It was a birthday present from my mom. It says I'm:
European - 98.7%
Sub-Saharan African - 1.1%
Middle Eastern & North African - < 0.1%
East Asian & Native American - < 0.1%
Unassigned - < 0.1%
My maternal Haplogroup is H.
My paternal Haplogroup is I-P109.
I have 252 Neanderthal variants which is less than 82% of 23andMe customers.
I always knew I was just an old white guy. Now it's official.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 26, 2017, 01:02:31 PM
It was a birthday present from my mom. It says I'm:
European - 98.7%
Sub-Saharan African - 1.1%
Middle Eastern & North African - < 0.1%
East Asian & Native American - < 0.1%
Unassigned - < 0.1%
My maternal Haplogroup is H.
My paternal Haplogroup is I-P109.
I have 252 Neanderthal variants which is less than 82% of 23andMe customers.
I always knew I was just an old white guy. Now it's official.
I got the same last summer. They do a very good job. We have the same maternal Haplogroup (40% of Europeans do) aka H or a sub-variant. I am H1e. My paternal Haplogoup is G2a. Those are the alpha-male, alpha-female parts. The rest of the 45 genes, are autosomal, a mix, which is where you get the regional/ethnic analysis from. This website is very good on European ancestry as genetics:
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/
The I paternal Haplogroup is very ancient ... I1/I2 are W vs E Europe ... and date back to the early Cro-Magnons 40 Kbp. H maternal Haplogroup is a bit more recent, those people got there at the end of the last Ice Age, so they are very late Cro-Magnon ... Mesolithic instead of Paleolithic. Though both are hunter/gatherer. All Cro-Magnons are part Neanderthal. Only pure modern Black Africans are pure homo sapiens. The rest of the world is a natural hybrid of two species, like the lion crossed with the tiger is a Liger. The Bushmen and their relatives of S Africa are the closest in ancestry to the first modern humans (pure strain). The next closest are the Pygmies and their relatives. G2a paternal Haplogroup is from the first farmers, who migrated out of Anatolia all over the rest of Europe, in the Neolithic (which came only after the end of the last Ice Age, after the Mesolithic). For most human beings, when our African ancestors of modern type, first left Africa, they encountered various kinds of Neanderthals, who had been outside Africa for 100s of thousands of years earlier. They got it on, cave man style, not Gangnam style ;-)
My autosomal DNA is all W European (for last 500 years, as far back as they can check). That includes the Ashkenazi Jewish part that I have .. they are European, not Roman period ME. Jews have multiple paternal and maternal lines. The only fairly pure line that can be proven, are the Kohens.
My sister and her husband did that. I can't remember all the detail, but it was mostly a European mix with things that surprised them. I wasn't surprised considering how many generations those things go back.
Everyone is North African apparently. Morocco was the place to be I guess.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 26, 2017, 03:20:45 PM
Everyone is North African apparently. Morocco was the place to be I guess.
My autosome is 100% European. But some Jews did come in via N Africa, during Roman times. N African migration into Europe began during the Neolithic at least ... there were some cattle herders that made it to S Spain, very early. The other Neolithics (my paternal link) had goats and sheep, but not cattle and no horses. The main drive of the cattle/horse people came in, during the Indo-European migration, during the early Bronze Age.
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
My autosome is 100% European. But some Jews did come in via N Africa, during Roman times. N African migration into Europe began during the Neolithic at least ... there were some cattle herders that made it to S Spain, very early. The other Neolithics (my paternal link) had goats and sheep, but not cattle and no horses. The main drive of the cattle/horse people came in, during the Indo-European migration, during the early Bronze Age.
