GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1110738557


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Pseudo-Science, Problematic, Religious & DNA
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:29:17 -0700
References: <031320051812.29820.423482860009FF910000747C2207001641050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


Just one small point. I find David's hypothesis an interesting one, a
testable one, and a plausible one. I just wish after hearing about it for
many months that David would lay out (with the numbers) the evidence he has
collected so far (well aware he is waiting for more) for the hypothesis and
let us see it, rather than just being told its there. Ultimately science is
public and evidence is reproducible or examinable by others.

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Pseudo-Science, Problematic, Religious & DNA


> Doug:
>
> You have done a great job in educating yourself in the basics of the
scientific method, but as a scientist I will argue that you are incorrect in
your statement that we are "stalled" at the hypothesis stage.
>
> As an example, I made an observation that my uncle's Shetland Islands R1a
haplotype had more matches (the numbers are overwhelming) with the Altai
people of Central Asia than any other single group by a long margin. I set
out the hypothesis that this is not a random event, but reflects a genetic
connection extending back 1600 years when he and other Shetlanders and
Norwegians shared ancestors in common with Central Asians. I assembled what
I believe to be a mountain of supporting evidence (even using data such as
the mutation rate in horses to show that the Norse fjord horse is a
descendant of the Mongolian horse and that the dates of coalescence (when
they split) was precisely what I predicted based on my hypothesis). I am
still in the evidence gathering stage.
>
> One key underpinning of my formal hypothesis is that the 19,21 value at
the YCAIa,b marker found in Shetlanders and Norwegians but no where else in
Europe is significant. All my R1a Shelties have this configuration or the
one step mutation 19,20 and yet only the 19,23 pattern has been reported
from Europe outside Norway and her colonies. To support my theory that the
Shetlanders and the Central Asian Altai were descended from the same
ancestors 1600 years ago I hypothesized that the Altai should show at least
some percentage of R1a with the above 19,21 configuration. I made
arrangements with the holder of the database with the Altai samples to test
for this marker and when (if) I receive the results I will have either
supported or failed to support my hypothesis. If the data support the
hypothesis then it adds weight to my theory of a migration of Central Asians
to Scandinavia circa 420. To add weight to the theory I have used
converging data sources from archaeology, h!
> istory, and lingusistics. If this is not science then I don't know what
science is. Hope this helps - it is only one small example of what is going
on in this field.
>
> David F.
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am afraid my main point got obscured by my supporting argument. My
main
> > point was and is that we should maintain an open list. I have personally
> > witnessed cases where someone has the right conclusion for the wrong
> > reasons, and excluding minority or less popular views from the list
could
> > put us in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> >
> > However, regarding my supporting argument, you got me challenged to
review
> > the scientific method. This should be a typical rendering.
> >
> > Scientific Method
> >
> > 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
> >
> > 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent
> > with what you observed.
> >
> > 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
> >
> > 4. Test these predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify
> > the hypothesis in light of your results.
> >
> > 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
hypothesis
> > and experiment or observation.
> >
> > When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and
provides a
> > coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A
theory
> > is then a framework within which observations are explained and
predictions
> > made.
> >
> > We can certainly use the scientific method to the extent possible with
our
> > current findings, but we won't tell much about mutations for example in
the
> > one generation we have here on earth.
> >
> > However here is an example of what I have been referring to, related to
the
> > above.
> >
> > 1. One observes a group of mtDNA signatures.
> >
> > 2. One hypothesizes that the signatures are related to one another in
> > Haplogroup K, Katrine, which originated near what is now Venice, Italy,
> > 17,000 years ago (this is really two hypotheses, that the signatures are
> > related, and about their origin).
> >
> > 3. One predicts that one could observe that any number of persons
sharing
> > these mtDNA signatures can trace their mtDNA lineages back 17,000 years
to
> > pre-Venice, Italy.
> >
> > In my opinion the use of the scientific method stalls at this point,
leaving
> > many of our assumptions in the status of hypotheses.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Rea"
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] Pseudo-Science, Problematic, Religious & DNA
> >
> >
> > > >However the conclusions drawn from those samples' >results and
> > > >relationships
> > > >to one another are not drawn from a laboratory and >never can be. All
> > such
> > > >conclusions are just hypotheses. They can't be >demonstrated,
repeated
> > or
> > > >proven.
> > >
> > > How do you figure that, Doug? Just exactly what do you think the our
DNA
> > > DOES reveal, then? Do you believe that scientists know absolutely
knowing
> > > about what human DNA shows us? How, then, has the human genome been
> > > sequenced? Or do you believe that hasn't happened, as well? Certainly
> > sounds
> > > like a distrust of science to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I did not say that I distrust the scientific method, but did say
that we
> > > > cannot apply the scientific method to DNA research, because to do so
it
> > > > would be necessary to repeat history.
> > > >
> > > > We can certainly learn a lot about our heritages from this process
as
> > long
> > > > as we keep open minds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here, you're not making any sense, Doug. What do you mean we'd have to
> > > "repeat history?" Explain, please. I agree that we can learn a lot
from
> > > science if we keep an open mind. So, why is yours so closed to the
> > realities
> > > of genetic research? I suggest you read up on the subject and learn
how it
> > > all works.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> > > New content added every business day. Learn more:
> > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for
> > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more:
> > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx
> >
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: