Europeans are descendants
of one of seven 'clan mothers' who lived at different
times during the Ice Age. Drawing upon archeological
and climatic records, Sykes spins seven informative
and gracefully imagined tales of how these 'daughters
of Eve' eked out a living on the frozen plains."
And here "spins" and "imagined tales" are the operative descriptors.
Thus we have promoted, in all of its medieval glory,
these 'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'
imagined tales.
These apples and oranges . . . . It is not the existence of these female
ancestors that are imagined - it is their biographies. Long ago another
biograpgy was given a common human female ancestor, but I don't see you
dismissing that one; a curious double standard, it would seem.
With brilliant intelligence, we
are informed that Mitochondrial Eve "very probably
lived less than a quarter of a million years ago".
a tale worthy of King Arthur (since we "still aren't
sure that he ever actually lived");
False analogy, as we can be scientifically certain that mt Eve actually
lived - even you believe in a female-line ancestor common to all living
humans who lived more recently than 250,000 years ago, I bet.
If you wish to deny science and the entire scholarly framework upon
which the mt Eve result is based, that is a philosophical position with
as much validity as any other, I suppose, but you will have a hard time
convincing anyone that any result derived from this scholarly framework
is rendered unscholarly by the sole criterion that it disagrees with
your theology (or worse, the approach you use here, an expression of
personal incredulity), nor does this denial render 'alternative'
"scholarly" approaches of equal value solely because the conclusions
they allow one to reach conform to your personal whim.
or perhaps the
"200,000-year-old "Eve"; or perhaps "dating 10,000
to 25,000 years ago"; or perhaps "'Mitochondrial Eve'
our Unique Ancestor 150,000 years ago, or 'Lara'
(100,000 years ago)"; or perhaps "between 15,000
and 45,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA";
or, perhaps other theories and other ideas and
other mothers and other ETC; all of course most
'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'. NOT.
Thereby showing that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of
this scholarly work (or all schalorly work for that matter - here is a
free clue: it is not the scholarly work reported with an indication of
imprecission that should raise concern, but that which is overly precise).
This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly is
that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established by
the respective fields of scholarship. That you are offended by the
conclusions neither changes who is doing it nor their methodologies. It
is scholarly, like it or not.
It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is studied
by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the standards of
those academics and institutions - again, your personal distaste for it
neither changes the identity, the location, nor the practices. It is
academic.
It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford Ancestors
makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they know the truth
of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
taf
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
.. . .
REPLY:
taf states in the end: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot
of money pretending that it is [genealogical], but
even they know the truth of the matter (although many
of their customers don't)."
Where does the pretending begin? Is the pretending
in the scholarly? "What makes it scholarly is that
it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches
established by the respective fields of scholarship.
.. . . It is scholarly, like it or not." taf says:
"Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending
.. . . "
Is the pretending in the academic? "nothing more
or less than that which is studied by academics/at
academies of higher learning or by the standards of
those academics and institutions -. . . It is academic."
taf says: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money
pretending . . ."
What is the real "truth of the matter"? Or, other
related matters? To Bot or not to Bot? To tell
the truth or not tell the truth, according to taf.
That is the Question. When and where and WHY?
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
.. . .
This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly is
that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established by
the respective fields of scholarship. . . . It
is scholarly, like it or not.
It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is studied
by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the standards of
those academics and institutions -. . . It is
academic.
It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford Ancestors
makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they know the truth
of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
taf
REPLY:
taf states in the end: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot
of money pretending that it is [genealogical], but
even they know the truth of the matter (although many
of their customers don't)."
Where does the pretending begin? Is the pretending
in the scholarly? "What makes it scholarly is that
it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches
established by the respective fields of scholarship.
.. . . It is scholarly, like it or not." taf says:
"Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending
.. . . "
Is the pretending in the academic? "nothing more
or less than that which is studied by academics/at
academies of higher learning or by the standards of
those academics and institutions -. . . It is academic."
taf says: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money
pretending . . ."
What is the real "truth of the matter"? Or, other
related matters? To Bot or not to Bot? To tell
the truth or not tell the truth, according to taf.
That is the Question. When and where and WHY?
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
With the marketing department.
Is the pretending
This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
standards of behavior. It is unambiguous in my post that my statement
refers specifically to the genealogical nature of the result (or more
appropriately the lack thereof) - clear enough that you had no problems
interpolating "[genealogical]" above. Here, however, you have no qualms
about knowingly taking it out of context, pretending that my statement
was in reference to the scholarship. You should feel shame over this
deceptive behavior, but whether you do or not, actions such as this
reveal how you conduct and present your research: in short, your
integrity, and that revelation is an unflattering one.
[Oh, and you apparently don't know (or are again intentionally
deceiving) that Oxford Ancestry DID NOT MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS
THE VALIDITY OF WHICH YOU IGNORANTLY DENY - they just market the
results. It is like saying that electricity doesn't exist because the
people at Enron were crooks.]
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
. . .
This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly
is that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established
by the respective fields of scholarship. . . . It
is scholarly, like it or not.
It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is
studied by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the
standards of those academics and institutions -. . . It is
academic.
It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford
Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they
know the truth of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
taf
REPLY:
taf states in the end: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot
of money pretending that it is [genealogical], but
even they know the truth of the matter (although many
of their customers don't)."
Where does the pretending begin?
With the marketing department.
Is the pretending
in the scholarly? "What makes it scholarly is that
it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches
established by the respective fields of scholarship.
. . . It is scholarly, like it or not." taf says:
"Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending
. . . "
This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
standards of behavior. It is unambiguous in my post that my statement
refers specifically to the genealogical nature of the result (or more
appropriately the lack thereof) - clear enough that you had no problems
interpolating "[genealogical]" above. Here, however, you have no qualms
about knowingly taking it out of context, pretending that my statement
was in reference to the scholarship. You should feel shame over this
deceptive behavior, but whether you do or not, actions such as this
reveal how you conduct and present your research: in short, your
integrity, and that revelation is an unflattering one.
[Oh, and you apparently don't know (or are again intentionally
deceiving) that Oxford Ancestry DID NOT MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS
THE VALIDITY OF WHICH YOU IGNORANTLY DENY - they just market the
results. It is like saying that electricity doesn't exist because the
people at Enron were crooks.]
taf
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Acad
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 01:35:05 GMT, "V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr."
<vctinney@sbcglobal.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip]
Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by scientists to the woman who is
the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans. We
know about Eve because of mitochondria, parts of cells that are only
passed from mother to offspring - never from the father.
Each mitochondrion contains mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and the
comparison of DNA sequences from mtDNA reveals a phylogeny. Based on
the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with
observed genetic drift, Eve is believed to have lived in a population
of humans about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia or Tanzania.
Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-mrca) is the male most recent common ancestor
from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended. Unlike other
genes, those of the Y chromosome are passed exclusively from father to
sons, just as mitochondrial DNA is passed to all children only by
their mothers.
The Y-chromosomal Adam can therfore be considered as the most recent
common paternal ancestor of all humans, considering an unbroken
paternal line of descent only: fathers, paternal grandfathers, etc.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human
history. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of humans alive
today is different from the one for humans alive a thousand years in
the future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual, the
Y-mrca of a subtree of the preceding Y-Adam, becomes the new Y-Adam.
The Y-chromosomal Adam for living humans probably lived between 60,000
and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker
studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates,
Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by thousands of
generations.
They are named after the "Adam" and "Eve" in Genesis as a metaphor
only, and are not considered to be the first humans. There would have
been many others alive at the same time.
--
Bob.
<vctinney@sbcglobal.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip]
Thus we have promoted, in all of its medieval glory,
these 'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'
imagined tales. With brilliant intelligence, we
are informed that Mitochondrial Eve "very probably
lived less than a quarter of a million years ago".
a tale worthy of King Arthur (since we "still aren't
sure that he ever actually lived"); or perhaps the
"200,000-year-old "Eve"; or perhaps "dating 10,000
to 25,000 years ago"; or perhaps "'Mitochondrial Eve'
our Unique Ancestor 150,000 years ago, or 'Lara'
(100,000 years ago)"; or perhaps "between 15,000
and 45,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA";
or, perhaps other theories and other ideas and
other mothers and other ETC; all of course most
'scholarly', 'genealogical' and 'academic'. NOT.
Respectfully yours,
Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by scientists to the woman who is
the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans. We
know about Eve because of mitochondria, parts of cells that are only
passed from mother to offspring - never from the father.
Each mitochondrion contains mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and the
comparison of DNA sequences from mtDNA reveals a phylogeny. Based on
the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with
observed genetic drift, Eve is believed to have lived in a population
of humans about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia or Tanzania.
Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-mrca) is the male most recent common ancestor
from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended. Unlike other
genes, those of the Y chromosome are passed exclusively from father to
sons, just as mitochondrial DNA is passed to all children only by
their mothers.
The Y-chromosomal Adam can therfore be considered as the most recent
common paternal ancestor of all humans, considering an unbroken
paternal line of descent only: fathers, paternal grandfathers, etc.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human
history. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of humans alive
today is different from the one for humans alive a thousand years in
the future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual, the
Y-mrca of a subtree of the preceding Y-Adam, becomes the new Y-Adam.
The Y-chromosomal Adam for living humans probably lived between 60,000
and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker
studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates,
Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by thousands of
generations.
They are named after the "Adam" and "Eve" in Genesis as a metaphor
only, and are not considered to be the first humans. There would have
been many others alive at the same time.
--
Bob.