guess thats why i have iberian blood too
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 27, 2017, 01:57:09 AM
guess thats why i have iberian blood too
Iberian ... originally Neanderthal, then New African married into them, creating Cro-Magnon. Nothing but cave paintings to do and eat large mammals until the ice freeze ends. The New Africans walked to the Near East first, because they didn't have any boats yet. Then they walked from the Near East to W Europe. With the New Stone Age we get various Cro-Magnons moving in until the beginning of the Bronze Age, eventually bringing agriculture from the Near East ... mostly from Turkey, but also from Morocco (cattle herders must have exhausted forage quickly in N Africa). With the beginning of the Bronze Age (age of myth and heroes) we get the Russian gypsies with their Star Trek technology. This got them lots of cave men girl friends, and they became the dominant Y chromosome in Europe. Late Bronze Age Aegean ... we get administrative writing from the Near East but just when the Trojan War gets going, S E Europe collapses into a folk wandering, mostly toward the Near East. After a few centuries, writing gets started again due to Near East high tech (syllabic alphabet gets converted into true alphabet) and classical civilization starts ... first in Greece, then in Carthage, and finally in Italy. We have an Iron Age, and men ride horses initially without saddle, but eventually with saddle and stirrup (think late Roman knights). The Romans give the rest of Europe a taste of civilization, before the Huns and the Germans immigrate all over the place ;-) And 1500 years later, they still are. And besides N Africans and Near Easterners coming to Spain in historical times, we eventually have the Arabs, and more Jews, and Africans (Moors). The Stone Age (old and new) people survive as the Basques. Jews and Moors who didn't assimilate, got expelled.
Not a drop of white people in me, just gingers.
I did mine too, and it turned out I'm as white as a polar bear in a blizzard. I was hoping to find something else in the mix. I do have a trace of Jewish blood in me though, but European still. About 5% Iberian too. But I was already aware of my Spanish and Portuguese ancestors. I know the names of all my great-great-great grandparents
Quote from: Atheon on April 01, 2017, 12:33:30 PM
I did mine too, and it turned out I'm as white as a polar bear in a blizzard. I was hoping to find something else in the mix. I do have a trace of Jewish blood in me though, but European still. About 5% Iberian too. But I was already aware of my Spanish and Portuguese ancestors. I know the names of all my great-great-great grandparents
Part Iberian, part Jewish too. Hola primo!
I've been wanting to take a DNA test, myself. I'm not racist, but I'm afraid that there'd be a distant black ancestor or two and I don't want to change how I live my life.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 01, 2017, 02:38:10 PM
I've been wanting to take a DNA test, myself. I'm not racist, but I'm afraid that there'd be a distant black ancestor or two and I don't want to change how I live my life.
Don't worry, regardless of results, you can stay in the DNA closet ... only your ichthyologist needs to know you are a fish inside ;-)
MD forbids the 23&Me service. I just wrote to my Congressman demanding that MD drop the unique restriction.
I expect he will do so immediately. (yeah right). But its a start.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 03:55:21 AM
MD forbids the 23&Me service. I just wrote to my Congressman demanding that MD drop the unique restriction.
I expect he will do so immediately. (yeah right). But its a start.
It that Democrat? We must all think we are Black Hispanic tranies?
Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
My autosome is 100% European. But some Jews did come in via N Africa, during Roman times. N African migration into Europe began during the Neolithic at least ... there were some cattle herders that made it to S Spain, very early. The other Neolithics (my paternal link) had goats and sheep, but not cattle and no horses. The main drive of the cattle/horse people came in, during the Indo-European migration, during the early Bronze Age.
I took the Amcestry DNA test in hopes that somewhere there's some interesting mix of background in me somewhere. But I was disappointed to find that I'm 100% white European. There's a little bit of Jewish ancestry and some Iberian (the latter of which I was aware of); that's about as exotic as it gets.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 26, 2017, 03:20:45 PM
Everyone is North African apparently. Morocco was the place to be I guess.
Don't buy into that one yet, it has problems.
Yeah, I can pretty well guess mine. My Dad is standard English stock with a tough of German (Pennsylvannia Deutch) thrown in. Mom is Canadian French but with firm ancestory to North and Mid France. But I wonder if the Canadian side doesn't have some Native DNA in there...
Actually, I'm looking for a little Neanderthal gene.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 09:00:02 AM
Yeah, I can pretty well guess mine. My Dad is standard English stock with a tough of German (Pennsylvannia Deutch) thrown in. Mom is Canadian French but with firm ancestory to North and Mid France. But I wonder if the Canadian side doesn't have some Native DNA in there...
Actually, I'm looking for a little Neanderthal gene.
He's dead, mate. No more "Young Frankenstein".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 18, 2017, 09:03:15 AM
He's dead, mate. No more "Young Frankenstein".
Actually, most Europeans have 2-3% Neanderthal DNA. Well, that's where the Neanderthals were and a recent study suggests that Modern Humans were there briefly 200K years ago as well. In Central Asia, there is about the same Denisovan DNA.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 09:12:56 AM
Actually, most Europeans have 2-3% Neanderthal DNA. Well, that's where the Neanderthals were and a recent study suggests that Modern Humans were there briefly 200K years ago as well. In Central Asia, there is about the same Denisovan DNA.
