$1,300+ monthly payment????!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does that not make sense? We evolved from single-cell eukaryotic organisms and while maybe not an exact copy at this point there surely is evidence that our current version of some genees are derived from the single-cell ancestor's version with a similar structure and function.

I'm thinking in terms of provable ancestry. That you could exhume the body of a presumed distant ancestor, sequence that DNA, and prove that was someone's ancestor. It can't be done if the ancestor is too many generations distant. If it can't be done, would be it be accurate to say that the descendant carries the ancestor's genes? I don't think so.
 
When has your right to free speech been prohibited by the government? It's never happened to me...
If you need more let me know.




 
When has your right to free speech been prohibited by the government? It's never happened to me...

BTW...the Constitution does not say and has never said you have an absolute right to free speech. It says the GOVERNMENT can't infringe on your right to free speech. As an example, in my place of business, you have no protected right to free speech and I have no legal obligation to allow you to stay and say whatever you want.

What if the government tells a private entity to disallow certain groups from being allowed to post on social media? Would that be considered a violation of free speech, or maybe not since the government isn't directly doing it?
 
What's it matter to you? Why do you care? Or anyone else other than the ones attending?

Personally I think its kind of silly, both the separate events, and the reporting of it... But its none of my concern, it has no effect on your personal freedoms, you are free to dislike it but I don't know why so many people like to get into other people's personal business?

If everyone just respected everyone else's right to be who they are, and kept their opinions and judgements to themselves, these groups probably wouldn't feel the need to hold a separate event. This idea probably started when some jerk who used their free speech to heckle people at previous graduation...
 
What if the government tells a private entity to disallow certain groups from being allowed to post on social media? Would that be considered a violation of free speech, or maybe not since the government isn't directly doing it?
Can you refresh my memory when this occured, so I can better understand your question?
The government can't do that.

My understanding is, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.
 
What if the government tells a private entity to disallow certain groups from being allowed to post on social media? Would that be considered a violation of free speech, or maybe not since the government isn't directly doing it?
I think if the government compels a private company to disallow speech that would be a violation and I hope that would be challenged in the courts. If a private company disallows speech on their platform that is also their right.
 
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with the course, my point is that higher education is clearly biased to the left. I would be saying the same if they were clearly biased to the right.

They should be as near the center as possible and they are not IMO. Others see it as not a big deal.
I’m not offended by it, despite what you might’ve inferred from my posts. But it does seem to touch a nerve with some of the posters here.
That's your opinion. I am sure some colleges swerve to the left; others to the right.
It seems to me people define or change definitions, to fit their narrative.
 
If you need more let me know.




Florida is a cluster and those are all challengeable.

Yes, lots of Americans are anxious about their free speech rights. Their anxiety is not proof that the government is infringing on their rights.

Almost all of those articles are based on our fellow Americans sleeping through social studies/civics and NOT understanding the difference between an imaginary absolute freedom of speech which is not guaranteed anywhere and what the Constitution guarantees - that government won't infringe on their right.

Cool...Americans are worried that a right they never had (an absolute right to say whatever they want anywhere they want) is in jeopardy.
 
The further distant your ancestors, the less DNA you have from them, and the less likely it is that DNA could prove that you descended from them. This is well known among genealogists.
"She was wrong in that the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them."

Wait, so you actually agree with that professor and say she is wrong?

We all have some common DNAs and current believe is that the common origin human DNA is the closest to the African living in Africa. They also has the most "diverse" random one, where as the further away from Africa the more "founder effect" the gene pool gets:


Migraciones_humanas_en_haplogrupos_de_ADN-Y.PNG
 
Last edited:
According to Ancestry, "At seven generations back, less than 1% of your DNA is likely to have come from any given ancestor."

I've read, can't recall where, that past 10 generations, it's extremely unlikely that any of your DNA will have come from an ancestor that far back.
Except your ancestors have the same common genes. Your mom and dad share a lot of common DNA, so do your grandpa and grandma, great grandpa and great grandma, etc.

If you reproduce with an alien with non-earth DNA then yes your child will have 1/2 of yours, then if he or she went on to reproduce with another alien the grandchild would have 1/4 of your DNA.

Now if you replace an alien with "someone from another continent who mutates his or her DNA different from yours in the last 250k years", then you get a similar result. Your baby mama will have a DNA that has been 250k years apart from you. Now if you look at the original example I gave, and substitute "alien" with "someone who came out of a UFO who left 250k years ago", and "the alien said he originates from earth", what do you think of it?
 
"She was wrong in that the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them."

Wait, so you actually agree with that professor and say she is wrong?

The point is that you don't have the DNA of every single one of your ancestors. Some people think that you do. It doesn't work that way.
 