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic Discipline
| V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
| > Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
| > . . .
| >> This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly
| >> is that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established
| >> by the respective fields of scholarship. . . . It
| >> is scholarly, like it or not.
| >>
| >> It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is
| >> studied by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the
| >> standards of those academics and institutions -. . . It is
| >> academic.
| >>
| >> It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford
| >> Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they
| >> know the truth of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
| >>
| >> taf
| >
| > REPLY:
| > taf states in the end: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot
| > of money pretending that it is [genealogical], but
| > even they know the truth of the matter (although many
| > of their customers don't)."
| >
| > Where does the pretending begin?
|
| With the marketing department.
|
| Is the pretending
| > in the scholarly? "What makes it scholarly is that
| > it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches
| > established by the respective fields of scholarship.
| > . . . It is scholarly, like it or not." taf says:
| > "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending
| > . . . "
|
| This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
| standards of behavior. It is unambiguous in my post that my statement
| refers specifically to the genealogical nature of the result (or more
| appropriately the lack thereof) - clear enough that you had no problems
| interpolating "[genealogical]" above. Here, however, you have no qualms
| about knowingly taking it out of context, pretending that my statement
| was in reference to the scholarship. You should feel shame over this
| deceptive behavior, but whether you do or not, actions such as this
| reveal how you conduct and present your research: in short, your
| integrity, and that revelation is an unflattering one.
|
| [Oh, and you apparently don't know (or are again intentionally
| deceiving) that Oxford Ancestry DID NOT MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS
| THE VALIDITY OF WHICH YOU IGNORANTLY DENY - they just market the
| results. It is like saying that electricity doesn't exist because the
| people at Enron were crooks.]
|
|
| taf
|
I am reminded of George Carlin's observation: 'There is no ethic in business - just a ledger.'
Ford
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic Discipline
| V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
| > Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
| > . . .
| >> This work which you describe _is_ scholarly. What makes it scholarly
| >> is that it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches established
| >> by the respective fields of scholarship. . . . It
| >> is scholarly, like it or not.
| >>
| >> It is academic, which is nothing more or less than that which is
| >> studied by academics/at academies of higher learning or by the
| >> standards of those academics and institutions -. . . It is
| >> academic.
| >>
| >> It is not genealogical nor was it ever intended to be. Oxford
| >> Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending that it is, but even they
| >> know the truth of the matter (although many of their customers don't).
| >>
| >> taf
| >
| > REPLY:
| > taf states in the end: "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot
| > of money pretending that it is [genealogical], but
| > even they know the truth of the matter (although many
| > of their customers don't)."
| >
| > Where does the pretending begin?
|
| With the marketing department.
|
| Is the pretending
| > in the scholarly? "What makes it scholarly is that
| > it is conducted by scholars, using the approaches
| > established by the respective fields of scholarship.
| > . . . It is scholarly, like it or not." taf says:
| > "Oxford Ancestors makes a lot of money pretending
| > . . . "
|
| This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
| standards of behavior. It is unambiguous in my post that my statement
| refers specifically to the genealogical nature of the result (or more
| appropriately the lack thereof) - clear enough that you had no problems
| interpolating "[genealogical]" above. Here, however, you have no qualms
| about knowingly taking it out of context, pretending that my statement
| was in reference to the scholarship. You should feel shame over this
| deceptive behavior, but whether you do or not, actions such as this
| reveal how you conduct and present your research: in short, your
| integrity, and that revelation is an unflattering one.
|
| [Oh, and you apparently don't know (or are again intentionally
| deceiving) that Oxford Ancestry DID NOT MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS
| THE VALIDITY OF WHICH YOU IGNORANTLY DENY - they just market the
| results. It is like saying that electricity doesn't exist because the
| people at Enron were crooks.]
|
|
| taf
|
I am reminded of George Carlin's observation: 'There is no ethic in business - just a ledger.'
Ford
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
REPLY:
"Genetic drift and gene flow in post-famine Ireland."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
.. . .
"Investigation of a simple model of demographic
and genetic change shows that, given the demographic
changes in post-Famine Ireland, FST could in theory
increase, decrease, or remain the same over short
intervals of time. Overall, the Great Famine appears
to have had minimal impact on the genetic structure of
Ireland on a regional level. Comparison with studies
focusing on local genetic structure shows the opposite.
It appears that the level of genetic impact depends
strongly on the level of analysis; local populations
are affected to a greater extent by demographic shifts
than regional populations."
Todd, in a nutshell, the written genealogy of mankind,
having both sectors of regional and local populations
over time, of which there is no complete record, makes
the definitive statements theorized in the respective
fields of scholarship concerning Mitochondrial Eve,
to be both unscholarly and non academic, in fact.
This comes not by my opinion or lack thereof; but,
by the very nature of the population histories under
discussion and the information preserved by various
societies over time.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal guessing game
of probabilities, to excite the unlearned; an obvious
non discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal loss of funding,
mainly by the older population set, into fantasy rather
than fact; a direct attack on the foundations of the
worldwide community of genealogists and family historians.
Please do not define 'scholarly' nor 'academic' as ledgers.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
standards of behavior.
REPLY:
"Genetic drift and gene flow in post-famine Ireland."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
.. . .
"Investigation of a simple model of demographic
and genetic change shows that, given the demographic
changes in post-Famine Ireland, FST could in theory
increase, decrease, or remain the same over short
intervals of time. Overall, the Great Famine appears
to have had minimal impact on the genetic structure of
Ireland on a regional level. Comparison with studies
focusing on local genetic structure shows the opposite.
It appears that the level of genetic impact depends
strongly on the level of analysis; local populations
are affected to a greater extent by demographic shifts
than regional populations."
Todd, in a nutshell, the written genealogy of mankind,
having both sectors of regional and local populations
over time, of which there is no complete record, makes
the definitive statements theorized in the respective
fields of scholarship concerning Mitochondrial Eve,
to be both unscholarly and non academic, in fact.
This comes not by my opinion or lack thereof; but,
by the very nature of the population histories under
discussion and the information preserved by various
societies over time.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal guessing game
of probabilities, to excite the unlearned; an obvious
non discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal loss of funding,
mainly by the older population set, into fantasy rather
than fact; a direct attack on the foundations of the
worldwide community of genealogists and family historians.
Please do not define 'scholarly' nor 'academic' as ledgers.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Gjest
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. schrieb:
Is an English translation available?
REPLY:
"Genetic drift and gene flow in post-famine Ireland."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
. . .
"Investigation of a simple model of demographic
and genetic change shows that, given the demographic
changes in post-Famine Ireland, FST could in theory
increase, decrease, or remain the same over short
intervals of time. Overall, the Great Famine appears
to have had minimal impact on the genetic structure of
Ireland on a regional level. Comparison with studies
focusing on local genetic structure shows the opposite.
It appears that the level of genetic impact depends
strongly on the level of analysis; local populations
are affected to a greater extent by demographic shifts
than regional populations."
Todd, in a nutshell, the written genealogy of mankind,
having both sectors of regional and local populations
over time, of which there is no complete record, makes
the definitive statements theorized in the respective
fields of scholarship concerning Mitochondrial Eve,
to be both unscholarly and non academic, in fact.
This comes not by my opinion or lack thereof; but,
by the very nature of the population histories under
discussion and the information preserved by various
societies over time.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal guessing game
of probabilities, to excite the unlearned; an obvious
non discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal loss of funding,
mainly by the older population set, into fantasy rather
than fact; a direct attack on the foundations of the
worldwide community of genealogists and family historians.
Please do not define 'scholarly' nor 'academic' as ledgers.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Is an English translation available?
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
OK, another scholarly and academic study on genetic diversity. So what?
Didn't get past the first sentence without skrewing the pooch, did you?
Neither the study you cite above not the mtEve study have the
slightest to do with genealogy.
That is like saying that the lightbulb in my basement means that the
astronomical model of heliocentrism is not scholarly. One has nothing
to do with the other. Further, as pointed out before, scholarly and
academic are not subjective - scholarly is what is done by scholars,
academic what is done at academies, using standard techniques. Both of
these are apt descriptions of the mtEve study. That you would fault
them for reaching a conclusion you abhor does nothing to change their
scholarship. "I don't like it, so it isn't scholarly" is, well, an
unscholarly refutation.
Again, the study was not anthopologic, but genetic. Most importantly,
the confluence of maternal genetics that it characterizes predates all
such "information preserved by various societies" as well as
genealogical records. Apples and oranges.
There was no guessing involved.
an obvious
MtEve is a genetic construct, not a genealogical one, and cannot be used
to attack anyone but racists who claim that non-white people are of a
different species.
Huh? I defined scholarly and academic quite clearly, and it had nothing
to do with ledgers. Either you failed to understand my post (in which
case a request for clarification would be the appropriate response) or
you are intentionally portraying my position as something we both know
its not. Do, please, try to be more honest, (and a little more
coherency wouldn't hurt).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about this person's ethical
standards of behavior.
REPLY:
"Genetic drift and gene flow in post-famine Ireland."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation
. . .
"Investigation of a simple model of demographic
and genetic change shows that, given the demographic
changes in post-Famine Ireland, FST could in theory
increase, decrease, or remain the same over short
intervals of time. Overall, the Great Famine appears
to have had minimal impact on the genetic structure of
Ireland on a regional level. Comparison with studies
focusing on local genetic structure shows the opposite.
It appears that the level of genetic impact depends
strongly on the level of analysis; local populations
are affected to a greater extent by demographic shifts
than regional populations."
OK, another scholarly and academic study on genetic diversity. So what?
Todd, in a nutshell, the written genealogy of mankind,
Didn't get past the first sentence without skrewing the pooch, did you?
Neither the study you cite above not the mtEve study have the
slightest to do with genealogy.
having both sectors of regional and local populations
over time, of which there is no complete record, makes
the definitive statements theorized in the respective
fields of scholarship concerning Mitochondrial Eve,
to be both unscholarly and non academic, in fact.
That is like saying that the lightbulb in my basement means that the
astronomical model of heliocentrism is not scholarly. One has nothing
to do with the other. Further, as pointed out before, scholarly and
academic are not subjective - scholarly is what is done by scholars,
academic what is done at academies, using standard techniques. Both of
these are apt descriptions of the mtEve study. That you would fault
them for reaching a conclusion you abhor does nothing to change their
scholarship. "I don't like it, so it isn't scholarly" is, well, an
unscholarly refutation.
This comes not by my opinion or lack thereof; but,
by the very nature of the population histories under
discussion and the information preserved by various
societies over time.
