ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th May 2019, 05:56 AM   #241
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,362
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Exactly, it really isn't rocket science
Oh, don't get me started on gradient pressures!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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
Old 14th May 2019, 08:27 AM   #242
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sykes was a leading authority until he fell out big time with new leading authority [=establishment] Chris Stringer. Before that it was Thor Heyerdahl who claimed there was no way Homo sapiens ever mated with Homo neanderthalensis. His was the final word set in stone.
You're quoting Sykes because he's a 'leading authority' yet are simultaneously dismissing his fellow 'leading authority' because 'leading authority' is just a euphemism for 'the establishment'?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either someone being a leading authority on a subject means you can use them as an expert, or someone being a leading authority on a subject means you can dismiss them as just being part of the establishment which you distrust.

Which is it? It genuinely appears as if you're just throwing out answers and quotes in an attempt to make it look like you've dealt with an objection. It's obvious in some instances that you're engaging in the type of 'research' that forum cranks regularly do, Google something, find the first hit that appears to say something that agrees with you, don't bother reading it to see if it says what you think it says, or if it makes any sense. Earlier in this thread you quoted a book review as if it was dismissive of Rutherford's book, when the review was actually highly positive! You clearly just copied and pasted a bunch of text from some website without even bothering to give it a cursory glance to see if it actually agreed with you.

You're all over the place.
JesseCuster 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
Old 14th May 2019, 08:28 AM   #243
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.
What do you mean 'that person'? Nobody is claim that Charlemagne (or William the Conqueror or whoever) is THE ancestor of everyone in Europe or the world or whatever, but that he is AN ancestor of all those people, just as many of his contemporaries were also ancestors. You don't seem to have a grasp on the very fundamentals here.

Your mention of 'the original Briton gene' also betrays a rather strange understanding of how genetics works.
JesseCuster 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
Old 14th May 2019, 11:50 AM   #244
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,876
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
'the original Briton gene'
Formerly available from BHS.
carlitos 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
Old 14th May 2019, 01:00 PM   #245
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
You're quoting Sykes because he's a 'leading authority' yet are simultaneously dismissing his fellow 'leading authority' because 'leading authority' is just a euphemism for 'the establishment'?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either someone being a leading authority on a subject means you can use them as an expert, or someone being a leading authority on a subject means you can dismiss them as just being part of the establishment which you distrust.

Which is it? It genuinely appears as if you're just throwing out answers and quotes in an attempt to make it look like you've dealt with an objection. It's obvious in some instances that you're engaging in the type of 'research' that forum cranks regularly do, Google something, find the first hit that appears to say something that agrees with you, don't bother reading it to see if it says what you think it says, or if it makes any sense. Earlier in this thread you quoted a book review as if it was dismissive of Rutherford's book, when the review was actually highly positive! You clearly just copied and pasted a bunch of text from some website without even bothering to give it a cursory glance to see if it actually agreed with you.

You're all over the place.
What? I merely mentioned how Sykes, one day a big name in the UK in genetics research (there was even a documentary Blood of the Of the Isles based on Sykes' book of the same name, together with The Seven Sisters of Eve, about mitrchondrial DNA (the maternal line). IIRC he was based at Oxford and was the given authority at the time.


Sykes has pretty much fallen not into disrepute exactly but is now superceded by Natural History Museum human evolution curator Chris Stringer who clashed with him scientifically. I have read both of Sykes' above books and several of Stringer's. I have visited Stringer's exhibition at the NHM where he has recreated life size models of various hominids, including Neanderthal man.

So no, I have not Googled anything. I do not recall what Rutherford book you refer to.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 14th May 2019, 01:06 PM   #246
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
What do you mean 'that person'? Nobody is claim that Charlemagne (or William the Conqueror or whoever) is THE ancestor of everyone in Europe or the world or whatever, but that he is AN ancestor of all those people, just as many of his contemporaries were also ancestors. You don't seem to have a grasp on the very fundamentals here.

Your mention of 'the original Briton gene' also betrays a rather strange understanding of how genetics works.
Remind me what 'original Briton gene' you mean.

Quite a few scientists believe you have to go further back than Charlemagne to find a common ancestor for Europeans today. He is too contemporary IMV. AD300 is probably more likely than AD800.

I think you have confused ancestor with, 'some kind of loose link such as a distant cousin several times removed'. Ancestor means a direct line, not your loose definition.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 14th May 2019 at 01:08 PM.
Vixen 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
Old 14th May 2019, 01:21 PM   #247
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,430
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The medieval definition as it was in this era. The laws of inheritance, which we take for granted, was set down in the Middle Ages. This meant aristocrats and nobles ensured their land, estates and property was kept in their family. The reason the Royal Family is so incredibly wealthy is for this very reason.

