View Single Post
Old 6th September 2018, 05:06 PM   #10
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,686
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I understand Rutherford's thinking. However, there are four major logical fallacies inherent in his argument. (1) The sweeping generalisation, (2) The assumption people breed randomly, (3) they breed exponentially, and (4) mistaking his opinion for fact.

He says he's descended from Charlemagne but I am willing to wager he is just saying that off the top of his head.

As an example of (2), the same TV programme expressed great amazement that one of the actors, Thomas Burke, had 99% Irish DNA. This is because even though he has lived in England all his life, his forebears come from a remote part of Ireland, an island called Innisturk (iirc). IOW it is pure flippancy to say 'he shares the same DNA as everybody else'.


You don't know what you're talking about. Your understanding of the relevant statistics appears to be entirely lacking; and in addition, you seem entirely unaware that genetic analysis can now provide very high levels of reliability in terms of mapping the transfer of DNA. Indeed, this is Rutherford's very area of expertise. To suggest that "he is just saying that off the top of his head" is, to employ the vernacular, total bollocks. But I'll happily take that wager of yours.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top