I am about 4% Neanderthal. That is my good side ;-)
One of these days I'm going to have a 23andMe done. I know the bulk of my heritage is eastern European and southwestern England, but it'll be interesting to see what else they come up with.
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2017, 01:04:09 PM
One of these days I'm going to have a 23andMe done. I know the bulk of my heritage is eastern European and southwestern England, but it'll be interesting to see what else they come up with.
Your avatar shows you are clearly Silesian (that is where the village of Frankenstein was in fact). Saw it on a pre-WW II map of Germany.
Just spent the afternoon spitting. Some of it went into the vial.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 18, 2017, 07:43:23 PM
Just spent the afternoon spitting. Some of it went into the vial.
If you usually use a spittoon then the test will show that you are descended from tobacco plants ;-)
I'm a GOT-DAMN Amurican and all you fuckin furriners need to go back to your ginger bread houses and mother fuckin caves.......
Quote from: aitm on July 20, 2017, 09:01:07 PM
I'm a GOT-DAMN Amurican and all you fuckin furriners need to go back to your ginger bread houses and mother fuckin caves.......
Granny (in the ginger bread house with the murderous Hansel and Grettle) died for your sins. Sorry, most caves in the US are national monuments. Only park rangers can go there ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2017, 09:54:40 PM
Granny (in the ginger bread house with the murderous Hansel and Grettle) died for your sins. Sorry, most caves in the US are national monuments. Only park rangers can go there ;-)
Actually, most of the hundreds of caves around this part of North Alabama are on private land. Cathedral Caverns is a spectacular cave. These days it's a state park, but not very many years ago it was privately owned too. Russell Cave (which isn't much of a cave) is a significant archaeological site for this part of the world.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 20, 2017, 10:41:01 PM
Actually, most of the hundreds of caves around this part of North Alabama are on private land. Cathedral Caverns is a spectacular cave. These days it's a state park, but not very many years ago it was privately owned too. Russell Cave (which isn't much of a cave) is a significant archaeological site for this part of the world.
I don't want to know how cave-like your privates are ;-)
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 26, 2017, 03:20:45 PM
Everyone is North African apparently.
Modern humans actually trace back to the Cradle of Humankind, paleoanthropological site about 50 kilometres northwest of Johannesburg,
South Africa. All of us. (I don't know about Neanderthals and Denisovans yet - but they may have roots back there too.)
Quote from: Colanth on July 21, 2017, 01:19:01 PM
Modern humans actually trace back to the Cradle of Humankind, paleoanthropological site about 50 kilometres northwest of Johannesburg, South Africa. All of us. (I don't know about Neanderthals and Denisovans yet - but they may have roots back there too.)
White and Asian racists, who don't like Africans, will claim that Neanderthals and Denisovans don't go back to Africa. Actually, most of the Black folk of Africa, are the only pure humans there are. The rest of us are hybridized with ugly violent cave men.
Quote from: Colanth on July 21, 2017, 01:19:01 PM
Modern humans actually trace back to the Cradle of Humankind, paleoanthropological site about 50 kilometres northwest of Johannesburg, South Africa. All of us. (I don't know about Neanderthals and Denisovans yet - but they may have roots back there too.)
Modern humans are more complicated in origin than just one site. It seems, given DNA studies, that modern humans are a blend of both several african groups and some DNA returning back into Africa from the Middle East. Which itself was a blend of mixing in Central Asia (Denisovans) and East Europe Neandertals, and possibly some back-mating from Eastern India who were an early modern human immigration.
It is called Multi-Regionalisn and (to me at least) based on the idea that any related hominids will mate in all directions wherever they meet.
Im 3 percent South West Asian. It blew my mind.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 03:13:29 AM
Modern humans are more complicated in origin than just one site. It seems, given DNA studies, that modern humans are a blend of both several african groups and some DNA returning back into Africa from the Middle East. Which itself was a blend of mixing in Central Asia (Denisovans) and East Europe Neandertals, and possibly some back-mating from Eastern India who were an early modern human immigration.
It is called Multi-Regionalisn and (to me at least) based on the idea that any related hominids will mate in all directions wherever they meet.