If they married amongst themselves, and it was the tradition for royal families and nobles to only marry other royalty and nobles, thus keeping scarce land and assets 'within the family' as it were as they were all related after generations of breeding amongst themselves.

Many of the early Kings and knights were individuals who had shown exceptional leadership skills, either politically or on the battlefield so there arose an idea that anyone who was royal or noble was somehow of superior mettle than the serf in the field asleep in the haystack.
Could you highlight for me where you defined 'royal blood'?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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
Old 14th May 2019, 02:06 PM   #248
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,510
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I agree there is some fascinating downward mobility research. Families wealthy today, may see all their wealth dissipated within two or three generations. This could because say you have a wealthy landed gentry couple (or even an industrialist at the top of the TIMES rich list). They have three of four children. Thus, often they will inherit a quarter each, typically. Deduct Inheritance Tax on estates > circa £329K which can be quite hefty over this sum. Say each on the beneficiaries marries, has thee or four children each, you can see how the wealth dilutes. In addition, the massive country estates, as exemplified by Downton Abbey or Brideshead Revisited, whilst extremely popular and prolific up to the early 1920's soon became derelict and abandoned after WWI when people moved away from 'upstairs, downstairs'. People stopped going 'into service' and into 'jobs' as we know them today, buying their own property or renting, but moving away from being tied to the manor. Also, industries become obsolete. What's hugely wealth producing then (such as Nottingham lace, Harris tweeds, coalfaces, cotton mills) are now mass produced in Taiwan instead or replaced by other forms of raw material.

I think the fact of generations of inbreeding in the case of the aristocracy means Royalty are more open to marriage with commoners to strengthen the gene pool (there have been no end of mad Kings and Queens and genetic illnesses such haemophilia and phenyketineura [_sp???] syndrome, etc) these days the genetics behind inbreeding is known. I am sure this is the reason European royalty today is choc full of Australians, Maoris, African-Americans and coalminers' descendants from Durham.

ETA Just to add: being the bastard son/daughter of a King or Queen means you are ipso facto not royalty as you have no inheritance rights and by extension no royal heirs, even if you are the eldest son
.

What does the highlighted have to do with anything? We are talking about ancestry, not inheritance rights.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   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
Old 14th May 2019, 02:13 PM   #249
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Could you highlight for me where you defined 'royal blood'?
Why ask me when presumably you can go straight ti wiki?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 14th May 2019, 02:14 PM   #250
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
What does the highlighted have to do with anything? We are talking about ancestry, not inheritance rights.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about royalty.

Being illegitimate did mean you were not.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 14th May 2019, 02:31 PM   #251
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,430
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why ask me when presumably you can go straight ti wiki?
I'm asking what definition you are using.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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
Old 14th May 2019, 02:51 PM   #252
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,367
What a snob.
p0lka 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
Old 14th May 2019, 05:18 PM   #253
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I do not recall what Rutherford book you refer to.
Early in this thread you called Rutherford 'a populist scientist who churns out mass produced paperbacks patronising people and believes his own opinion as fact' and then quoted the following portions of book reviews as examples of what people say about this 'world leading expert' (scare quotes are yours).

Quote:
"If you are ethnically British, one thing is certain: your ancestors definitely had sex with Neanderthals. On the other hand, they probably didn't have sex with Vikings, who, it turns out, did a fair bit more pillaging than raping. And, depending on the flakiness of your earwax, it is just conceivable that your relatives' unattractiveness to hairy and horned invaders was related to their body odour. DNA is fragile, confusing and contains a lot of pointless data. But unlike other accounts of human history it doesn't lie. Adam Rutherford's soaring book is an exposition of what this new science really tells us about who we are (Tom Whipple THE TIMES)

One of the most extraordinary things about this book is its sheer breadth. Rutherford, a writer and geneticist, weaves from our genes a fascinating tapestry of human history from its most primitive origins to its sophisticated present, and beyond ... The writing is concise and often funny, and Rutherford never takes himself or his subject too seriously ... It is one of those rare books that you'll finish thinking you haven't wasted a single second (Brad Davies INDEPENDENT)
Both those quotes are very positive about Rutherford's book, so it's really not at all clear why you were quoting them in your post which otherwise dismissing as someone you think little of. This is why I think you're quoting stuff you're not actually reading.

What was your purpose in providing those quotes? It's entirely unclear to me what point you're making here.

edit: Is your point merely that he has written popular science books and is somehow therefore an unreliable source or authority? Plenty of world renowned scientists have written 'mass produced paperbacks' aimed at lay audiences. So what?

Last edited by JesseCuster; 14th May 2019 at 05:23 PM.
JesseCuster 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
Old 14th May 2019, 05:51 PM   #254
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,177
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sorry, I thought we were talking about royalty.