Again, the study was not anthopologic, but genetic. Most importantly,
the confluence of maternal genetics that it characterizes predates all
such "information preserved by various societies" as well as
genealogical records. Apples and oranges.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal guessing game
of probabilities, to excite the unlearned;
There was no guessing involved.
an obvious
non discernment of what is 'scholarly' or 'academic'.
This suggests a perpetual and eternal loss of funding,
mainly by the older population set, into fantasy rather
than fact; a direct attack on the foundations of the
worldwide community of genealogists and family historians.
MtEve is a genetic construct, not a genealogical one, and cannot be used
to attack anyone but racists who claim that non-white people are of a
different species.
Please do not define 'scholarly' nor 'academic' as ledgers.
Huh? I defined scholarly and academic quite clearly, and it had nothing
to do with ledgers. Either you failed to understand my post (in which
case a request for clarification would be the appropriate response) or
you are intentionally portraying my position as something we both know
its not. Do, please, try to be more honest, (and a little more
coherency wouldn't hurt).
taf
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Actually, they do. "The central idea of biological
evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common
ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." Even with the survival of the best of
the species, over time there should be a natural replay:
a continuous regeneration in nature of the conditions
that created an initial mtEve. These restorations of
all aspects of the living chains of transformations
between lower and higher life forms are missing from
the daily view of modern science. Since the "long-range
forecast is that the universe will go on expanding forever",
the confluence of maternal genetics that it characterizes
MUST continue by the process of natural regeneration,
within the expanding universe. THEREFORE, it CANNOT
predate all such "information preserved by various
societies".
TAF, your argument is not credible.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Didn't get past the first sentence without skrewing the pooch, did you?
Neither the study you cite above not the mtEve study have the slightest
to do with genealogy.
REPLY:
Actually, they do. "The central idea of biological
evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common
ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother." Even with the survival of the best of
the species, over time there should be a natural replay:
a continuous regeneration in nature of the conditions
that created an initial mtEve. These restorations of
all aspects of the living chains of transformations
between lower and higher life forms are missing from
the daily view of modern science. Since the "long-range
forecast is that the universe will go on expanding forever",
the confluence of maternal genetics that it characterizes
MUST continue by the process of natural regeneration,
within the expanding universe. THEREFORE, it CANNOT
predate all such "information preserved by various
societies".
TAF, your argument is not credible.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
Actually, they don't. It is like saying that garbage collection and
Anasazi archaeology have something to do with each other just because
Archaeologists sometimes look at Anasazi garbage.
"The central idea of biological
Analogous, but vastly monumentally different scales, both numerical and
chronological, and completely distinct in method, source material and,
with a few exceptions and those coincidental, practitioners. Genealogy
is about documenting (with some type of historical or even traditional
record[s]) the connections among specific distinct identified
individuals. Evolutionary science deals with individuals only as they
exist as part of, being representative of, or in relation to populations.
Even with the survival of the best of
Something irrelevant to genealogy.
over time there should be a natural replay:
That doesn't make the a mtEve study genealogical, any more than the
analysis of the breakup of Gondwanaland, and a survey of San Francisco
newspapers from 1906 represent the same field of study just because the
same mechanisms brought about both sets of events. Different time
periods, different scale, different methodologies.
These restorations of
Perhaps you could try this again in English. If what you are intending
to say what I read you as saying, your knowledge of 'modern science' is
woefully inadequate: ignorant even. (I could well be wrong about what
you are attempting but failing to convey. I have requested before and I
ask now again - use simple English to explain the concepts you are
trying to express, as this language of false and opaque pseudo-erudition
is failing in the fundamental purpose of language: communication.)
Since the "long-range
Even more irrelevant to genealogy or mtEve than they are to each other,
which is saying a lot.
This is a flawed conclusion. The universe expanded for 11 billion years
(+/-) without a single living thing on earth (without, in fact, earth
for most of that time), without terrestrial evolution and without
genealogy. Terrestrial evolution went on for 4 billion years without
genealogy existing. Likewise, an asteroid could strike the earth next
year, and wipe out all human life (or at least all human civilization),
and in so doing would break this supposedly necessarily continuing
cycle. It would bring an end to all genealogy, but evolution would
still take place, unless it was a really big asteroid. If it was big
enough, the entire planet could be broken into pieces, incapable of
holding an atmosphere and all terrestrial evolution would cease. Still,
the universe would continue expanding without the slightest notice of
the demise of this insignificant rock in an insignificant solar system
in an insignificant galaxy . . . . The supposition that "A has taken
place for a long time and B has taken place for a long (but different)
time, so the two are inextricably linked" is fundamentally flawed.
(Just as an aside, the most common alternative reconstruction of the
universe was one of repeated cycles of origin, expansion, contraction
and annihilation, then origin again. Certainly this model, one of
repeated cycles, would predict repeating processes within. Another
alternative would be that it is in stasis. Under stasis, the same
conditions persist, by definition suggesting that the same processes
continue indefinitely. Thus, it would seem, you would predict repeated
processes if the universe is expanding forever, if it is oscillating,
and if it is in stasis - your conclusion is preordained, independent of
the condition of the universe.)
THEREFORE, it CANNOT
Let me get this straight. A 150,000 year old mtEve, CANNOT predate a
historical record which is less than 10,000 years old because the
universe is continually expanding.
Get out a dictionary. Look up the words: non sequitur.
mtEve: the analysis of DNA samples from a large number of anonymous
individuals selected to represent the range of the total human
population, using the paired tools of molecular phylogeny and molecular
clock estimates to model and characterize the divergence of the human
population from a single anonymous prehistoric female.
genealogy: the use of historical and traditional records to reconstruct
the precise relationships between specific named individuals.
These two are entirely distinct. The mtEve work is not genealogical.
It does not involve specific named individuals. It does not use
historical or traditional records. It utterly lacks the precision of
genealogy. That does not, however, invalidate its conclusions, which
are as valid under the principles of the field of study which produced
them as the validity of any particular genealogical connection derived
under the principles of genealogy. (And the validity of neither depends
on astro-cosmology.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Didn't get past the first sentence without skrewing the pooch, did
you? Neither the study you cite above not the mtEve study have the
slightest to do with genealogy.
REPLY:
Actually, they do.
Actually, they don't. It is like saying that garbage collection and
Anasazi archaeology have something to do with each other just because
Archaeologists sometimes look at Anasazi garbage.
"The central idea of biological
evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common
ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common
grandmother."
Analogous, but vastly monumentally different scales, both numerical and
chronological, and completely distinct in method, source material and,
with a few exceptions and those coincidental, practitioners. Genealogy
is about documenting (with some type of historical or even traditional
record[s]) the connections among specific distinct identified
individuals. Evolutionary science deals with individuals only as they
exist as part of, being representative of, or in relation to populations.
Even with the survival of the best of
the species,
Something irrelevant to genealogy.
over time there should be a natural replay:
a continuous regeneration in nature of the conditions
that created an initial mtEve.
That doesn't make the a mtEve study genealogical, any more than the
analysis of the breakup of Gondwanaland, and a survey of San Francisco
newspapers from 1906 represent the same field of study just because the
same mechanisms brought about both sets of events. Different time
periods, different scale, different methodologies.
These restorations of
all aspects of the living chains of transformations
between lower and higher life forms are missing from
the daily view of modern science.
Perhaps you could try this again in English. If what you are intending
to say what I read you as saying, your knowledge of 'modern science' is
woefully inadequate: ignorant even. (I could well be wrong about what
you are attempting but failing to convey. I have requested before and I
ask now again - use simple English to explain the concepts you are
trying to express, as this language of false and opaque pseudo-erudition
is failing in the fundamental purpose of language: communication.)
Since the "long-range
forecast is that the universe will go on expanding forever",
Even more irrelevant to genealogy or mtEve than they are to each other,
which is saying a lot.
the confluence of maternal genetics that it characterizes
MUST continue by the process of natural regeneration,
within the expanding universe.
This is a flawed conclusion. The universe expanded for 11 billion years
(+/-) without a single living thing on earth (without, in fact, earth
for most of that time), without terrestrial evolution and without
genealogy. Terrestrial evolution went on for 4 billion years without
genealogy existing. Likewise, an asteroid could strike the earth next
year, and wipe out all human life (or at least all human civilization),
and in so doing would break this supposedly necessarily continuing
cycle. It would bring an end to all genealogy, but evolution would
still take place, unless it was a really big asteroid. If it was big
enough, the entire planet could be broken into pieces, incapable of
holding an atmosphere and all terrestrial evolution would cease. Still,
the universe would continue expanding without the slightest notice of
the demise of this insignificant rock in an insignificant solar system
in an insignificant galaxy . . . . The supposition that "A has taken
place for a long time and B has taken place for a long (but different)
time, so the two are inextricably linked" is fundamentally flawed.
(Just as an aside, the most common alternative reconstruction of the
universe was one of repeated cycles of origin, expansion, contraction
and annihilation, then origin again. Certainly this model, one of
repeated cycles, would predict repeating processes within. Another
alternative would be that it is in stasis. Under stasis, the same
conditions persist, by definition suggesting that the same processes
continue indefinitely. Thus, it would seem, you would predict repeated
processes if the universe is expanding forever, if it is oscillating,
and if it is in stasis - your conclusion is preordained, independent of
the condition of the universe.)
THEREFORE, it CANNOT
predate all such "information preserved by various
societies".
Let me get this straight. A 150,000 year old mtEve, CANNOT predate a
historical record which is less than 10,000 years old because the
universe is continually expanding.
Get out a dictionary. Look up the words: non sequitur.
TAF, your argument is not credible.
mtEve: the analysis of DNA samples from a large number of anonymous
individuals selected to represent the range of the total human
population, using the paired tools of molecular phylogeny and molecular
clock estimates to model and characterize the divergence of the human
population from a single anonymous prehistoric female.
genealogy: the use of historical and traditional records to reconstruct
the precise relationships between specific named individuals.
These two are entirely distinct. The mtEve work is not genealogical.
It does not involve specific named individuals. It does not use
historical or traditional records. It utterly lacks the precision of
genealogy. That does not, however, invalidate its conclusions, which
are as valid under the principles of the field of study which produced
them as the validity of any particular genealogical connection derived
under the principles of genealogy. (And the validity of neither depends
on astro-cosmology.)
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies...
In article <e7at55$3s1$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
That's what I got out of it. Amazing, isn't it?
Nat Taylor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
Let me get this straight. A 150,000 year old mtEve, CANNOT predate a
historical record which is less than 10,000 years old because the
universe is continually expanding.
That's what I got out of it. Amazing, isn't it?
Nat Taylor
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
.. . .
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named
individuals." mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post; i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
I quote from Mark Twain:
"Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous
scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had
occurred in the remote past by what had occurred
in a given time in the recent past, or what will
occur in the far future by what has occurred in
late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology
never had such a chance, nor such exact data to
argue from! Nor `development of species', either!
Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--
vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred
and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has
shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.
This is an average of a trifle over one mile and
a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old
Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago
next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward
of one million three hundred thousand miles long,
and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-
rod. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower
Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters
long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined
their streets together, and be plodding comfortably
along under a single mayor and a mutual board of
aldermen. There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact."
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/twain.htm
"In logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on
the part of the observer, where two items placed
next to each other imply a correlation, when none
is actually claimed"; i.e. "a single anonymous
prehistoric female" vs the "written record" Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition
mtEve, as currently used in the genetic literature,
is a juxtaposition to genealogy: a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Your responses are arguments "embedded in rhetorical
patterns that obscure the logical connections between
statements" I have made. Comparing apples to apples,
human mtDNA and y-Chromosome data genetically are
almost as similar as photocopies. Using the differences
in various elements, does not take away from the fact that
they are small. Further evidence, an indication of the
"written record" Adam and Eve origin of all humankind.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
"Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have
identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where
apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the
spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics."
"These are very recent events—within the past ten thousand
years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose
laboratory team conducted the study. Amazing!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
Again, Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Continuing, "Some of the genes most strongly affected
by selection were those associated with skin color,
bone structure, and the metabolism of different foods.
Using newly available data, the scientists conducted
a genome-wide scan for genetic variants showing evidence
of recent selection in European, Asian, and African
populations.
Most of the selected genes varied strongly among the
three groups, suggesting that humans were adapting to
pressures specific to different parts of the world."
Information written from social contexts, both secular
and religious, portray real historical lives and family
pedigrees, within circa the last 6,000 years, as covered
within mathematical and genetic models that suggest
"adapting to pressures specific to different parts
of the world."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
.. . .
mtEve: the analysis of DNA samples from a large number of anonymous
individuals selected to represent the range of the total human
population, using the paired tools of molecular phylogeny and molecular
clock estimates to model and characterize the divergence of the human
population from a single anonymous prehistoric female.
genealogy: the use of historical and traditional records to reconstruct
the precise relationships between specific named individuals.
These two are entirely distinct. The mtEve work is not genealogical. It
does not involve specific named individuals. It does not use historical
or traditional records. It utterly lacks the precision of genealogy.
.. . .
taf
REPLY:
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named
individuals." mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post; i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
I quote from Mark Twain:
"Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous
scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had
occurred in the remote past by what had occurred
in a given time in the recent past, or what will
occur in the far future by what has occurred in
late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology
never had such a chance, nor such exact data to
argue from! Nor `development of species', either!
Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--
vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred
and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has
shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.
This is an average of a trifle over one mile and
a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old
Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago
next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward
of one million three hundred thousand miles long,
and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-
rod. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower
Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters
long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined
their streets together, and be plodding comfortably
along under a single mayor and a mutual board of
aldermen. There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact."
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/twain.htm
"In logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on
the part of the observer, where two items placed
next to each other imply a correlation, when none
is actually claimed"; i.e. "a single anonymous
prehistoric female" vs the "written record" Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition
mtEve, as currently used in the genetic literature,
is a juxtaposition to genealogy: a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Your responses are arguments "embedded in rhetorical
patterns that obscure the logical connections between
statements" I have made. Comparing apples to apples,
human mtDNA and y-Chromosome data genetically are
almost as similar as photocopies. Using the differences
in various elements, does not take away from the fact that
they are small. Further evidence, an indication of the
"written record" Adam and Eve origin of all humankind.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
"Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have
identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where
apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the
spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics."
"These are very recent events—within the past ten thousand
years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose
laboratory team conducted the study. Amazing!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
Again, Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Continuing, "Some of the genes most strongly affected
by selection were those associated with skin color,
bone structure, and the metabolism of different foods.
Using newly available data, the scientists conducted
a genome-wide scan for genetic variants showing evidence
of recent selection in European, Asian, and African
populations.
Most of the selected genes varied strongly among the
three groups, suggesting that humans were adapting to
pressures specific to different parts of the world."
Information written from social contexts, both secular
and religious, portray real historical lives and family
pedigrees, within circa the last 6,000 years, as covered
within mathematical and genetic models that suggest
"adapting to pressures specific to different parts
of the world."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
.. . .
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named
individuals." mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post; i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
I quote from Mark Twain:
"Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous
scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had
occurred in the remote past by what had occurred
in a given time in the recent past, or what will
occur in the far future by what has occurred in
late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology
never had such a chance, nor such exact data to
argue from! Nor `development of species', either!
Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--
vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred
and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has
shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.
This is an average of a trifle over one mile and
a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old
Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago
next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward
of one million three hundred thousand miles long,
and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-
rod. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower
Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters
long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined
their streets together, and be plodding comfortably
along under a single mayor and a mutual board of
aldermen. There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact."
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/twain.htm
"In logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on
the part of the observer, where two items placed
next to each other imply a correlation, when none
is actually claimed"; i.e. "a single anonymous
prehistoric female" vs the "written record" Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition
mtEve, as currently used in the genetic literature,
is a juxtaposition to genealogy: a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Your responses are arguments "embedded in rhetorical
patterns that obscure the logical connections between
statements" I have made. Comparing apples to apples,
human mtDNA and y-Chromosome data genetically are
almost as similar as photocopies. Using the differences
in various elements, does not take away from the fact that
they are small. Further evidence, an indication of the
"written record" Adam and Eve origin of all humankind.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
"Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have
identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where
apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the
spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics."
"These are very recent events—within the past ten thousand
years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose
laboratory team conducted the study. Amazing!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
Again, Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Continuing, "Some of the genes most strongly affected
by selection were those associated with skin color,
bone structure, and the metabolism of different foods.
Using newly available data, the scientists conducted
a genome-wide scan for genetic variants showing evidence
of recent selection in European, Asian, and African
populations.
Most of the selected genes varied strongly among the
three groups, suggesting that humans were adapting to
pressures specific to different parts of the world."
Information written from social contexts, both secular
and religious, portray real historical lives and family
pedigrees, within circa the last 6,000 years, as covered
within mathematical and genetic models that suggest
"adapting to pressures specific to different parts
of the world."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
.. . .
mtEve: the analysis of DNA samples from a large number of anonymous
individuals selected to represent the range of the total human
population, using the paired tools of molecular phylogeny and molecular
clock estimates to model and characterize the divergence of the human
population from a single anonymous prehistoric female.
genealogy: the use of historical and traditional records to reconstruct
the precise relationships between specific named individuals.
These two are entirely distinct. The mtEve work is not genealogical. It
does not involve specific named individuals. It does not use historical
or traditional records. It utterly lacks the precision of genealogy.
.. . .
taf
REPLY:
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named
individuals." mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post; i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
I quote from Mark Twain:
"Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous
scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had
occurred in the remote past by what had occurred
in a given time in the recent past, or what will
occur in the far future by what has occurred in
late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology
never had such a chance, nor such exact data to
argue from! Nor `development of species', either!
Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--
vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred
and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has
shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.
This is an average of a trifle over one mile and
a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who
is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old
Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago
next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward
of one million three hundred thousand miles long,
and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-
rod. And by the same token any person can see that
seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower
Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters
long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined
their streets together, and be plodding comfortably
along under a single mayor and a mutual board of
aldermen. There is something fascinating about
science. One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact."
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/twain.htm
"In logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on
the part of the observer, where two items placed
next to each other imply a correlation, when none
is actually claimed"; i.e. "a single anonymous
prehistoric female" vs the "written record" Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition
mtEve, as currently used in the genetic literature,
is a juxtaposition to genealogy: a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Your responses are arguments "embedded in rhetorical
patterns that obscure the logical connections between
statements" I have made. Comparing apples to apples,
human mtDNA and y-Chromosome data genetically are
almost as similar as photocopies. Using the differences
in various elements, does not take away from the fact that
they are small. Further evidence, an indication of the
"written record" Adam and Eve origin of all humankind.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
"Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have
identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where
apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the
spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics."
"These are very recent events—within the past ten thousand
years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose
laboratory team conducted the study. Amazing!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
Again, Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans [Nature 431, 562 - 566
(30 September 2004)}, notes "These analyses suggest
that the genealogies of all living humans overlap
in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular,
the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few
thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among
all individuals living more than just a few thousand
years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human
has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Continuing, "Some of the genes most strongly affected
by selection were those associated with skin color,
bone structure, and the metabolism of different foods.
Using newly available data, the scientists conducted
a genome-wide scan for genetic variants showing evidence
of recent selection in European, Asian, and African
populations.
Most of the selected genes varied strongly among the
three groups, suggesting that humans were adapting to
pressures specific to different parts of the world."
Information written from social contexts, both secular
and religious, portray real historical lives and family
pedigrees, within circa the last 6,000 years, as covered
within mathematical and genetic models that suggest
"adapting to pressures specific to different parts
of the world."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
The only aspect of "genealogy" not included in my definition is that
which is based on no historical or traditional record: i.e. that which
is invented de novo. I, for one, do not consider that genealogy at all.
mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
And here is the part you refuse to accept. mtEve is not "placed in the
family tree" in any context comparable to a genealogical family tree -
she is a hypothetical construct representative of the common female-line
ancestor, not a specific named individual on an actual family tree.