Correct ... over 500,000 years, hominids moved around. But the most modern form came from E Africa (a particularly fruitful area for new species). 10,000 years ago we were all pretty much equal hunter/gatherers, of various ancestries. Agriculture developed because it could (end of Ice Age) and because of bio-geography. Humans everywhere exploit their environment as best they can.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 22, 2017, 04:16:14 AM
Im 3 percent South West Asian. It blew my mind.
What that means, depends on when it happened. My Y-chromosome is S W Asian ... N Fertile Crescent ... but that was 10,000 years ago. Muslims and Jews didn't exist yet. But if it is only 100 years ago, then you are a Muslim ;-)
A lot of N Africans and SW Asians got into Europe thru Spain during the Muslim occupation.
Quote from: Colanth on July 21, 2017, 01:19:01 PM
Modern humans actually trace back to the Cradle of Humankind, paleoanthropological site about 50 kilometres northwest of Johannesburg, South Africa. All of us. (I don't know about Neanderthals and Denisovans yet - but they may have roots back there too.)
Lee Berger is the go-to guy these days. A fossil here, a fossil there, cool, yeah. Lee has found dozens of mostly complete skeletons in just two sites.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 22, 2017, 09:20:11 AM
Lee Berger is the go-to guy these days. A fossil here, a fossil there, cool, yeah. Lee has found dozens of mostly complete skeletons in just two sites.
From what I've been able to determine, evolution (at least human evolution) isn't a tree, it's not even a bush. It's like a pot of overcooked spaghetti, with some of the crossing points melted together, so A, B and C went in, and d and e came out, but we really can't tell what created which.
And, as Cavebear said, it seems that back 50,000 years ago and more ("more" meaning a few million years), humans of all subspecies would mate with anything that held still long enough, which is where we get things like the part-modern-human, part-Neanderthal fossils we found in the Middle East a while back (but it wouldn't surprise me if we all carry some genes from a dozen or more different lineages).
Lee calls it a "braided stream".
I don't really care what mine says.. Human mutt 99.99%, non-mutt .01%. I just assume my parents lied and I was actually raised by wolves before my first official memory, the wolves killed in a tragic skiing accident and I was adopted by some quasi religious group till mom and dad found me abandoned by the side of the road with a phoney birth certificate. Then again they might be my actual blood relative parents and nobody lied about anything. Either way not much I can do about it nor would I want to.
Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 02:47:59 PM
From what I've been able to determine, evolution (at least human evolution) isn't a tree, it's not even a bush. It's like a pot of overcooked spaghetti, with some of the crossing points melted together, so A, B and C went in, and d and e came out, but we really can't tell what created which.
And, as Cavebear said, it seems that back 50,000 years ago and more ("more" meaning a few million years), humans of all subspecies would mate with anything that held still long enough, which is where we get things like the part-modern-human, part-Neanderthal fossils we found in the Middle East a while back (but it wouldn't surprise me if we all carry some genes from a dozen or more different lineages).
No I mean about 50K years ago (more or less being only a few tens of thousands of years). The modern humans got into Europe 40K years ago and we have neandertal genes in us. Guess how THAT happened? And when...
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 22, 2017, 03:57:57 PM
I don't really care what mine says.. Human mutt 99.99%, non-mutt .01%. I just assume my parents lied and I was actually raised by wolves before my first official memory, the wolves killed in a tragic skiing accident and I was adopted by some quasi religious group till mom and dad found me abandoned by the side of the road with a phoney birth certificate. Then again they might be my actual blood relative parents and nobody lied about anything. Either way not much I can do about it nor would I want to.
So you are Obama's missing brother? ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 04:14:43 PM
No I mean about 50K years ago (more or less being only a few tens of thousands of years). The modern humans got into Europe 40K years ago and we have neandertal genes in us. Guess how THAT happened? And when...
Not much Neanderthal ancestry in Africa. But it existed in what is now the ME. So ... when modern African people got to the ME around 70,000 years ago (after the big volcano (Lake Toba) ... they started mating with them. And again and again, as African folks made it all the way to Spain and to China. Aborigines in Australia are 40,000 years ago, they were already half-breeds, same as the first modern Europeans (who came from the ME, but before my Y-Adam came 5,000 years ago). The Africans and ME folks moving into Europe now, are just repeating past events.
Braided cross-breeding or not ... none of the cave men were worth a damn.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 04:14:43 PM
No I mean about 50K years ago (more or less being only a few tens of thousands of years). The modern humans got into Europe 40K years ago and we have neandertal genes in us. Guess how THAT happened? And when...
