BTW You should do a search in this forum there have been many discussion on this topic.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Assumptions are only as good as the information base from which one is working.
In order to make the claim that they know the origins of the human specie, they would have to have the remains of the very first person, as in origins. The oldest human remains to date was found in African, but that does not mean they are the oldest or that the oldest will ever be found. To be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there.
Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
lol
Posted by mike rozier (Member # 10852) on :
I'd say jen was right on that one.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Yeap. Would explain why contemporary non-African gene pools are a subset of contemporary African gene pool. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
Her assertions to the contrary would be meaningless by her own "mis"-logic, as by defintion she would not have existed [other than as a mindless sperm tadpole] at the time that I impregnated her mother.
Nor can she appeal to her mother's "opinion" - equally meaningless, as Jennifer cannot personally verify it based her own observation.
At best she can 'assume' her mother is telling the truth.
Paternity test?
Nah, that's back to genetics again, and genetics cannot be utilized: to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, because one has to have been there.
^So sayeth the troll squad of Jennifer and MIke.
Glad we settled that. Posted by mike rozier (Member # 10852) on :
we won't even go into the problems of carbon dateing..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Too bad, I was looking forward to your explanation of what that has to do with genetics and molecular dating.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
Her assertions to the contrary would be meaningless by her own "mis"-logic, as by defintion she would not have existed [other than as a mindless sperm tadpole] at the time that I impregnated her mother.
Nor can she appeal to her mother's "opinion" - equally meaningless, as Jennifer cannot personally verify it based her own observation.
At best she can 'assume' her mother is telling the truth.
Paternity test?
Nah, that's back to genetics again, and genetics cannot be utilized: to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, because one has to have been there.
^So sayeth the troll squad of Jennifer and MIke.
Glad we settled that.
^^ROTFLH Rasol, that cracked me up until I almost had tears!
quote: ^ Too bad, I was looking forward to your explanation of what that has to do with genetics and molecular dating.
LOL Ras, I think they've had enough.
Unless Jen finds it discomforting to have black ancestry or worse, Jewish ancestry...
or worst of all BLACK JEWISH ancestry!
Perhaps you can get a genetics test, Jen. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Djehuti,
The same logic behind the DNA code that created your eye created a dog's eye. Do you find it discomforting to know that you are related to a dog?
Posted by IIla (Member # 10772) on :
^^ I think you touched a nerve DJ. I personally am comforted by the idea of being related to my dog!
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
IIla : you touched a nerve DJ.
Why, I was just showing the reality that every living organism is related through our DNA code.
Posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE (Member # 9831) on :
quote:Originally posted by IIla: ^^ I think you touched a nerve DJ. I personally am comforted by the idea of being related to my dog!
cute dog Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
lololol Thats jokes.
i think my first response (to just laugh) answers jenitroll’s comments. Because its just comedy.
She can’t really take herself seriously can she?
Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
quote:Originally posted by mike rozier: we won't even go into the problems of carbon dateing..
dont even know what to say to this. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Djehuti,
The same logic behind the DNA code that created your eye created a dog's eye. Do you find it discomforting to know that you are related to a dog?
No, I don't. Of course I'm far closer related to chimpanzee than a dog and far closer related to a black African than that!
Better yet, how do YOU feel about being related to a black African? Do YOU find it discomforting to know that you are related to a black person??
Are you comparing somehow comparing being related to a dog with being related to a black person??
quote: Why, I was just showing the reality that every living organism is related through our DNA code.
Of course, but some things are related MORE than others. Again, do you deny being far more related to a black person than a dog or an ape??
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Djehuti : how do YOU feel about being related to a black African?
The question is meaningless, because I am related to every living organism which is DNA based, so naturally I am related to Every black African. I'm even related to you.
The only thing that separates us all, is our standards, values, and beliefs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^LOL Your answer is meaningless, because you are CLOSER related to some organisms than others, and CLOSEST related to other humans still. It's been proven that all non-African human DNA is descended from a small subset of East African DNA. So you can self medicate yourself by claiming relations to dogs, mushrooms, and amoeba all you want. As far as YOUR standards, values, and beliefs, we know where you stand.
Oh, and I'm not black by the way (or Jewish). Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Djehuti: It's been proven that all non-African human DNA is descended from a small subset of East African DNA.