No matter how you try to distort the facts, the mtEve and similar
molecular phylogeny studies use none of the principles, practices,
rules, sources of genealogy. Read this next part very closely - Even if
you could by some means trace genealogically to the common ancestor and
identify that person by name, the DNA-based study is STILL not
genealogical - they are distinct approaches that may overlap in
historical scope when the time periods involved are amenable. However,
you can never use DNA analysis to identify by name a specific
individual, which is fundamental to genealogy. If you don't need
specific names for genealogy, then you could fill out an infinite family
tree with unnamed females and males occupying all but the most recent
positions. That is not genealogy, and DNA analysis doesn't even give
you that. Likewise, genealogy is about specific relationships, and DNA
analysis cannot possibly tell you specific genealogical relationships
(it can only be used when a web of relationships are already known by
standard genealogical approaches). Again, this is not genealogy. These
are DISTINCT ways to address distinct bits of knowledge, only related by
the fact that they involve humans coupling with other humans and having
more humans, but then, so does family law and Malthusian models of
population growth, and these too are not genealogy.
i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
If you wish to deny science and pervert it by mis-characterization, that
is your choice, a choice which requires no understanding whatsoever of
that which you reject (in fact, it is easier if you are in complete
ignorance). It is simply analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears
and humming loudly. However, this scientific nihilism should not be
confused with your original claim, that mtEve is bad science. That is an
entirely distinct claim, one which requires an understanding of the
practices and principles used to derive the conclusion, an understanding
which you show yourself to lack with every post you make equating mtEve
studies with genealogy.
[Then Mr. Tinney shows that the best he can do in attacking modern
historical sciences is to quote the ill-informed opinions of a
century-old humorist, followed by a string of citations which only
reveal that he could characterize his true condition by instead quoting
another irrelevant wordsmith, this one lyrical: ". . . all this science,
I don't understand."]
DNA phylogeny and genealogy are entirely distinct.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
. . .
mtEve: the analysis of DNA samples from a large number of anonymous
individuals selected to represent the range of the total human
population, using the paired tools of molecular phylogeny and
molecular clock estimates to model and characterize the divergence of
the human population from a single anonymous prehistoric female.
genealogy: the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named individuals.
These two are entirely distinct. The mtEve work is not genealogical.
It does not involve specific named individuals. It does not use
historical or traditional records. It utterly lacks the precision of
genealogy.
. . .
taf
REPLY:
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named
individuals."
The only aspect of "genealogy" not included in my definition is that
which is based on no historical or traditional record: i.e. that which
is invented de novo. I, for one, do not consider that genealogy at all.
mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post;
And here is the part you refuse to accept. mtEve is not "placed in the
family tree" in any context comparable to a genealogical family tree -
she is a hypothetical construct representative of the common female-line
ancestor, not a specific named individual on an actual family tree.
No matter how you try to distort the facts, the mtEve and similar
molecular phylogeny studies use none of the principles, practices,
rules, sources of genealogy. Read this next part very closely - Even if
you could by some means trace genealogically to the common ancestor and
identify that person by name, the DNA-based study is STILL not
genealogical - they are distinct approaches that may overlap in
historical scope when the time periods involved are amenable. However,
you can never use DNA analysis to identify by name a specific
individual, which is fundamental to genealogy. If you don't need
specific names for genealogy, then you could fill out an infinite family
tree with unnamed females and males occupying all but the most recent
positions. That is not genealogy, and DNA analysis doesn't even give
you that. Likewise, genealogy is about specific relationships, and DNA
analysis cannot possibly tell you specific genealogical relationships
(it can only be used when a web of relationships are already known by
standard genealogical approaches). Again, this is not genealogy. These
are DISTINCT ways to address distinct bits of knowledge, only related by
the fact that they involve humans coupling with other humans and having
more humans, but then, so does family law and Malthusian models of
population growth, and these too are not genealogy.
i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
If you wish to deny science and pervert it by mis-characterization, that
is your choice, a choice which requires no understanding whatsoever of
that which you reject (in fact, it is easier if you are in complete
ignorance). It is simply analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears
and humming loudly. However, this scientific nihilism should not be
confused with your original claim, that mtEve is bad science. That is an
entirely distinct claim, one which requires an understanding of the
practices and principles used to derive the conclusion, an understanding
which you show yourself to lack with every post you make equating mtEve
studies with genealogy.
[Then Mr. Tinney shows that the best he can do in attacking modern
historical sciences is to quote the ill-informed opinions of a
century-old humorist, followed by a string of citations which only
reveal that he could characterize his true condition by instead quoting
another irrelevant wordsmith, this one lyrical: ". . . all this science,
I don't understand."]
DNA phylogeny and genealogy are entirely distinct.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. writes:
Surely that is the exact opposite of historical research?
Mark Twain' example shows how dangerous extrapolation can be; by picking the
appropriate US Censuses you can use extrapolation to "show" the population
of North America at 1 A.D. was over 1000 million - standard exercise in
numerical analysis courses
Extrapolation is the bookmakers friend
cheers
Simon
Genealogy is the "record or table of the descent of a person,
family, or group from an ancestor or ancestors; a family tree."
Genealogy research is "the study of family lineage", which
includes "the use of historical and traditional records to
reconstruct the precise relationships between specific named individuals."
mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post; i.e., the table of descent, back in time ONLY
by a process of various theoretical extrapolations, giving
predictions, not facts of what may or may not have occurred
in the past, depending on the theory used.
Surely that is the exact opposite of historical research?
Mark Twain' example shows how dangerous extrapolation can be; by picking the
appropriate US Censuses you can use extrapolation to "show" the population
of North America at 1 A.D. was over 1000 million - standard exercise in
numerical analysis courses
Extrapolation is the bookmakers friend
cheers
Simon
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
It can if you have the people, alive or well-preserved.
Doug McDonald
Likewise, genealogy is about specific relationships, and DNA
analysis cannot possibly tell you specific genealogical relationships
It can if you have the people, alive or well-preserved.
Doug McDonald
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
"As seen, the number of publications in the exact
sciences largely outgrows those in the fields more
traditionally associated with genealogy."
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
.. . .
[Genealogists routinely develop skills and tools to
tackle issues belonging to a subfield of genealogy,
here termed "microgenealogy," with which all
genealogists become familiar in the early stages of
family research. . . . By contrast, a number of less
familiar topics of investigation belong to so-called
hard sciences; the source of the true transformation
of genealogy into a modern academic discipline resides
in the momentum arising from those areas. Those topics
and tools help in solving problems belonging to the
subfield of "macrogenealogy."]
[Genealogy deals with complex social phenomena,
the rules of which have attracted the attention
of physicists. . . . An intriguing example relevant
to genealogical research is the distribution (and
stability) of family names in a specific community
or country, which also follows scaling laws. The
study of the origins and evolution or transformation
of surnames is a well-known aspect of genealogical
research, but perhaps less well known to genealogists
is the fact that information about surnames can be
used in research on human population genetics,{12}
if one notices that the transmission of surnames
through the paternal line (such as in most current
Western societies) fascinatingly resembles that of
genetic information inherited from one of the parents
(the exclusively paternal Y chromosome or the
exclusively maternal mitochondrial DNA). . . .]
[Over the last decade, genetic research has greatly
expanded our understanding of the probable origins,
evolutionary history and geographical patterns of
various human communities, including Jews.] So in
the proverbial nutshell, genetics has infected the
genealogical community with vast amounts of scientific
probabilities, a death sentence to modern genealogical
research standards, using individual senior citizens
in society worldwide to collect the data; they, thus
paying the graveyard bill for the demise of valid
studies in family history. A medieval replay of
King Arthur's fables and fancies, a parallel to
competitive royalty desires in pedigree extensions.
High level academic research in genealogy can be
indispensable in yielding significant breakthroughs
in various fields of science, when information
gleaned from social contexts, both secular and
religious, are dispassionately reviewed, using
modern genealogical research specialist standards:
to properly reconstruct and correctly portray real
historical lives and family pedigrees. The invention
of writing passed on written records and genealogies.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
An additional continued evaluation of ancient records
concerns The BOOK [Stick] of JUDAH, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm
All "future significant academic contributions from
areas new to traditional genealogy", must be based
upon and generated by established primary records.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
The only aspect of "genealogy" not included in my definition is that
which is based on no historical or traditional record: i.e. that which
is invented de novo. I, for one, do not consider that genealogy at all.
mtEve, when placed in the family tree, moves
the goal post;
And here is the part you refuse to accept. mtEve is not "placed in the
family tree" in any context comparable to a genealogical family tree -
she is a hypothetical construct representative of the common female-line
ancestor, not a specific named individual on an actual family tree.
No matter how you try to distort the facts, the mtEve and similar
molecular phylogeny studies use none of the principles, practices,
rules, sources of genealogy.
REPLY:
"As seen, the number of publications in the exact
sciences largely outgrows those in the fields more
traditionally associated with genealogy."
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
.. . .
[Genealogists routinely develop skills and tools to
tackle issues belonging to a subfield of genealogy,
here termed "microgenealogy," with which all
genealogists become familiar in the early stages of
family research. . . . By contrast, a number of less
familiar topics of investigation belong to so-called
hard sciences; the source of the true transformation
of genealogy into a modern academic discipline resides
in the momentum arising from those areas. Those topics
and tools help in solving problems belonging to the
subfield of "macrogenealogy."]
[Genealogy deals with complex social phenomena,
the rules of which have attracted the attention
of physicists. . . . An intriguing example relevant
to genealogical research is the distribution (and
stability) of family names in a specific community
or country, which also follows scaling laws. The
study of the origins and evolution or transformation
of surnames is a well-known aspect of genealogical
research, but perhaps less well known to genealogists
is the fact that information about surnames can be
used in research on human population genetics,{12}
if one notices that the transmission of surnames
through the paternal line (such as in most current
Western societies) fascinatingly resembles that of
genetic information inherited from one of the parents
(the exclusively paternal Y chromosome or the
exclusively maternal mitochondrial DNA). . . .]
