3 ms·

Scientists have no right to declare what does and does not exist based on what their machines are able to detect. Did gravity not exist before the LHC was const

Scientists have no right to declare what does and does not exist based on what their machines are able to detect. Did gravity not exist before the LHC was constructed and the Higgs data analyzed? Jewish DNA is that which has descended from Abraham, through Isaac, to Jacob and the Jewish nation. Gravity is an attraction between masses. These things exist – regardless of your machines’ proclivities.

jjk166 2y ago
If you personally are a direct descendant of Abraham, or any other specific individual who lived approximately 3000 years ago, statistically you do not carry any DNA from that ancestor. While there are some nuances relating to differences in how the different sexes pass on their genes, as a rough approximation you carry half the base pairs of each of your parents, who each carry roughly half from their parents, and so on. So you carry 1/2^n base pairs from an individual n generations before you. The human genome is 3 billion base pairs, meaning in 31 generations the odds of having a single base pair from a specific ancestor is about 50%. 3000 years is about 120 generations, so your odds of having a basepair from a specific ancestor that far back are about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The only exceptions that matter on that timescale are the y-chromosome along the male-only line descent and the mitochondrial DNA along the female-only line of descent.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  So by that logic nobody has any DNA in common with neanderthals, right? Try again. You’re missing a big, big, gotcha.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    Aside, Jewish line is determined by matrilineal descent. By your own logic the mitochondrial DNA is shared, which is a rather significant aspect to simply gloss over.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    No one has any DNA that can be traced to a specific Neanderthal, no. Of course people have DNA in common with their ancestors as a group, hell we share a lot in common with fish. But it's because these genes are common that they enter and re-enter your family tree at multiple points. And your mitochondrial DNA definitely doesn't descend from Abraham, a male incapable of passing on mitochondrial DNA, so there's a reason I gloss over female line descent.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      Your pseudoscience above would make it seem nobody has any DNA from any ancestors at all, as there were not your 10^Whatever creatures ever in existence. Once you figure out the bug in your logic there, you will perhaps see the failure of the rest of your argument. Hint: inbreeding.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        It's actually called pedigree collapse, but it doesn't really change anything - the fact that the same ancestor may appear in multiple places in your family tree makes it harder to trace a gene back along any given line, not easier. You undoubtedly share an enormous amount of genetic similarity with Abraham, it's how you got it that is forever scrambled.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        It nullifies your entire diatribe and all of its bogus numerics, but O.K. Good sign of someone arguing dishonestly is that when you call out their lies, they tell you that the truth doesn’t matter.
danans 2y ago
> Jewish DNA is that which has descended from Abraham, through Isaac, to Jacob and the Jewish nation. Gravity is an attraction between masses. These things exist – regardless of your machines’ proclivities. Including the term "DNA" in that statement is an anachronism. Cultural identification isn't a physical law like gravity, regardless of how aggressively or emphatically that may be stated. That doesn't make it unimportant or irrelevant, but it is not a biological fact, but instead a social fact.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Are you specifically claiming that a common ancestor does not exist, or that genetic information does not spread to offspring?
  - danans 2y ago
    > Are you specifically claiming that a common ancestor does not exist, or that genetic information does not spread to offspring? I'm not making either of those claims. The first is an article of faith, and the second is trivially true. I'm stating that one can't claim a particular set of DNA patterns makes someone "Jewish", because DNA is a biological phenomenon, and ethnicity/culture/religion are cultural phenomena.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      You seem very unaware of how the Jewish tribe works. Genetics and family line tracing are very much a core concept.
      - danans 2y ago
        I'm aware of family line tracing for establishing tribal identity. It's not something unique to Judaism. DNA patterns often reflect the history of rigid social organization patterns like tribes (and indeed are essential for genetic risk management provided by organizations like Dor Yeshorim). But nobody was tracing ancestry using DNA until the latter half of the 20th century, so claiming DNA as a basis of tribal identity seems quite anachronistic.
netdevnet 2y ago
Are you literally saying they all share a single ancestor? Because that is unlikely to be true
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  It is indefensible to make arguments of likelihoods without and understanding of context and priors. If I listed 1,000 people from around the world at random and claimed we all had a shared great^N grandfather (with N not so large at to be trivially true), I’d need some rather significant proof to back up at that claim, and barring that we could say it was unlikely to be true. If on the other hand I consulted my family’s genealogical records that had been painstakingly maintained for generations, including only those matrilineal lines that are most solid to trace, and from that listed 1,000 folks who have the same grandfather, then my claim would not be very unlikely at all. This case is much closer to the latter than the former.
  - netdevnet 2y ago
    Given the socio-historical relevance of family trees, genealogical records of anyone but the wealthiest are likely unreliable the farther you go back
- names_are_hard 2y ago
  Is it? I'd imagine they all share many common ancestors, but that those common ancestors are probably shared by many others as well so it's not very unique. 30 generations back (a thousand years?) you have over a billion ancestors, which is way more people estimated to have lived at the time, meaning your family tree at that depth contains the same people over and over. Of course your ancestry probably isn't uniformly distributed across the globe, but without modeling it mathematically my guess is that if you go back ~3700 years to when Abraham ostensibly lived you can find multiple people that appear in the ancestry of virtually everyone from the Old World. Anyway intuition can often be poor when dealing with large numbers so if anyone has concrete math or research to share I'd be interested in being proven wrong.
  - 2y ago