We still don't know. Neanderthal women preferred modern human men? Modern human men were rapists? About all we know is the general direction of flow, but reasons don't fossilize (or show up in genes).
Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 05:28:16 PM
We still don't know. Neanderthal women preferred modern human men? Modern human men were rapists? About all we know is the general direction of flow, but reasons don't fossilize (or show up in genes).
The current evidence is that modern human men mated with anything, including tree holes. Also that Neanderthal men were more violent than modern human men, and so probably had to be killed off. This is why all Y-chromosomes are modern humans ... but the autosomal DNA includes Neanderthal. The part Neanderthal people tended to mate with modern human women, hence all M-chromosomes are also modern humans. Of course Neanderthal women DNA would be there on 45 out of 46 nuclear chromosomes ... including the X chromosome.
Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 05:28:16 PM
We still don't know. Neanderthal women preferred modern human men? Modern human men were rapists? About all we know is the general direction of flow, but reasons don't fossilize (or show up in genes).
Could have been just the normal woman swapping. Even early humans understood marrying your sister was a bad idea, though not why.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 22, 2017, 05:51:42 PM
Could have been just the normal woman swapping. Even early humans understood marrying your sister was a bad idea, though not why.
Also early men didn't understand the connection between sex and children. The pregnancy of women was simply women's magic.
Well, I think mitochodrial DNA would show whether it was Neanderthal women and Cro Magnon men or the reverse. But it appears that Neanderthal Y chromosome genes are absent in modern humans. So it would seem modern humans have whatever Neanderthal genes from Neanderthal women. But it is also possible that Neanderthal male genes were just less advantageous between then and now and disappeared through natural selection.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 28, 2017, 03:56:26 AM
Well, I think mitochodrial DNA would show whether it was Neanderthal women and Cro Magnon men or the reverse. But it appears that Neanderthal Y chromosome genes are absent in modern humans. So it would seem modern humans have whatever Neanderthal genes from Neanderthal women. But it is also possible that Neanderthal male genes were just less advantageous between then and now and disappeared through natural selection.
Yes, we need more old human remains. There are a few that are half Neanderthal. I don't know what part of the DNA they recovered, but if enough, it should answer the male N vs female N question.
Mine will be ready in 6-8 weeks. :-(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 28, 2017, 07:21:07 AM
Mine will be ready in 6-8 weeks. :-(
Patience, you will be that much older, but your DNA won't be ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2017, 07:20:45 PM
Also early men didn't understand the connection between sex and children. The pregnancy of women was simply women's magic.
Define early man.
We don't have a clue when our ancestors made the connection between sex and procreation, but it is possible we figured that shit out before homo sapiens hit the scene. Homo ergaster, erectus, georgicus, pekinensis, and heidelbergensis I'm guessing probably not. Possibly as early as the common ancestor of Neanderthal and Denisovan though.
Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2017, 07:23:34 AM
Patience, you will be that much older, but your DNA won't be ;-)
I've used up most of it.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 28, 2017, 10:42:12 AM
Define early man.
We don't have a clue when our ancestors made the connection between sex and procreation, but it is possible we figured that shit out before homo sapiens hit the scene. Homo ergaster, erectus, georgicus, pekinensis, and heidelbergensis I'm guessing probably not. Possibly as early as the common ancestor of Neanderthal and Denisovan though.
If you get up before 5am you are way too early ;-) If you have better anthropology with primitive tribes ... show it. Otherwise get back in you time machine and go feed your pet T-Rex.
lol. What's wrong, Baruch? Don't like your bald-faced assertion getting called out?
Ancient hominids were making and using tools more than 2 million years ago. Fossils tell us the area of the brains of our ancestors associated with speech was well developed a million and half years ago. It isn't a stretch to believe it is possible our ancestors figured out sex led to children a very very long time ago.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 30, 2017, 10:37:10 PM
lol. What's wrong, Baruch? Don't like your bald-faced assertion getting called out?
Ancient hominids were making and using tools more than 2 million years ago. Fossils tell us the area of the brains of our ancestors associated with speech was well developed a million and half years ago. It isn't a stretch to believe it is possible our ancestors figured out sex led to children a very very long time ago.
I grow a manly beard. You kids might not shave yet ;-) And you can imagine what you want, but it isn't anthropology. You simply are virtue signaling your support of primitive tribes, yes?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 30, 2017, 10:37:10 PM
lol. What's wrong, Baruch? Don't like your bald-faced assertion getting called out?
