RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Sept 1, 2016 21:38:30 GMT -8
And if you have more time this is older but still accurate.
|
|
balzaccom
Trail Wise!
Waiting for spring...
Posts: 4,551
|
Post by balzaccom on Sept 1, 2016 21:45:03 GMT -8
Richard the Lionheart spoke French
"Well, yeah, because he was French. His father, Henry II, was basically French and his mother was Eleanor of Aquitaine. They all lived most of their lives in France and are buried in France."
Actually, he was Norman, as in Norseman. So his paternal ancestors spoke Norse, not French. They learned French after they invaded Normandy, to take up residence next to the Britons, who lived in Brittany, but came to that part of France from Britain...And Richard and the rest of his clan spoke French at court in England for three hundred years. English was not allowed at court, and was only spoken by the peasants.
And so Great Britain is named for the people who ultimately settled in the part of France called Brittany. And France is named for Germans.
It goes to show how silly it is to be jingoistic, when we are all blends of so many different peoples and cultures.
|
|
|
Post by ecocentric on Sept 2, 2016 6:38:42 GMT -8
I wonder how much of DNA is science, versus art (meaning interpretation thereof)? In the case of 0.2%, is that within some sort of error range? Anybody know? Looking for gene markers and comparing should be pretty straight forward. Straight up statistics, which means that it will get more accurate as the number of people tested grows larger (sample size increases). I'm not sure how much recent mutations might impact the interpretation, but the more people in a particular population that share a mutation, the longer ago that mutation would have happened, as they are passed along to progeny.
|
|
BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Sept 2, 2016 8:33:00 GMT -8
I wonder how much of DNA is science, versus art (meaning interpretation thereof)? In the case of 0.2%, is that within some sort of error range? Anybody know? I've no quantitative assessment of that, but the folks running the DNA do. They list confidence ranges in each of the attributions they make (although they don't provide numbers on those ranges). The 0.2% East Asian was a "possibility" for me, not a certainty, so it may actually be wrong. Meanwhile the French/Germanic portion of my DNA was assigned to the highest confidence level. I may have 0% East Asian DNA in me, who knows. But it was an intriguing possibility, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by autumnmist on Sept 2, 2016 8:51:00 GMT -8
I think another possible role genetic examination could play is of hereditary markers or genes which could indicate family susceptibility to diseases or illnesses such as cancer. After my sister died of cancer, my gynecologist raised the issue of getting genetic testing to determine my susceptibility to cancer. Anxious and unsettled as I was about that possibility, I decided that if I was, it might compromise my ability to think clearly enough to lead the best life I could. I didn't want to spend the next several years worrying about something that might never occur.
Later, I learned more about the tests and what Medicare would demand if I got the tests and was positive for some cancer markers. Now, no way would I get any genetic cancer testing with Medicare calling the shots.
On the other hand, I've always wondered if somewhere, somehow, my genes got crossed with those of bears. I have this overwhelming desire when cold weather approaches to just huddle up inside all winter, wrapped up in quilts with a stack of good novels to read. I could easily sleep through the whole winter. So, am I part bear? (I do growl occasionally, too).
Seriously. We weren't the first species to live on this planet.
(And in apology to Zeke, I haven't listened to the video. My speakers aren't working properly, I can't read lips, and for some reason the subtitles aren't anything but titles - no dialogue - so it's hard for me to get anything from an online video.
I also have to agree with those who put the whole issue in perspective, raising the issues of blending nationalities throughout history. I don't think there is such a thing as an ethnic group that hasn't at some time been blended, whether recently or hundreds of years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 9:03:06 GMT -8
The Normans were actually Scandinavians, albeit "Norseman" that had settled in Normandy.
Although some of the "Normans" were actually Bretons that had settled in northwestern France from Cornwall a few hundred years earlier, so in effect, they were returning "home".
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,710
|
Post by rebeccad on Sept 2, 2016 9:04:16 GMT -8
My speakers aren't working properly, Does your computer have a headphone jack? That may work even if the speakers don't.
|
|
|
Post by autumnmist on Sept 2, 2016 9:39:27 GMT -8
No, no jack that I remember. But t's possible there's one buried away somewhere in the original boxes. Good chance to put aside housework and rummage around for awhile.
Thanks for that suggestion. I'll check it out. And you've given me an idea. Maybe the jack for the cell phone will work.
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on Sept 2, 2016 10:14:37 GMT -8
Very, very cool.
Most of our family histories go back a few generations. I can only trace mine back to the mid-1700s. When you look at the political upheavals that have happened in just the last 2,000 - 3,000 years, it's not really that surprising.
|
|
speacock
Trail Wise!
I'm here for the food...
Posts: 378
|
Post by speacock on Sept 2, 2016 16:44:39 GMT -8
I turned out to be a complete mutt.. well my great/great.... were anyway. Thanks Zeke. Good video with some zinger points for those who are haters. I can't imagine what their very lame reasons would be. Rumidude: Absolutely genuinely riveting story and journey by Wells. Thanks for that, too. I know a load of people who should watch it several times...until they pass the test.
|
|
RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Sept 2, 2016 17:14:25 GMT -8
I wonder how much of DNA is science, versus art (meaning interpretation thereof)? In the case of 0.2%, is that within some sort of error range? Anybody know? Looking for gene markers and comparing should be pretty straight forward. Straight up statistics, which means that it will get more accurate as the number of people tested grows larger (sample size increases). I'm not sure how much recent mutations might impact the interpretation, but the more people in a particular population that share a mutation, the longer ago that mutation would have happened, as they are passed along to progeny. Exactly! The science of genetic markers is pretty settled. Rumi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 10:12:18 GMT -8
$179 at the Genographic Project. That's a little more expensive but may yield more detailed information for each participant. Additionally, your results can then be added to the database that helps trace human migration.
|
|