[Over the last decade, genetic research has greatly
expanded our understanding of the probable origins,
evolutionary history and geographical patterns of
various human communities, including Jews.] So in
the proverbial nutshell, genetics has infected the
genealogical community with vast amounts of scientific
probabilities, a death sentence to modern genealogical
research standards, using individual senior citizens
in society worldwide to collect the data; they, thus
paying the graveyard bill for the demise of valid
studies in family history. A medieval replay of
King Arthur's fables and fancies, a parallel to
competitive royalty desires in pedigree extensions.
High level academic research in genealogy can be
indispensable in yielding significant breakthroughs
in various fields of science, when information
gleaned from social contexts, both secular and
religious, are dispassionately reviewed, using
modern genealogical research specialist standards:
to properly reconstruct and correctly portray real
historical lives and family pedigrees. The invention
of writing passed on written records and genealogies.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
An additional continued evaluation of ancient records
concerns The BOOK [Stick] of JUDAH, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm
All "future significant academic contributions from
areas new to traditional genealogy", must be based
upon and generated by established primary records.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
Flawed analysis - a single-keyword search of a database that is poorly
representative of actual genealogical publishing.
This is drawing an analogy between surname studies and DNA studies - an
analogy. That can hardly be used as justification to say that all DNA
studies are genealogical in nature, as you have.
So what - that doesn't make it genealogy?
So in
A vast overstatement.
a death sentence to modern genealogical
You didn't appreciate the implications of the analysis you yourself
cited above. Even were that analysis valid (which it isn't), it shows
no decrease, but rather an increase in the application of traditional
practices to genealogy. No graveyard here. No death sentence.
A medieval replay of
There are all kinds of fables that get confused with genealogy - your
own page includes some, but it is hardly accurate to compare authentic
science being inappropriately applied to genealogy with such fables -
not if you are evaluating things dispassionately.
Wishful thinking. Certainly some aspects of genetics rely on genealogy,
and it plays a role in a small minority of social science studies, but
these are rare exceptions, and in neither case are they indispensable.
when information
Unfortunately, information gleaned from 'religious' contexts are almost
never viewed dispassionately, and in the rare cases where this could be
said to be the case, the studies are rejected out of hand by that
majority who are not dispassionate.
using
So much for dispassionate consideration - the first 'genealogical'
connection shown is between a deity and a certain Palestinian Jew, as
well as "billions of spirit children".
Unfortunately, from many people use terms like "dispassionate review" to
refer to nothing more or less than 'credulously accepting what I want to
be true, and rejecting out of hand those things with which I disagre':
those who disagree with my arbitrary value judgments are biased, those
who agree with me are open-minded and dispassionate.
More a recitation, lacking much evaluation - no analysis of the sources
in most cases. In those cases where the source material is "evaluated"
this involves the typical irrelevancies, logical fallacies and the use
of criteria that are not based on standard historical practices (e.g.
what someone born in New York in the early 19th century without a shred
of scholarly training or experience thought of material written in
ancient Palestine. Good thing the period in question is off-topic, as I
don't have the time to evaluate this "evaluation".
Somewhat too strong. It is rather unreasonable to dismiss out of hand
all new approaches, but I wouldn't argue that these should be used to
supplement rather than replace traditional approaches.
taf
"As seen, the number of publications in the exact
sciences largely outgrows those in the fields more
traditionally associated with genealogy."
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
Flawed analysis - a single-keyword search of a database that is poorly
representative of actual genealogical publishing.
[Genealogy deals with complex social phenomena,
the rules of which have attracted the attention
of physicists. . . . An intriguing example relevant
to genealogical research is the distribution (and
stability) of family names in a specific community
or country, which also follows scaling laws. The
study of the origins and evolution or transformation
of surnames is a well-known aspect of genealogical
research, but perhaps less well known to genealogists
is the fact that information about surnames can be
used in research on human population genetics,{12}
if one notices that the transmission of surnames
through the paternal line (such as in most current
Western societies) fascinatingly resembles that of
genetic information inherited from one of the parents
(the exclusively paternal Y chromosome or the
exclusively maternal mitochondrial DNA). . . .]
This is drawing an analogy between surname studies and DNA studies - an
analogy. That can hardly be used as justification to say that all DNA
studies are genealogical in nature, as you have.
[Over the last decade, genetic research has greatly
expanded our understanding of the probable origins,
evolutionary history and geographical patterns of
various human communities, including Jews.]
So what - that doesn't make it genealogy?
So in
the proverbial nutshell, genetics has infected the
genealogical community with vast amounts of scientific
probabilities,
A vast overstatement.
a death sentence to modern genealogical
research standards, using individual senior citizens
in society worldwide to collect the data; they, thus
paying the graveyard bill for the demise of valid
studies in family history.
You didn't appreciate the implications of the analysis you yourself
cited above. Even were that analysis valid (which it isn't), it shows
no decrease, but rather an increase in the application of traditional
practices to genealogy. No graveyard here. No death sentence.
A medieval replay of
King Arthur's fables and fancies, a parallel to
competitive royalty desires in pedigree extensions.
There are all kinds of fables that get confused with genealogy - your
own page includes some, but it is hardly accurate to compare authentic
science being inappropriately applied to genealogy with such fables -
not if you are evaluating things dispassionately.
High level academic research in genealogy can be
indispensable in yielding significant breakthroughs
in various fields of science,
Wishful thinking. Certainly some aspects of genetics rely on genealogy,
and it plays a role in a small minority of social science studies, but
these are rare exceptions, and in neither case are they indispensable.
when information
gleaned from social contexts, both secular and
religious, are dispassionately reviewed,
Unfortunately, information gleaned from 'religious' contexts are almost
never viewed dispassionately, and in the rare cases where this could be
said to be the case, the studies are rejected out of hand by that
majority who are not dispassionate.
using
modern genealogical research specialist standards:
to properly reconstruct and correctly portray real
historical lives and family pedigrees. The invention
of writing passed on written records and genealogies.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... logies.htm
So much for dispassionate consideration - the first 'genealogical'
connection shown is between a deity and a certain Palestinian Jew, as
well as "billions of spirit children".
Unfortunately, from many people use terms like "dispassionate review" to
refer to nothing more or less than 'credulously accepting what I want to
be true, and rejecting out of hand those things with which I disagre':
those who disagree with my arbitrary value judgments are biased, those
who agree with me are open-minded and dispassionate.
An additional continued evaluation of ancient records
concerns The BOOK [Stick] of JUDAH, at:
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientgenealogyjudah.htm
More a recitation, lacking much evaluation - no analysis of the sources
in most cases. In those cases where the source material is "evaluated"
this involves the typical irrelevancies, logical fallacies and the use
of criteria that are not based on standard historical practices (e.g.
what someone born in New York in the early 19th century without a shred
of scholarly training or experience thought of material written in
ancient Palestine. Good thing the period in question is off-topic, as I
don't have the time to evaluate this "evaluation".
All "future significant academic contributions from
areas new to traditional genealogy", must be based
upon and generated by established primary records.
Somewhat too strong. It is rather unreasonable to dismiss out of hand
all new approaches, but I wouldn't argue that these should be used to
supplement rather than replace traditional approaches.
taf
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
"Scientists Take Inspiration From Wikipedia
To Create Tree Of Life: Genealogy And Study
Of All Specie" [as of 20 FEB 2006]
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/2/20/766
[The Web-based Tree of Life project,
a massive collaboration among scientists from
all over the world, is growing more "leaves"
and "branches" all the time. The project is
basically a genealogy of life on Earth coupled
with information about the characteristics of
individual species and groups of organisms.]
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
"Despite the quagmire in which their present
efforts have landed them, biologists have not
in any way despaired of confirming the conventional
thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural
chemical processes." How thrilling to place
genealogy and family history research in this
quagmire of uncertainty. Flawed analysis, taf?
http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
"As seen, the number of publications in the exact
sciences largely outgrows those in the fields more
traditionally associated with genealogy."
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
Flawed analysis - a single-keyword search of a database that is poorly
representative of actual genealogical publishing.
taf, with all due respect,
"Scientists Take Inspiration From Wikipedia
To Create Tree Of Life: Genealogy And Study
Of All Specie" [as of 20 FEB 2006]
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/2/20/766
[The Web-based Tree of Life project,
a massive collaboration among scientists from
all over the world, is growing more "leaves"
and "branches" all the time. The project is
basically a genealogy of life on Earth coupled
with information about the characteristics of
individual species and groups of organisms.]
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
"Despite the quagmire in which their present
efforts have landed them, biologists have not
in any way despaired of confirming the conventional
thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural
chemical processes." How thrilling to place
genealogy and family history research in this
quagmire of uncertainty. Flawed analysis, taf?
http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
And this is PRECISELY why an analysis based on nothing but the presence
of the word "genealogy" it is flawed. The title of this example article
has the word "genealogy" in it, and hence would have been included in
the analysis. However, the word is being used in an entirely different
sense than that which we all use here. This is NOT an example of using
a novel DNA-based approach to address the type of genealogical question
this group discusses, it is addressing the evolutionary phylogeny of
bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - reconstructing events 4.5 billion
years ago. To suggest that this is indicative of bad techniques
destroying "genealogy" as we know it is ridiculous.
[from another article]
Not that it is on-topic for this group, but this is an example where a
New York Times writer tried to 'spice things up'. There is no quagmire
and there wasn't at the time he wrote the article. There never was one
and things have only become more clear in the intervening 8 years. God
only knows why he chose that word, but no scientist would have. The
failure of a journalist to understand science (or to use more
appropriate language to describe it) is not a failure of the science
itself. Anyhow, it no longer bears any resemblance to the current state
of things. 8 years may not seem like much, but in genomic research, it
is the difference between having the complete sequence of one bacterium
to having the complete genomes of a hundred species in all kingdoms of
life, including humans. The field has moved so rapidly this article
might as well be talking about outlines of hands and prehistoric
buffalos on cave walls. It is ancient history, scientifically speaking
(and as I said, it wasn't a quagmire then).
Surely even you recognize some degree of difference between sequencing
entire genomes to investigate how one bacteria is related to another
four billion years ago (what this article dealt with), and the way
Y-chromosome typing is being applied to the genealogy on historical humans.