jjk166 2y ago

If you personally are a direct descendant of Abraham, or any other specific individual who lived approximately 3000 years ago, statistically you do not carry any DNA from that ancestor. While there are some nuances relating to differences in how the different sexes pass on their genes, as a rough approximation you carry half the base pairs of each of your parents, who each carry roughly half from their parents, and so on. So you carry 1/2^n base pairs from an individual n generations before you. The human genome is 3 billion base pairs, meaning in 31 generations the odds of having a single base pair from a specific ancestor is about 50%. 3000 years is about 120 generations, so your odds of having a basepair from a specific ancestor that far back are about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The only exceptions that matter on that timescale are the y-chromosome along the male-only line descent and the mitochondrial DNA along the female-only line of descent.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
So by that logic nobody has any DNA in common with neanderthals, right? Try again. You’re missing a big, big, gotcha.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Aside, Jewish line is determined by matrilineal descent. By your own logic the mitochondrial DNA is shared, which is a rather significant aspect to simply gloss over.
- jjk166 2y ago
  No one has any DNA that can be traced to a specific Neanderthal, no. Of course people have DNA in common with their ancestors as a group, hell we share a lot in common with fish. But it's because these genes are common that they enter and re-enter your family tree at multiple points. And your mitochondrial DNA definitely doesn't descend from Abraham, a male incapable of passing on mitochondrial DNA, so there's a reason I gloss over female line descent.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    Your pseudoscience above would make it seem nobody has any DNA from any ancestors at all, as there were not your 10^Whatever creatures ever in existence. Once you figure out the bug in your logic there, you will perhaps see the failure of the rest of your argument. Hint: inbreeding.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      It's actually called pedigree collapse, but it doesn't really change anything - the fact that the same ancestor may appear in multiple places in your family tree makes it harder to trace a gene back along any given line, not easier. You undoubtedly share an enormous amount of genetic similarity with Abraham, it's how you got it that is forever scrambled.
      - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        It nullifies your entire diatribe and all of its bogus numerics, but O.K. Good sign of someone arguing dishonestly is that when you call out their lies, they tell you that the truth doesn’t matter.

danans 2y ago

> Jewish DNA is that which has descended from Abraham, through Isaac, to Jacob and the Jewish nation. Gravity is an attraction between masses. These things exist – regardless of your machines’ proclivities. Including the term "DNA" in that statement is an anachronism. Cultural identification isn't a physical law like gravity, regardless of how aggressively or emphatically that may be stated. That doesn't make it unimportant or irrelevant, but it is not a biological fact, but instead a social fact.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
Are you specifically claiming that a common ancestor does not exist, or that genetic information does not spread to offspring?
- danans 2y ago
  > Are you specifically claiming that a common ancestor does not exist, or that genetic information does not spread to offspring? I'm not making either of those claims. The first is an article of faith, and the second is trivially true. I'm stating that one can't claim a particular set of DNA patterns makes someone "Jewish", because DNA is a biological phenomenon, and ethnicity/culture/religion are cultural phenomena.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    You seem very unaware of how the Jewish tribe works. Genetics and family line tracing are very much a core concept.
    - danans 2y ago
      I'm aware of family line tracing for establishing tribal identity. It's not something unique to Judaism. DNA patterns often reflect the history of rigid social organization patterns like tribes (and indeed are essential for genetic risk management provided by organizations like Dor Yeshorim). But nobody was tracing ancestry using DNA until the latter half of the 20th century, so claiming DNA as a basis of tribal identity seems quite anachronistic.

netdevnet 2y ago

Are you literally saying they all share a single ancestor? Because that is unlikely to be true

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
It is indefensible to make arguments of likelihoods without and understanding of context and priors. If I listed 1,000 people from around the world at random and claimed we all had a shared great^N grandfather (with N not so large at to be trivially true), I’d need some rather significant proof to back up at that claim, and barring that we could say it was unlikely to be true. If on the other hand I consulted my family’s genealogical records that had been painstakingly maintained for generations, including only those matrilineal lines that are most solid to trace, and from that listed 1,000 folks who have the same grandfather, then my claim would not be very unlikely at all. This case is much closer to the latter than the former.
- netdevnet 2y ago
  Given the socio-historical relevance of family trees, genealogical records of anyone but the wealthiest are likely unreliable the farther you go back
names_are_hard 2y ago
Is it? I'd imagine they all share many common ancestors, but that those common ancestors are probably shared by many others as well so it's not very unique. 30 generations back (a thousand years?) you have over a billion ancestors, which is way more people estimated to have lived at the time, meaning your family tree at that depth contains the same people over and over. Of course your ancestry probably isn't uniformly distributed across the globe, but without modeling it mathematically my guess is that if you go back ~3700 years to when Abraham ostensibly lived you can find multiple people that appear in the ancestry of virtually everyone from the Old World. Anyway intuition can often be poor when dealing with large numbers so if anyone has concrete math or research to share I'd be interested in being proven wrong.
- 2y ago