The fact that all humans can procreate, means there are no mutually exclusive group (races) and that we all have a common origin. The human specie, as a group, contains 100% of all genetic variation. To make a claim that a specific sub-group is the origin of all other groups, that sub-group would have to contain 100% of all genetic variation.
Where is the proof?
By their own claim of the human population into subdivisions according to Africa, Asia, Europe : 85 to 90% of genetic variation exists within in these subdivisions and only 10 to 15% variation exists between them; an African does not contain 100% of all genetic variation. Therefore, group dynamics does not support an African origin of modern humans.
The same problem with claiming the concept of race is true, is with the claim "a race" African is the origin of the human specie.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^^Nonsense!
Guess you weren't aware that the paternal lines of all non-African groups lead back to M168 mutation from African migrants into Eurasia, AND that all non-African materal lines are derivatives of the African L3.
Hint: The aforementioned are but a subset of African gene pool.
Proof enough - no? What do you have to offer to the contrary?
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Group dynamics proves that the genetic evidence does not support that African is the origins of the human specie and to be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there. Conclusions are only as good as the input.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Is this supposed to challenge or address what I just mentioned...how do explain the phenomenon I just brought to your attention, presuming you understand the implications?
Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: ...to be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there.
once again, LOL
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
redShift, it doesn't surprise me of your lack of understanding that to know the truth of a phenomenon, one has to have been there, beings the liar that you are.
redShift : person who actually created that picture stopped posting here so I doubt he agrees with that cartoon or anything written by her. ...he found this picture posted by her
Redshift, you are inferring that I created that picture and posted it on individual rights. Both are false, which means you are a liar. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar, sorry, I had edited my post while you were posting your reply.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Making conclusions about a puzzle with having only a small percentage of the pieces only makes a liar out of you. Take Moses for an example; In his pure ignorance time has proved him to be a Liar!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar, sorry, I had edited my post while you were posting your reply.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Wrong; Lol. Paternal and maternal lines are based on DNA samplings of contemporary global human populations, comprising individuals who are descendants of a male human ancestor and a female human ancestor, who in turn have their respective ancestors likewise.
Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
ok… but not being there is not a response to the point made about L3 connection. I am interested to know about this also.
to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there.
lol
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Paternal and maternal lines are due to genealogical information and bones. Without the genealogical information and bones, paternal and maternal lines are incomplete and give false conclusions.
Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA. Lineage back to the beginning of time is impossible.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Djehuti : As far as YOUR standards, values, and beliefs, we know where you stand.
Yes, I promote in individualism, where the individual has the right and freedom to establish their own standards and values in the pursuit of the truth.
It is only a sick hate-mongering tyrant that uses their group mentality claiming to represent a group to subvert truth and the individual rights and sovereignty of the individual, for their own personal benefit.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Paternal and maternal lines are due to genealogical information and bones. Without the genealogical information and bones, paternal and maternal lines are incomplete and give false conclusions.
How so? Y-chromosomes are only transmitted through males, and mtDNA only through females. So, please explain how this would be incomplete, when these can lead us to singular specific lines of ancestry! I mean, everyone has to have a mother and a father - no?
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar : how this would be incomplete
Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA which means there are 1,048,576 lines. mtDNA represents only one line in a pedigree chart. Just as your "Last Name" represents only one line in the pedigree chart. Every line is as important as another line to tell the whole story. Again, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth is important.
It would be like reading a 1,048,576 paged book with only 40 pages.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Again, everyone has a mother and a father. Everyone has mtDNA, but which leads us to a singular ancestor, since it is only transmitted through the mother. Similarly for a male, the Y-chromosome leads to a singular line of ancestry, since only a father transmits this. So a sampled population, naturally comprising males and females, will be able to track ancestral lines through these singular lines of ancestry. You have not still explained how this would be incomplete. If there were other lines of male ancestry in a given population, it will be revealed through the available Y chromosomes in the samples. The same can be said of mtDNA.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar, I'm not claiming that the Y-chromosome and mtDNA doesn't provide important information. I'm claiming it doesn't provide 100% of the information to be able to make the claimes they make. Have you ever seen a pedigree chart? 2 lines out of 1,048,576 lines in only 20 generations is incomplete in anyone's book.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson:
Supercar, I'm not claiming that the Y-chromosome and mtDNA doesn't provide important information. I'm claiming it doesn't provide 100% of the information to be able to make the claimes they make. Have you ever seen a pedigree chart? 2 lines out of 1,048,576 lines in only 20 generations is incomplete in anyone's book.