Yes, flawed analysis.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
"As seen, the number of publications in the exact
sciences largely outgrows those in the fields more
traditionally associated with genealogy."
http://www.avotaynu.com/wagner.htm
Flawed analysis - a single-keyword search of a database that is poorly
representative of actual genealogical publishing.
taf, with all due respect,
"Scientists Take Inspiration From Wikipedia
To Create Tree Of Life: Genealogy And Study
Of All Specie" [as of 20 FEB 2006]
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/2/20/766
[The Web-based Tree of Life project,
a massive collaboration among scientists from
all over the world, is growing more "leaves"
and "branches" all the time. The project is
basically a genealogy of life on Earth coupled
with information about the characteristics of
individual species and groups of organisms.]
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
And this is PRECISELY why an analysis based on nothing but the presence
of the word "genealogy" it is flawed. The title of this example article
has the word "genealogy" in it, and hence would have been included in
the analysis. However, the word is being used in an entirely different
sense than that which we all use here. This is NOT an example of using
a novel DNA-based approach to address the type of genealogical question
this group discusses, it is addressing the evolutionary phylogeny of
bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - reconstructing events 4.5 billion
years ago. To suggest that this is indicative of bad techniques
destroying "genealogy" as we know it is ridiculous.
[from another article]
"Despite the quagmire in which their present
efforts have landed them, biologists have not
in any way despaired of confirming the conventional
thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural
chemical processes."
http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm
[rearranged for clarity]
Not that it is on-topic for this group, but this is an example where a
New York Times writer tried to 'spice things up'. There is no quagmire
and there wasn't at the time he wrote the article. There never was one
and things have only become more clear in the intervening 8 years. God
only knows why he chose that word, but no scientist would have. The
failure of a journalist to understand science (or to use more
appropriate language to describe it) is not a failure of the science
itself. Anyhow, it no longer bears any resemblance to the current state
of things. 8 years may not seem like much, but in genomic research, it
is the difference between having the complete sequence of one bacterium
to having the complete genomes of a hundred species in all kingdoms of
life, including humans. The field has moved so rapidly this article
might as well be talking about outlines of hands and prehistoric
buffalos on cave walls. It is ancient history, scientifically speaking
(and as I said, it wasn't a quagmire then).
How thrilling to place
genealogy and family history research in this
quagmire of uncertainty.
Surely even you recognize some degree of difference between sequencing
entire genomes to investigate how one bacteria is related to another
four billion years ago (what this article dealt with), and the way
Y-chromosome typing is being applied to the genealogy on historical humans.
Flawed analysis, taf?
Yes, flawed analysis.
taf
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
According to a report by JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
June 22, 2006; Page D1, of The Wall Street Journal
Online, "In 2003, the last year for which the data
is available, the Pew Internet & American Life
Project found that 24% of Internet users researched
their family history or genealogy online. But in
the past few years, traffic at genealogy Web sites
has begun dropping. Nine million people visited
online genealogy Web sites last month, down from
10.5 million in May of 2005, according to comScore
Networks Inc., a research firm."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ff_article
Conversely, "Social Networking Sites Continue
to Attract Record Numbers" . . . "The popularity
of social networking is not expected to wane in
the near future," said Peter Daboll, president
and CEO of comScore Media Metrix. "This is a
phenomenon we're seeing not only in the U.S.,
but also around the world. . . ."
http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=906
Nielsen/NetRatings shows "Two sites in the Top 10
"Social Networking & Community Brands" in the U.K.
came from the genealogy category (Genes Reunited &
Ancestry.co.uk) So, even though the genealogy
category is part of the "Social Networking" sites,
worldwide, social networks go up, genealogy is down.
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/2/emw349254.htm
As the use of DNA for genealogy research continues
to expand in costs applied, the time honored
sources of primary evidence are being supplanted.
Thomas H. Roderick, PhD, Center for Human Genetics,
reveals the total contradiction: "By adding DNA
analysis to our armamentarium of genealogical tools
.. . . "provide understandings of relationships prior
to the historical record and to provide insights
into our Y line and M line ethnic heritage."
http://genealogy.about.com/library/auth ... rick1f.htm
"From anthropological and genetic evidence, it is
believed [secular religion] that Y Adam lived in
Africa about 144,000 years ago, give or take about
10,000 years. This was a time when the human
population in Africa numbered about 2,000 breeding
individuals and probably fewer than 10,000 total."
This does not properly reconstruct and correctly
portray real historical lives and family pedigrees.
This is like being duped by some business that
creates and markets fake medieval coats of arms:
any theory in, any secular religious statistics out.
This information does not emotionally bond fathers
to sons or mothers to daughters; nor, assist in the
uniting of genealogical families, living and dead;
or, increase esteem, character traits, personal
self worth and individual identity. It severs the
field of genealogy and family history from modern
online Social Networking and Community interests.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
.. . .
a death sentence to modern genealogical
research standards, using individual senior citizens
in society worldwide to collect the data; they, thus
paying the graveyard bill for the demise of valid
studies in family history.
You didn't appreciate the implications of the analysis you yourself
cited above. Even were that analysis valid (which it isn't), it shows
no decrease, but rather an increase in the application of traditional
practices to genealogy. No graveyard here. No death sentence.
REPLY:
According to a report by JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
June 22, 2006; Page D1, of The Wall Street Journal
Online, "In 2003, the last year for which the data
is available, the Pew Internet & American Life
Project found that 24% of Internet users researched
their family history or genealogy online. But in
the past few years, traffic at genealogy Web sites
has begun dropping. Nine million people visited
online genealogy Web sites last month, down from
10.5 million in May of 2005, according to comScore
Networks Inc., a research firm."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ff_article
Conversely, "Social Networking Sites Continue
to Attract Record Numbers" . . . "The popularity
of social networking is not expected to wane in
the near future," said Peter Daboll, president
and CEO of comScore Media Metrix. "This is a
phenomenon we're seeing not only in the U.S.,
but also around the world. . . ."
http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=906
Nielsen/NetRatings shows "Two sites in the Top 10
"Social Networking & Community Brands" in the U.K.
came from the genealogy category (Genes Reunited &
Ancestry.co.uk) So, even though the genealogy
category is part of the "Social Networking" sites,
worldwide, social networks go up, genealogy is down.
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/2/emw349254.htm
As the use of DNA for genealogy research continues
to expand in costs applied, the time honored
sources of primary evidence are being supplanted.
Thomas H. Roderick, PhD, Center for Human Genetics,
reveals the total contradiction: "By adding DNA
analysis to our armamentarium of genealogical tools
.. . . "provide understandings of relationships prior
to the historical record and to provide insights
into our Y line and M line ethnic heritage."
http://genealogy.about.com/library/auth ... rick1f.htm
"From anthropological and genetic evidence, it is
believed [secular religion] that Y Adam lived in
Africa about 144,000 years ago, give or take about
10,000 years. This was a time when the human
population in Africa numbered about 2,000 breeding
individuals and probably fewer than 10,000 total."
This does not properly reconstruct and correctly
portray real historical lives and family pedigrees.
This is like being duped by some business that
creates and markets fake medieval coats of arms:
any theory in, any secular religious statistics out.
This information does not emotionally bond fathers
to sons or mothers to daughters; nor, assist in the
uniting of genealogical families, living and dead;
or, increase esteem, character traits, personal
self worth and individual identity. It severs the
field of genealogy and family history from modern
online Social Networking and Community interests.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
Perhaps I am missing something. You consider the internet to fall into
the category of traditional genealogical sources? That is a rather
unusual way of viewing the genealogical tradition.
You keep saying this, as if by simple repetition it will come to be
true. The only "time honored sources" the use of which you cite as
declining is the WWW, which could only be considered time-honored by
someone younger than 12.
Tell me. Why did you choose to remove the second half of the first
sentence of his quote? and replace it with the second half of a
completely different sentence? Did the fact that he directly
contradicted your thesis in that first sentence have something to do
with it?
"By adding DNA analysis to our armamentarium of genealogical tools, we
are not supplanting any of the time honored sources of primary evidence
such as deeds, wills, church and cemetery records, etc"
To splice together sentence fragments, removed from their context, and
use it to support something other than that which the author intended is
incredibly dishonest.
"Secular religion" is like 'active quiescence' or 'intoxicated
sobriety': it is an oxymoron of the type usually used by someone who
doesn't understand the meanings of the words he is using, or doesn't
care that he is misusing them.
It isn't intended to portray a historical life nor a family pedigree -
it is a phylogenetic construct and dates to prehistoric times.
No, it's not. That it fraud. Y-Adam is the result of performing a
scientific analysis and reaching the conclusion that leads inextricably
from that analysis, like it or not.
Again with the moronic oxymoron.
As I said before, you are free to stick your fingers in your ears and
hum as loud as you can, but "I don't want the result to be true" is an
insufficient argument by which to reject it AS science - all you can do
is reject scientific reality itself in favor of some alternative reality.
Amen. Pass the collection plate.
This is reminiscent of the tradition about the destruction of the
Library at Alexandria - "everything also found in the Koran is
redundant; everything not found in the Koran is superfluous". Sorry to
disappoint you, but these are not the criteria of science, nor of
traditional "time honored" genealogical practices.
Heck, based on these criteria, I'm not sure that ice cream even exists.
It severs the
"Modern online Social Networking and Community interests" also include
child pornography, neo-Nazism and (as we learned a week or so ago)
generating more fertilizer explosives than Tim McVey and plotting to
behead the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no inherent reason why
genealogy must be intrinsically linked to such communities. For the
majority of the history of genealogy, no such "online communities"
existed.
Further, you are making the correlation:causation fallacy. There is not
the slightest bit of evidence that the growth in DNA studies has the
slightest thing to do with how frequently people use on-line
genealogical sites and 'build communities' there. (In fact, there are
communities centered around such family DNA studies, so your claim that
it fails to build such connections is counter-factual.)