Being illegitimate did mean you were not.
Bastards still get their genes from both parents. You know the topic of the thread, right?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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
Old 15th May 2019, 01:24 AM   #255
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Bastards still get their genes from both parents. You know the topic of the thread, right?
Apparently it doesn't count or something.
Vixen has a bit of a fixation over the whole royalty thing.
Tolls 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
Old 15th May 2019, 04:44 AM   #256
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,855
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
On a television programme recently, about DNA, Justin Berkmann (of MInistry of Sound fame) said he was related to royalty. When asked who, he replied, Edward I, and that he went back to William the Conqueror.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...orrie-15116911

How meaningful is being a 'fourth cousin once removed'?

Is 'going back to William the Conqueror' anything exceptional?
No.

If you have a European noble somewhere in your ancestry in the past 300 years (~10 generations) you're almost certainly descended from John I Lackland, because he had five quite fertile kids who lived in five distinct areas of Europe and their children were prize catches for noble houses throughout the continent. John Lackland was a great-great-grandson of William the Conqueror.

Statistically you'd expect this to be true for any European or American by now. If not it will be within a generation or so.

Here's another thought experiment: suppose every descendant of William the Conqueror had 2 children who lived to procreate, and had them at an average age of 30 years. Rounding down that makes 31 generations, a theoretical total of over 2 billion people. There would be some imbreeding, but the average was certainly above 2 children too. William the Conqueror had seven children, one of his daughters gave birth to 11 children, five of whom ruled various fiefs in Europe. His other children procreated too, this was just the most impressive one of them.

Find me someone of European ancestry who can prove he's not related to William the Conqueror and we can talk.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 15th May 2019 at 04:53 AM.
McHrozni 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
Old 15th May 2019, 05:04 AM   #257
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,518
But they won't have Royal Blood TM!
Tolls 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
Old 15th May 2019, 05:32 AM   #258
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,177
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
and had them at an average age of 30 years.
That seems pretty old to me. 20 years is probably closer to the real generation time for humans for most of history.

Of course that would change the calculation a lot.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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
Old 15th May 2019, 09:28 AM   #259
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Remind me what 'original Briton gene' you mean.
I don't mean anything by it as it doesn't actually mean anything. I'm questioning your usage of it from the 2nd page of this thread:

Originally Posted by Vixen
Brian Sykes did a demographical study of British genes (some years ago, so his study is archaic, given the advance in DNA studies since then).

The expectation was that Brits would no longer have the original Briton gene, because of all the invasions over the centuries (Romans, Saxons, Normans, Danes, some Vikings, etc), so the surprise was, this was still a dominant gene, especially in the peripheries, such as Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron.
[emphasis mine]

Quote:
I think you have confused ancestor with, 'some kind of loose link such as a distant cousin several times removed'. Ancestor means a direct line, not your loose definition.
I never defined ancestor, loosely or otherwise, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. By ancestor I mean the same thing as you do, someone you're directly descended from. In 800AD, there's no such thing as 'the person' (your words) you're descended from, as countless people alive from that era would be ancestors you have a direct line from (you don know family trees have countless direct lines depending on how you choose to go back through the generations, through which parent, right?) of yours. Even if Charlemagne is a director ancestor of yours, so are countless of his contemporaries.

This is your quote that confuses me:
Originally Posted by Vixen
Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.
You're referring to 'that person' as if you have a single director ancestor in Charlemagne's time and 'that person' is almost certainly not Charlemagne, as if either Charlemagne or someone else ('that person') was your director ancestor, instead of you being directly descended from any amount of people alive at the time.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 15th May 2019 at 09:35 AM.
JesseCuster 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
Old 15th May 2019, 09:42 AM   #260
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,510
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
I don't mean anything by it as it doesn't actually mean anything. I'm questioning your usage of it from the 2nd page of this thread:

[emphasis mine]

I never defined ancestor, loosely or otherwise, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. By ancestor I mean the same thing as you do, someone you're directly descended from. In 800AD, there's no such thing as 'the person' (your words) you're descended from, as countless people alive from that era would be ancestors you have a direct line from (you don know family trees have countless direct lines depending on how you choose to go back through the generations, through which parent, right?) of yours. Even if Charlemagne is a director ancestor of yours, so are countless of his contemporaries.

This is your quote that confuses me:
You're referring to 'that person' as if you have a single director ancestor in Charlemagne's time and 'that person' is almost certainly not Charlemagne, as if either Charlemagne or someone else ('that person') was your director ancestor, instead of you being directly descended from any amount of people alive at the time.
I know it's unlikely, but maybe some people in this thread had a "family ladder" (like the Ptolemy's) for the past 40-generations?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   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
Old 15th May 2019, 01:21 PM   #261
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,751
Always like that saying all an Englishmen is is a German who could swim....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.