I initially edited this into my earlier post, but taking into consideration your last post, I decided to make a new post out of it.
This is the point you are missing:
If we were to assume that one male produced four female offsprings with one female, and no male offsprings, and then, each of these four female offsprings produced both male and female offsprings with males bearing Y chromosomes of different mrca from that of the father of the aforementioned four female offsprings, the Y-chromosome line of the father of the four female offsprings will be drifted out in their offsprings, but their mtDNA line can be traced back to the mother of those four female offspring. The male offsprings of those four female offsprings will reveal both the male line of ancestry of the males with whom the four females produced those offsprings, as well as the mtDNA of those four females.
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
If two people have the same Mitochondrial DNA, all it means is, they had one common female ancestor, with no evidence of who all the other progenitors are. Example: Two half sisters can have different mtDNA.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: If two people have the same Mitochondrial DNA, all it means is, they had one common female ancestor, with no evidence of who all the other progenitors are. Example: Two half sisters can have different mtDNA.
Needless to say, that you have not read my last post, but I'll repeat this portion of it to you, and see if you'll deliver:
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar,
Important to this discussion is to have seen a pedigree chart and to understand the representation of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA to the chart. Have you seen a pedigree chart?
No, the burden of proof, is for you to show us a pedigree chart that represents 100% of one's lineage.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar,
Important to this discussion is to have seen a pedigree chart and to understand the representation of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA to the chart. Have you seen a pedigree chart?
Lol. Have you seen Y-chromosome charts, and mtDNA charts constructed from world wide human population samplings? Have you seen a male that cannot be traced back to a singular line of male ancestry, or human, that cannot be traced back to a singular line of maternal ancestry?
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
I didn't think you had. Check one out and get back to me.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Check one out and get back to me.
...on what has been addressed two posts ago of mine, which you haven't apparently either read or simply did not understand to realize that your so-called request had been addressed even before you thought of it - Why? If you didn't understand, simply ask.
"If we were to assume that one male produced four female offsprings with one female, and no male offsprings, and then, each of these four female offsprings produced both male and female offsprings with males bearing Y chromosomes of different mrca from that of the father of the aforementioned four female offsprings, the Y-chromosome line of the father of the four female offsprings will be drifted out in their offsprings, but their mtDNA line can be traced back to the mother of those four female offspring. The male offsprings of those four female offsprings will reveal both the male line of ancestry of the males with whom the four females produced those offsprings, as well as the mtDNA of those four females."
What does the above mean?
How about now addressing what was requested of you, i.e.:
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage.
Where is that burden of proof?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
It's been an awfully long time, for our scientifically illiterate Jen to deliver. I knew a copout was in order, sooner or later. In this case, it has been sooner. Lol.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar : What does the above mean?
You tell me, you wrote it.
Supercar : mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry
Exactly, based on bones claimed to be the oldest. The only problem is, there are more than "only one" example of Mitochondrial DNA, which is what they claim can be traced to singular lines of ancestry.
Example: Take only three generations of a female. There are a possibility of three different mtDNA, but only one is reflected in the female. All three are as relevant as the one.
Again, check out a pedigree chart to see all the information that is lost, by claiming that only the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are the important links.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar : What does the above mean?
You tell me, you wrote it.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that you have no clue, and hence, no need to even go further.
Ps - Familiarize yourself with Y chromosome and mtDNA charts, and basics [clades and clusters] involved. Then, come and discuss, to see if you still can't comprehend.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
All you have proved is you haven't made any sense to me and you can't or won't clarity yourself, so I can. If you don't care why should I?
If two half sisters can have different mtDNA. then how can anyone make the claim there is only one single mtDNA ( a singular lines of ancestry)?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Other than Jen, who is incapable of reading and understanding everything I posted herein?
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Intelligence is the ability to take a complex topic and make them simple for anyone to understand.
Just as it is physically impossible to be in two places at one time, it is physically impossible for the mtDNA of every female to be represented in one singular lines of ancestry (only one mtDNA).
BTW, that is check mate. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^^Lol! Boy, you crack me up with the therapeutic satifaction you hope to gain from mental instability, thinking that a false-sense of accomplishment or lying to yourself, will hide your embarrassing utter illiteracy on the the subject matter at hand. But no matter...