You don't like a logical scientific conclusion of molecular phylogeny as
applied to the human species, so therefor any use of DNA analysis is
EVIL. If anyone or anything disagrees with you they are not only wrong
but a threat to all right-thinking people (i.e. those who agree with
you). This is the logic that contributed to many a devoutly religious
person being burned at the stake by others who considered themselves
more devout.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
. . .
a death sentence to modern genealogical
research standards, using individual senior citizens
in society worldwide to collect the data; they, thus
paying the graveyard bill for the demise of valid
studies in family history.
You didn't appreciate the implications of the analysis you yourself
cited above. Even were that analysis valid (which it isn't), it shows
no decrease, but rather an increase in the application of traditional
practices to genealogy. No graveyard here. No death sentence.
REPLY:
According to a report by JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
June 22, 2006; Page D1, of The Wall Street Journal
Online, "In 2003, the last year for which the data
is available, the Pew Internet & American Life
Project found that 24% of Internet users researched
their family history or genealogy online. But in
the past few years, traffic at genealogy Web sites
has begun dropping. Nine million people visited
online genealogy Web sites last month, down from
10.5 million in May of 2005, according to comScore
Networks Inc., a research firm."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... ff_article
Perhaps I am missing something. You consider the internet to fall into
the category of traditional genealogical sources? That is a rather
unusual way of viewing the genealogical tradition.
As the use of DNA for genealogy research continues
to expand in costs applied, the time honored
sources of primary evidence are being supplanted.
You keep saying this, as if by simple repetition it will come to be
true. The only "time honored sources" the use of which you cite as
declining is the WWW, which could only be considered time-honored by
someone younger than 12.
Thomas H. Roderick, PhD, Center for Human Genetics,
reveals the total contradiction: "By adding DNA
analysis to our armamentarium of genealogical tools
. . . "provide understandings of relationships prior
to the historical record and to provide insights
into our Y line and M line ethnic heritage."
http://genealogy.about.com/library/auth ... rick1f.htm
Tell me. Why did you choose to remove the second half of the first
sentence of his quote? and replace it with the second half of a
completely different sentence? Did the fact that he directly
contradicted your thesis in that first sentence have something to do
with it?
"By adding DNA analysis to our armamentarium of genealogical tools, we
are not supplanting any of the time honored sources of primary evidence
such as deeds, wills, church and cemetery records, etc"
To splice together sentence fragments, removed from their context, and
use it to support something other than that which the author intended is
incredibly dishonest.
"From anthropological and genetic evidence, it is
believed [secular religion] that Y Adam lived in
"Secular religion" is like 'active quiescence' or 'intoxicated
sobriety': it is an oxymoron of the type usually used by someone who
doesn't understand the meanings of the words he is using, or doesn't
care that he is misusing them.
Africa about 144,000 years ago, give or take about
10,000 years. This was a time when the human
population in Africa numbered about 2,000 breeding
individuals and probably fewer than 10,000 total."
This does not properly reconstruct and correctly
portray real historical lives and family pedigrees.
It isn't intended to portray a historical life nor a family pedigree -
it is a phylogenetic construct and dates to prehistoric times.
This is like being duped by some business that
creates and markets fake medieval coats of arms:
No, it's not. That it fraud. Y-Adam is the result of performing a
scientific analysis and reaching the conclusion that leads inextricably
from that analysis, like it or not.
any theory in, any secular religious statistics out.
Again with the moronic oxymoron.
As I said before, you are free to stick your fingers in your ears and
hum as loud as you can, but "I don't want the result to be true" is an
insufficient argument by which to reject it AS science - all you can do
is reject scientific reality itself in favor of some alternative reality.
This information does not emotionally bond fathers
to sons or mothers to daughters; nor, assist in the
uniting of genealogical families, living and dead;
or, increase esteem, character traits, personal
self worth and individual identity.
Amen. Pass the collection plate.
This is reminiscent of the tradition about the destruction of the
Library at Alexandria - "everything also found in the Koran is
redundant; everything not found in the Koran is superfluous". Sorry to
disappoint you, but these are not the criteria of science, nor of
traditional "time honored" genealogical practices.
Heck, based on these criteria, I'm not sure that ice cream even exists.
It severs the
field of genealogy and family history from modern
online Social Networking and Community interests.
"Modern online Social Networking and Community interests" also include
child pornography, neo-Nazism and (as we learned a week or so ago)
generating more fertilizer explosives than Tim McVey and plotting to
behead the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no inherent reason why
genealogy must be intrinsically linked to such communities. For the
majority of the history of genealogy, no such "online communities"
existed.
Further, you are making the correlation:causation fallacy. There is not
the slightest bit of evidence that the growth in DNA studies has the
slightest thing to do with how frequently people use on-line
genealogical sites and 'build communities' there. (In fact, there are
communities centered around such family DNA studies, so your claim that
it fails to build such connections is counter-factual.)
You don't like a logical scientific conclusion of molecular phylogeny as
applied to the human species, so therefor any use of DNA analysis is
EVIL. If anyone or anything disagrees with you they are not only wrong
but a threat to all right-thinking people (i.e. those who agree with
you). This is the logic that contributed to many a devoutly religious
person being burned at the stake by others who considered themselves
more devout.
taf
-
V. Chris and Tom Tinney,
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
"quagmire" is shown in Google Scholar, used "about 11,600" times;
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=quagmire+
"about 1,500 for quagmires"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... tnG=Search
"scientist + quagmire" "about 3,060" times.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... t+quagmire
Current "QUAGMIRE": "Unlike theories in physics,
however, evolutionary theories are not based on
mathematically precise laws of nature but on
mathematical descriptions of idealized systems
from which known complexities have been excised.
Thus no unifying 'theory of everything' lies just
beyond the horizon of evolutionary theory."
February 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 2 BioScience 97
http://www.biosciencemag.org
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~getz/Repri ... osci06.pdf
So we return to Sir Thomas More and idealized
places and social systems we call Utopias, the
imaginary islands in the modern mathematical mind.
[One of the most common ways medieval intellectuals
described their society was to divide it into three
groups: "those who work, those who fight, and those
who pray." Used by kings and clergymen, this three-
part system reflected an idealized view of the roles
of medieval peasants, nobles, and clergy.]
http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwa ... ylife.html
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
"Despite the quagmire in which their present
efforts have landed them, biologists have not
in any way despaired of confirming the conventional
thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural
chemical processes." http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm
[rearranged for clarity]
Not that it is on-topic for this group, but this is an example where a
New York Times writer tried to 'spice things up'. There is no quagmire
and there wasn't at the time he wrote the article. There never was one
and things have only become more clear in the intervening 8 years. God
only knows why he chose that word, but no scientist would have. The
failure of a journalist to understand science (or to use more
appropriate language to describe it) is not a failure of the science
itself.
REPLY:
"quagmire" is shown in Google Scholar, used "about 11,600" times;
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=quagmire+
"about 1,500 for quagmires"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... tnG=Search
"scientist + quagmire" "about 3,060" times.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... t+quagmire
Current "QUAGMIRE": "Unlike theories in physics,
however, evolutionary theories are not based on
mathematically precise laws of nature but on
mathematical descriptions of idealized systems
from which known complexities have been excised.
Thus no unifying 'theory of everything' lies just
beyond the horizon of evolutionary theory."
February 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 2 BioScience 97
http://www.biosciencemag.org
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~getz/Repri ... osci06.pdf
So we return to Sir Thomas More and idealized
places and social systems we call Utopias, the
imaginary islands in the modern mathematical mind.
[One of the most common ways medieval intellectuals
described their society was to divide it into three
groups: "those who work, those who fight, and those
who pray." Used by kings and clergymen, this three-
part system reflected an idealized view of the roles
of medieval peasants, nobles, and clergy.]
http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwa ... ylife.html
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
{both editions]
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
How could this be relevant by any stretch of the imagination? I didn't
say that the word "quagmire" doesn't exist nor that it does not
accurately describe certain things, only that it was not an accurate
description of genomic molecular phylogeny as it related in 1998 to the
Archaea/prokaryote/eukaryote split, and it is much, much less accurate
in describing it now. Google could have a billion pages with the word
"quagmire" and that doesn't change the fact that this Times writer
didn't understand that of which he wrote, or that you understand it even
less.
And "scientist + accurate" appears 115,000 times; "science + truth"
444,000 times; "god + evil" 145,000 times; "Google + inaccurate" 29,100
times, "stupid + idiot" 4500 times; "yellow + submarine" 75,000 times,
"yak + scat" 193 times; "Satan + bubblegum" 60 times and "Tinney +
erroneous" 75 times. So what!?!?!
What is your point? What is the relevance to genealogy?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
"Despite the quagmire in which their present
efforts have landed them, biologists have not
in any way despaired of confirming the conventional
thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural
chemical processes." http://www.samsloan.com/eukarya.htm
[rearranged for clarity]
Not that it is on-topic for this group, but this is an example where a
New York Times writer tried to 'spice things up'. There is no
quagmire and there wasn't at the time he wrote the article. There
never was one and things have only become more clear in the
intervening 8 years. God only knows why he chose that word, but no
scientist would have. The failure of a journalist to understand
science (or to use more appropriate language to describe it) is not a
failure of the science itself.
REPLY:
"quagmire" is shown in Google Scholar, used "about 11,600" times;
How could this be relevant by any stretch of the imagination? I didn't
say that the word "quagmire" doesn't exist nor that it does not
accurately describe certain things, only that it was not an accurate
description of genomic molecular phylogeny as it related in 1998 to the
Archaea/prokaryote/eukaryote split, and it is much, much less accurate
in describing it now. Google could have a billion pages with the word
"quagmire" and that doesn't change the fact that this Times writer
didn't understand that of which he wrote, or that you understand it even
less.
"about 1,500 for quagmires"
"scientist + quagmire" "about 3,060" times.
And "scientist + accurate" appears 115,000 times; "science + truth"
444,000 times; "god + evil" 145,000 times; "Google + inaccurate" 29,100
times, "stupid + idiot" 4500 times; "yellow + submarine" 75,000 times,
"yak + scat" 193 times; "Satan + bubblegum" 60 times and "Tinney +
erroneous" 75 times. So what!?!?!
What is your point? What is the relevance to genealogy?
taf