Ancient hominids were making and using tools more than 2 million years ago. Fossils tell us the area of the brains of our ancestors associated with speech was well developed a million and half years ago. It isn't a stretch to believe it is possible our ancestors figured out sex led to children a very very long time ago.
I'm sure Baruch is used to have his statements called out or ignored. He seems to be mostly interested in post counts. I myself simply gave up on trying to understand his cryptic replies a couple of months ago.
But as far as paternity goes, I suspect it required some degree of monogamy or at least routine cohabitation for ancient modern humans to understand the connection between sex and babies. Something like "Oh look Aga's baby has Ergs eyes" and noticing that they were always "together".
The thoughts would have been tenuous at first.
OR it might have been blindingly obvious. Like, that doe and buck, they "do that" and then she has a foal. And the ones that don't "do that" don't. Hey WE do that...
Hard to tell. But humans aren't stupid. They catch onto things pretty quick. I would guess after Homo Erectus (no pun intended) and before Homo Sapiens.
Build a time machine and check me, LOL!
Cavebear ... exactly what I said. If someone claims to know exactly how people related maritally 20,000 years ago, they are either an anthropologist making guesses, or they are yet another screaming girl companion of Dr Who. But it is claimed, when British got to Australia, they Aborigines didn't know the connection between sex and childbirth. They were until then the most isolated and backward people in Earth. A kind of time capsule. Of course one can claim, without any justification, that like the case of Margaret Mead, the natives were pulling the leg of the British invaders. Ancient people were unaware of the role of a woman's egg until recent history as well ... they thought by analogy, that the seed was entirely male, and that the woman was like a furrowed soil. Until relatively recently science didn't know exactly what was going on, until the invention of the microscope. So yes, I am sure that cavemen had microscopes so they could make the connection between sex and childbirth. Everything connected to that, premodern ... was old wive's tales, literally. Midwife lore. Men had as little to do with it as possible.
So yes, sometimes I am making a joke, other times I have justification for what I think. I read a lot, skeptically. Including the theology of idiot savants.
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2017, 06:13:58 PM
Cavebear ... exactly what I said. If someone claims to know exactly how people related maritally 20,000 years ago, they are either an anthropologist making guesses, or they are yet another screaming girl companion of Dr Who. But it is claimed, when British got to Australia, they Aborigines didn't know the connection between sex and childbirth. They were until then the most isolated and backward people in Earth. A kind of time capsule. Of course one can claim, without any justification, that like the case of Margaret Mead, the natives were pulling the leg of the British invaders. Ancient people were unaware of the role of a woman's egg until recent history as well ... they thought by analogy, that the seed was entirely male, and that the woman was like a furrowed soil. Until relatively recently science didn't know exactly what was going on, until the invention of the microscope. So yes, I am sure that cavemen had microscopes so they could make the connection between sex and childbirth. Everything connected to that, premodern ... was old wive's tales, literally. Midwife lore. Men had as little to do with it as possible.
So yes, sometimes I am making a joke, other times I have justification for what I think. I read a lot, skeptically. Including the theology of idiot savants.
Sorry Baruch, but you're the one that made the positive claim that early man hadn't figured out the connection between sex and procreation. I just asked you to define early man, which you never did, and said we didn't have a clue when that happened. Just that it was possible our ancestors figured that shit out a long time ago.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 06, 2017, 06:46:18 PM
Sorry Baruch, but you're the one that made the positive claim that early man hadn't figured out the connection between sex and procreation. I just asked you to define early man, which you never did, and said we didn't have a clue when that happened. Just that it was possible our ancestors figured that shit out a long time ago.
And I expanded ... it was anecdote from early Australia explorers. You could deny that ... or claim a better anecdote. And yes, barring contrary evidence, I supposed cavemen built starships and left us behind, before the Neanderthals destroyed the world with their smartphones ;-)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 06, 2017, 06:46:18 PM
Sorry Baruch, but you're the one that made the positive claim that early man hadn't figured out the connection between sex and procreation. I just asked you to define early man, which you never did, and said we didn't have a clue when that happened. Just that it was possible our ancestors figured that shit out a long time ago.
Well, you never know what people understand or what they pull your leg about. I suspect modern humans anywhere understood clearly. The question is more at what point the more ancient relatives did. It WOULD show a certain thought process.
Did sex and birth connect among Australopithecines? Probably not (and just an opinion based on culture). Homo Erectus, maybe.
There is a whole SJW industry about protecting, post facto, the reputations of primitive tribes. Like the idea that cannibalism never occurred (it did). That human sacrifice never occurred (it did). We still do human sacrifice, see modern war. We would still do cannibalism, except we know that modern people have been accumulating pollutants (see DDT) all their lives, so they are unsafe to eat. Europeans are also primitive tribes, just with better weapons.
MD doesn't seem to like that sort of thing. Otherwise I would have the info already. I may fake my address.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2017, 09:22:23 PM
MD doesn't seem to like that sort of thing. Otherwise I would have the info already. I may fake my address.
Use someone else's spit ... for your DNA sample. But don't use a woman's spit.
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 01:12:13 PM
Use someone else's spit ... for your DNA sample. But don't use a woman's spit.
I would only have use for my own DNA info.
Well, seems I'm 99.9% Oirish/Eng----. Knew that. Also have 1165 other 23andMe clients in my "DNA family". That would be the minority that would actually do something like this.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 16, 2017, 09:22:11 AM
Well, seems I'm 99.9% Oirish/Eng----. Knew that. Also have 1165 other 23andMe clients in my "DNA family". That would be the minority that would actually do something like this.
Blimey & Blarney? Good for you.
Quote from: Baruch on September 16, 2017, 09:57:00 AM
Blimey & Blarney? Good for you.
I've just ordered a ancestry dna kit... Will report when results received. Bet there is a native american in my french canadian ancestry. And bet I am mostly British and northern French...
23andme (http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/10/what-dna-testing-companies-terrifying-privacy-policies-actually-mean/)
Beware!
QuoteYou probably wouldn’t hand out your social security number without having a pretty good idea of how that information was going to be used, right? That would be dumb. It’s extremely sensitive information. And yet, the consumer genetic testing market is booming thanks to people readily giving up another piece of their identity: their genetic code.
QuoteDespite all that, we’re guessing that when you signed up for Ancestry or 23andMe, you probably didn’t read the fine print to find out what, exactly, those companies plan to do with your data. We can’t blame youâ€"they’re long, boring polices written in legalese that’s difficult to understand. If you actually read those policies, though, you might not have gone ahead with the test. It turns out that the breadth of rights you are giving away to your DNA is kind of terrifying.
They're going to scan people at the check-out lines until they find one with a match for their sample.
Quote from: pr126 on October 23, 2017, 09:27:45 AM
23andme (http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/10/what-dna-testing-companies-terrifying-privacy-policies-actually-mean/)
Beware!
I appreciate the concern, really I do. And I red the article start to finish. I was aware of it possibilities.
But I am single, oldish, and unlikely to have any useful DNA. Well, I've never caught the Flu since puberty and if that ends up helping others, fine with me. I'd rather die famous than rich, LOL!
I'll trade that for information about my genetic heritage.
My post was not made specifically for you, but to anyone interested in the subject.
However,
Looking on the web site, it is £149 for the test.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 23, 2017, 09:37:04 AM
They're going to scan people at the check-out lines until they find one with a match for their sample.
You should probably rest more often, take your pills, and try a waterbed. I like mine a lot. The waterbed, I don't take any pills. .
Quote from: Cavebear on October 23, 2017, 09:47:36 AM
You should probably rest more often, take your pills, and try a waterbed. I like mine a lot. The waterbed, I don't take any pills. .
:sigh:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 23, 2017, 09:52:07 AM
:sigh:
Was the *sigh* about the king-sized waterbed I share with my 3 cats at night for about 10 hours while I sleep late, or was it that I don't need to take any pills and haven't been "sick" with anything in decades? LOL!
Oh C'mon.. You mean God didn't make you white in his image? I mean if he had you could look exactly like Donny Boy.. Fake blonde hair and Cheeto® orange skin..the way god intended..
Quote from: pr126 on October 23, 2017, 09:47:02 AM
My post was not made specifically for you, but to anyone interested in the subject.
However,
Looking on the web site, it is £149 for the test.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Jewish people originally from Hungary, would have a wide variety of ancestries. Except for kohanim, Jews did intermarry a lot.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 23, 2017, 06:54:49 PM
Oh C'mon.. You mean God didn't make you white in his image? I mean if he had you could look exactly like Donny Boy.. Fake blonde hair and Cheeto® orange skin..the way god intended..
I think he missed the blonde hair and nordic physique. LOL!