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Intelligence is the ability to take a complex topic and make them simple for anyone to understand.
No one else but you, has a problem of understanding what was said, unless of course, one [like you] is too scientifically illiterate to do so. However, let's test your intelligence, while I explain in the most basic terms or dumb things down for you:
Step 1: You have a man (Y1) and a female(X1)...you with me? I hope so.
Step 2: Male Y1 produces four daughters with female X1. Now, Male Y1's Y-chromosome happens to be of E3b1, while the mtDNA of his female partner, X1, happens to be L1a2.
Step 3: The four daughters of male Y1 and female X1 are termed as d1, d2, d3, and d4.
Step 4: Daughters d1, d2, d3, and d4 don't carry Y-chromosomes, since they are females, and therefore cannot transmit their fathers Y-chromosome of E3b1.
But d1, d2, d3 and d4 will carry female X1's mtDNA of L1a2, since they can only receive from their mother, female X1, and NOT that of their father, male Y1.
Males Y2, Y3, Y4, and Y5 carry R1a, R1b, J2, and E3a respectively.
Step 6:
Supposing the couple male Y2 and daughter d1 had one male offspring (b1), and one female offspring (g1).
Male offspring b1 will carry R1a as well as L1a2. The R1a of this male offspring, was transmitted from Y2, while the L1a2 was transmitted from female d1.
Female Offspring g1, will only carry an X chromosome from male Y2, but will still receive mtDNA only from female d1, which again, is L1a2.
Repeating the same senarios with the other females, i.e. d2, d3, and d4 with males Y3, Y4 and Y5, it is clear that their respective male offsprings will only carry the respective Y-chromosomes of Y3, Y4 and Y5, while mtDNA will exclusively come from their respective female partners, d1, d3 & d4.
Hence, none of these male offsprings of Y3, Y4 and Y5 will carry the E3b1 of male Y1, the father of their female partners. But these male offsprings will carry L1a2, from male Y1 and female X1's daughters. The L1a2 can easily be traced back to female X1, since she is the one who transmitted it to daughter d1, d2, d3 and d4.
The end result: Genetic drift has ensured that Male Y1's E3b1, has been lost in his 4 grandsons, but female X1's L1a2 have been preserved in those 4 male grandson offsprings.
On the same token, the Y-chromosomes of the fathers of the 4 males, i.e. Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 have been preserved in the son's of Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5. But the respective mtDNA of Y5, Y3, Y4 and Y5 have not been preserved, since they cannot transmit mtDNA.
The respective daughters and sons of Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 will all trace their mtDNA back to female X1, since they all produced offsprings with the four daughters of female X1.
In the end, entire populations will reveal the prevalent Y-chromosomes and mtDNA; All such Y-chromosomes and mtDNA have been shown to have derived from an ancestor in Africa. So, even if male X1's E3b1 was not perserved because he only had daughters, his male siblings who do have male offsprings, will have preserved E3b1.
If you still can't understand what was just said, you might want to take up elementary school reading lessons. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Man (Y1) and female (X2) with different mtDNA have a female offspring (g4) that has a offspring with (Y9)with different Y-chromosomes than (Y1); which is also a female (g5) that has different mtDNA than (X1)and has a boy (b5) that has a differnt Y-chromosomes than (Y1). According to Supercar convoluted mind this can't happen, so therefore doesn't carry the prevalent Y-chromosomes and mtDNA which is derived from an ancestor in Africa. So according to Supercar, (g5) and (b5) are either non-human, an alien, or Supercar scenario is as false as he's belief that there is only one line of Mitochondrial DNA.
Supercar : The end result: Genetic drift has ensured that Male Y1's E3b1, has been lost in his 4 grandsons, but female X1's L1a2 have been preserved in those 4 male grandson offsprings.
Translation: incomplete information makes false assumptions.
Just as it is physically impossible to be in two places at one time, it is physically impossible for the mtDNA of every female to be represented in one singular lines of ancestry (only one mtDNA).