I'm thinking in terms of provable ancestry. That you could exhume the body of a presumed distant ancestor, sequence that DNA, and prove that was someone's ancestor. It can't be done if the ancestor is too many generations distant. If it can't be done, would be it be accurate to say that the descendant carries the ancestor's genes? I don't think so.
It cannot be done on ONE individual to ONE exhumed body.

However if you have multiple exhumed body, and multiple individuals, you can get a pretty good idea of where this "group" came from and how much deviation within the group. My understanding from other sources I've read in the past is, scientists believe modern African has a "wider" deviation of DNA than say, South Asian, and then even narrower than South Asian would be East Asian, Middle Eastern, European, etc.
 
If you reproduce with an alien with non-earth DNA then yes your child will have 1/2 of yours, then if he or she went on to reproduce with another alien the grandchild would have 1/4 of your DNA.

And then 1/8 then 1/16 then 1/32 then 1/64 and so on?

It doesn't work that way. For a variety of reasons, you often get more or less DNA from one ancestor than the simple math says you will.
 
And then 1/8 then 1/16 then 1/32 then 1/64 and so on?

It doesn't work that way. For a variety of reasons, you often get more or less DNA from one ancestor than the simple math says you will.
I'm done arguing with you. I personally do not believe you understand statistics, mathematics, genetics, and/or logics.

Remember scientists in genetics would work with a large group of people to eliminate outliers.
 
I'm done arguing with you. I personally do not believe you understand statistics, mathematics, genetics, and/or logics.

Remember scientists in genetics would work with a large group of people to eliminate outliers.

Just one question--if this is such a certain science and it works so precisely, why can't you accurately determine how you might be related to someone just by knowing how many centimorgans of DNA you share with them? For example:

How do we estimate DNA relationships?
Possible DNA relationships

This table shows the percentage of the time people sharing 10 cM have the following relationships:

PercentRelationship
21%4th cousin
3rd cousin 2x removed
Half 3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd cousin 3x removed
19%3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed
17%4th cousin 1x removed
Half 4th cousin
Half 3rd cousin 2x removed
3rd cousin 3x removed
17%Distant relationship
12%5th cousin
4th cousin 2x removed
Half 4th cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin 3x removed
10%3rd cousin
2nd cousin 2x removed
Half 2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 1st cousin 3x removed
1%2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd cousin
1st cousin 3x removed
Half 1st cousin 2x removed
TD]

[TD]2nd cousin
1st cousin 2x removed
Half 1st cousin 1x removed
Half great-grandaunt/granduncle
Half great-grandniece/grandnephew
 
Just one question--if this is such a certain science and it works so precisely, why can't you accurately determine how you might be related to someone just by knowing how many centimorgans of DNA you share with them? For example:

How do we estimate DNA relationships?
Possible DNA relationships

This table shows the percentage of the time people sharing 10 cM have the following relationships:

PercentRelationship
21%4th cousin
3rd cousin 2x removed
Half 3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd cousin 3x removed
19%3rd cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin
Half 2nd cousin 2x removed
2nd cousin 3x removed
17%4th cousin 1x removed
Half 4th cousin
Half 3rd cousin 2x removed
3rd cousin 3x removed
17%Distant relationship
12%5th cousin
4th cousin 2x removed
Half 4th cousin 1x removed
Half 3rd cousin 3x removed
10%3rd cousin
2nd cousin 2x removed
Half 2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 1st cousin 3x removed
1%2nd cousin 1x removed
Half 2nd cousin
1st cousin 3x removed
Half 1st cousin 2x removed
TD]
[TD]2nd cousin
1st cousin 2x removed
Half 1st cousin 1x removed
Half great-grandaunt/granduncle
Half great-grandniece/grandnephew
First of all, we are talking about an "ethnic group" of people or a "population", to qualify you have to have at least hundreds of thousands of people (most likely at least tens if not hundred millions).

Second of all, there is a term called the law of large numbers. If you have just 2 individuals you cannot say how will their child be like how much you get from mom and dad. However, if you have hundreds of thousands of people, you will be able to find the median "genetics" of this group. This is how gene markers like those Y C D N O got identified from which locations.

Sure you will find an odd Y in an ethnic Chinese or a Q in an ethnic Slavic Russian in Moscow, but the overall gene markers of the group didn't change.



It is all about statistics. In the law of large numbers you and your cousins, your second third forth fifth cousins are identical as long as you are from the same area and haven't moved for Nth generations (I think the unit is within 1000 years in genetics, which is like 40 generations). Statisticians see us all doing the Sweet Home Alabama thing.
 
It is all about statistics.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Nobody disputes that you can sample the DNA of a individual and compare them to a larger group, and if all you have is the DNA you can identify with pretty good accuracy what ethnic group they belong to.

I'm saying that you CANNOT sample the DNA of a person and identify with any sort of accuracy at all what ethnic group their distant ancestors might have belonged to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top