You can't defy the laws of physics. It is still check mate. Posted by mike rozier (Member # 10852) on :
jen, are you really a nazi?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Man (Y1) and female (X2) with different mtDNA have a female offspring (g4) that has a offspring with (Y9)with different Y-chromosomes than (Y1); which is also a female (g5) that has different mtDNA than (X1)and has a boy (b5) that has a differnt Y-chromosomes than (Y1). According to Supercar convoluted mind this can't happen, so therefore doesn't carry prevalent the Y-chromosomes and mtDNA which is derived from an ancestor in Africa.
First of all, you are absent minded enough to perhaps not even understand what it is you just said, much less, placing those words into my mouth [since the above is your own analysis and not mine] and then claiming to understand them.
To help you understand your own scenario, let me do the honors:
You are supposing that the 'same' male Y1 was with a different woman, which I presume you meant was the one with a "different" mtDNA. You go onto say that they have a daughter g4. g4 in turn has another daughter with a male Y9.
Presuming English isn't your first language, you claim that g4 has a offspring with male Y9, a female g5...only to then claim that she has another offspring, a boy b5. Are you implying that the boy b5 isn't the son of male Y9, or again, is it a product of bad English on your part? Lol.
Anyway, you go onto to say that b5 doesn't have the same Y chromosome as Y1. Well, duh, of course b5 won't have the same paternal lineage as Y1, since b5's father had a different paternal mrca from that of Y1, assuming the father was Y9 according to your logic. So, from your low attention span, what mtDNA do you think, based on your own scenario, which you have tried to pass as my own, g4 and g5 should reveal? And why should that revelation be deemed not possible? Now, who's the convoluted-minded crackpot.
quote:Jen: So according to Supercar, (g5) and (b5) are either non-human, an alien, or Supercar scenario is as false as he's belief that there is only one line of Mitochondrial DNA.
Produce the citation where I said what you claim I've said above, or failure to do so, will be your admission that you are helpless illiterate liar. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
No Mike, I'm not a Neo-Jew.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Supercar,
No your scenario is that information is lost. There is NO information that is lost; Only the fallibility of your method of coming to a false conclusion. If you understood that a pedigree chart provides 100% of the information, which you do not have, then we would not be having this discussion.
Please check out a pedigree chart.
Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Sorry Supercar, I stand corrected.
I should have said : So according to Supercar's convoluted thinking, (g5) and (b5) are either non-human, an alien, or Supercar scenario is as false as he's belief that there is only one line of Mitochondrial DNA.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Jen: So according to Supercar, (g5) and (b5) are either non-human, an alien, or Supercar scenario is as false as he's belief that there is only one line of Mitochondrial DNA.
Produce the citation where I said what you claim I've said above, or failure to do so, will be your admission that you are helpless illiterate liar.
It is official; Jen is a clueless liar. That would bring us to the answer of Mike's question to her; she's a lying neo-nazi. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Sorry Supercar, I stand corrected.
I should have said : So according to Supercar's convoluted thinking, (g5) and (b5) are either non-human, an alien, or Supercar scenario is as false as he's belief that there is only one line of Mitochondrial DNA.
Illiterate Jen, how can you claim something is according to my thinking, when you are analyzing your own scenario, NOT mine. Get brains, man.
You couldn't even answer the basic questions I posed to you, about your own scenario. That is how much dense you are.
Matter of fact, what Y chromosome did g4 and g5 carry? Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
Your scenario presented your thinking. Are you going to take back your scenario now? g5 has the mtDNA of X2 and b5 has the Y-chromosomes of Y9 which is not the same as Y1 or X2 which is according to you the singular lines of ancestry in Africa.
So what line are they? Only the pedigree chart provides 100% of the information.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Your scenario presented your thinking. Are you going to take back your scenario now?
What is there to take back?
quote:Jen:
g5 has the mtDNA of X2 and b5 has the Y-chromosomes of Y9 which is not the same as Y1 or X2 which is according to you the singular lines of ancestry in Africa.
What Y chromosome does X2 carry and what mtDNA does b5 carry?
quote:Jen: So what line are they?
Indeed. I hope your answer to the above question, will help us have a clue, as to whether you have a clue. Posted by Jenifer Johnson (Member # 11152) on :
JJ: So what line are they? Supercar: Indeed. I hope your answer to the above question, will help us have a clue, as to whether you have a clue.
That was a trick question. Going back to the beginning of time, how does all the lines converge into one line? It doesn't, because there isn't just one line. Your scenario of lost information is due to what a JOKE your methodology is.
Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA which means there are 1,048,576 lines.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: JJ: So what line are they? Supercar: Indeed. I hope your answer to the above question, will help us have a clue, as to whether you have a clue.
That was a trick question.
Wow, who was supposed to fall for it; you?
quote: Jen: Going back to the beginning of time, how does all the lines converge into one line? It doesn't, because there isn't just one line. Your scenario of lost information is due to what a JOKE your methodology is.
Man, even after dumbing down the subject to the most basic levels, you are still simply too retarded to discuss or to be taught genealogical issues. Plus, too illiterate to even interpret what was said correctly.
Come on and entertain us, as the butt of jokes you are: what can you tell us about NRY lineage you carry; Hitler’s or some dirt-cheap Heidi Fleiss wannabe? Lol.
Posted by redShift (Member # 11143) on :
Hitler’s or some dirt-cheap Heidi Fleiss wannabe?
lol
omg I missed all this. Trick questions and all. lol. I knew she wouldn’t have any response other then mindless banter.
But like I said, it is good entertainment.
Posted by Serpent Wizdom (Member # 7652) on :
"Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA which means there are 1,048,576 lines" as quoted by J.J.
For someone (myself) who know nothing about the subject of Genetics and DNA, I do know that what you just proposed up above is redicules, almost insane to say the least.
You need to show some scientific genetic research material to try to back up what you are saying here; Perhaps YOUR pedigree chart will help? Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Jennifer has discovered the magic of math.
2 to the 20th power = 1,048,576.
But she fails the test of elementary logic - she assumes each successive generation of parents are completely unrelated to each other, a common error.
Usually with children, they can be made to see this error as they continue to play the math game:
After 40 generations [only 1000~ years]-> you have over 1 trillion ancestors.
Now...children are smart, they almost immediately understand what went wrong.
All of these 'ancestors' in the above math formula are presumed to be unrelated.
That is 'not' the case.
So the formula is wrong.
The further back one goes in time, the more one's ancestors are related - the numbers dwindle and do not multiply outward linearly.
100~kya the entire human population numbered at most, a few 10s of thousands of Africans.
And there are no humans anywhere else other than Africa at this time, only primitive hominids such as Neanderthal classified as other species.
Now whereas children can understand the above, there are special breeds of 'adult' who go right on factoring by 2, completely oblivious to the ridiculous results. They can do math - yet they cannot think.
The lesson is: It's takes experience and practice to become really, really dense. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Jenifer tried to dodge the bullet, unsuccessfully though, since people have noticed it; the question still stands:
Name just a single lineage extracted from any contemporary human population on this planet, which has not ultimately been traced back to an ancestor in Africa!
^Brief us on what reason was provided for this conclusion.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar,
No your scenario is that information is lost. There is NO information that is lost; Only the fallibility of your method of coming to a false conclusion.
Illiteracy on the matter at hand, can be a very dangerous thing, as Jenifer has amply demonstrated here. I said in my example, that a male who had exclusively 4 daughters and no sons, would not have been able to transmit his Y chromosomes onto his daughters. Hence, any male offsprings his 4 daughters have, will not necessarily share TMRCA with the said man, unless of course the said man shares TMRCA with any of his daughters' male partners/husbands.
If none of his daughters' male partners/husbands share TMRCA with the man, then the man's Y lineage will not be revealed from testing his grandsons via his four daughters. The genetic drift here, is not my scenario; it is a fact of biology.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: The fact that all humans can procreate, means there are no mutually exclusive group (races) and that we all have a common origin. The human specie, as a group, contains 100% of all genetic variation. To make a claim that a specific sub-group is the origin of all other groups, that sub-group would have to contain 100% of all genetic variation.
As usual, you make no sense. The older the population the more, genetic diversity it has. Africans have the most genetic diversity but this doesn't mean non-Africans have no genetic diversity of their own.
quote:Where is the proof?
Right here:
GENETIC ANALYSIS OF AFRICAN POPULATIONS: HUMAN EVOLUTION AND COMPLEX DISEASE
Sarah A. Tishkoff * and Scott M.Williams
The primary split between Africans and non- African populations is estimated to have occurred from 44,000 to 200,000 years before present (yr BP)22,27,33,41,45.An analysis of nuclear autosomal haplotype variability at three genes — CD4,myotonic dystrophy 1 (DM1) and tissue plasminogen activator(PLAT) — in the same set of 33 globally diverse populations,found that all non-African populations have a similar pattern of haplotype variability. They also have a subset of the haplotypic variability that is present in Ethiopian and Somalian populations, which is, in itself, a subset of the variability that is present in other sub-Saharan African populations27,29,30. These observations indicate that populations in northeast Africa might have diverged from the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeast African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe (FIG. 2). Analysis of mtDNA18,20,21,40 and Ychromosome diversity24–26,46 support a single East African source of migration out of Africa.
quote:By their own claim of the human population into subdivisions according to Africa, Asia, Europe : 85 to 90% of genetic variation exists within in these subdivisions and only 10 to 15% variation exists between them; an African does not contain 100% of all genetic variation. Therefore, group dynamics does not support an African origin of modern humans.
Group dynamics nothing. Nobody said Africans contain "100%" genetic variation but they do carry the most. As Super says, A man and woman carry genetic lineages that are passed down to their offspring. Science has found a way to trace these lineages.
quote:The same problem with claiming the concept of race is true, is with the claim "a race" African is the origin of the human specie.
Nope. "Race" has nothing to do with it! ALL humans originated from Africa regardless of their phenotypic features.
quote:"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Speculation on what remains haven't been found cannot help you. What matters is that we have analyzed the genetic lineages of living populations.
I find it hilarious that via genetic science you accept the fact that we are all related to other organisms including dogs yet you reject the fact of our common African ancestry that has been concluded from the same science!
quote:Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA which means there are 1,048,576 lines. mtDNA represents only one line in a pedigree chart. Just as your "Last Name" represents only one line in the pedigree chart. Every line is as important as another line to tell the whole story. Again, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth is important.
That "one line" is enough in surmising geneology. Mitochondrial DNA has a steady mutation rate which can be traced from one generation to the next. As far as all the other "lines" in the form of autosomal DNA they show the exact same thing-- African origins!
quote:Important to this discussion is to have seen a pedigree chart and to understand the representation of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA to the chart. Have you seen a pedigree chart?
No, the burden of proof, is for you to show us a pedigree chart that represents 100% of one's lineage.
Here is the ultimate pedigree chart:
As you can see, BOTH mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam come from AFRICA.
This FACT is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists and even many laymen.
Why isn't it accepted by you??
Perhaps because you feel rather preturbed about having black Ancestry...
She is mother of us all...
quote:...to be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there.
ROTFL You obviously cannot see the absurdity in this statement. As Rasol says, for one to know YOUR origins one would have to been present at your conception and watch both your father and mother concieve you. Other than that, we don't know who your parents were! Obviously DNA tests on both of them wouldn't be good enough not a mtDNA test from your mother or some autosomal test from your father since you DENY the value of these scientifically valid tests!
quote:Yes, I promote in individualism, where the individual has the right and freedom to establish their own standards and values in the pursuit of the truth.
So do I!! But unfortunately YOU haven't been very truthful Jenny, not to us and certainly not to yourself.
quote:It is only a sick hate-mongering tyrant that uses their group mentality claiming to represent a group to subvert truth and the individual rights and sovereignty of the individual, for their own personal benefit.
I find the "sick hate-mongering" part to be rather funny coming from YOU!:
"Considering it was the Jews that started Political Correctness, it is the Jew that uses the double standard..."
"Judaism is a sick vile pediaphilic degenerate sadistic manipulative egotistical paranoid parasitic communal Jew"
Ironically in your hate filled page you also said: "DNA is the carrier of our genetic information, and is passed down from generation to generation. All of the cells in our b..."
But apparently now you are discounting DNA.
So tell me Jen, what group do YOU represent in your futile quest to subvert truth? A Christian group??
Of course I find it hard to believe a Christian could hate Jews that much, considering that Christianity stems from Judaism with Christ himself being a Jew!
What's even more ironic is while you deny the African ancestry of all peoples including yourself, you may not realize that the great monotheistic traditions of the world-- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which arose among Semitic speaking people of the Middle East, are ultimately descended from Africa also!!
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots Of The Jewish, Christian & Muslim Religions
Ignorance is not so bliss after all. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Mike asks: jen, are you really a nazi?
quote:To which Jeni replies: No Mike, I'm not a Neo-Jew.
So, Jeni equates nazis with jews?!!
As I said, we know where you stand. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
