Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 947
Evolution.Page 38 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

Lessons? Live to the best of your friggen human capabilities without intellectual excuses.


What, like "I hate how you live/worship/love because my god tells me to?"

Invisible sky daddies make everything excusable, don't they!?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 948
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 10:08:27 PM
You had better hope that you have invisible sky daddies (love this image) on your side when YOU make something that is inexcusable. It ain't never about the obviously impaired and fractured. Its about being wise. Animals have a far easier ride.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 949
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 10:55:52 PM
No we are NOT animals, we are human beings (reminding you will probably do no good) and we are capable of mercy that no animal is ever able to achieve. We are also capable of stepping on the moon and ...well, we fall short only because we are animalistic in our inability to achieve a common good ...both for the benefit of animals and human beings. See..thats the end of my nose? And what the hell does that have to do with the bigger picture? Big mistake, ignoring the bigger picture.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 950
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 11:17:09 PM

Rationality, good sense and logic are overrated.

In your opinion, and that opinion is clearly what informs your posts since they are invariably irrational, nonsensical, and illogical.
For example...

What sinks ships ain't loose lips only, what sinks ships is misplaced reason.

Do you think irrational navigation systems, nonsensical maps, and illogical course decisions would be better?

No we are NOT animals,

What are we then? A new catagory of life form?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 951
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 11:59:56 PM
And your posts in my opinion are invariably too logical, rigid and dry , hence: the cry for some kind of wonder.
Nope, I do not think that irrational trumps rational...but I certainly put rational where it belongs...navigation systems, reasonable maps and financial accounting systems, engineering, architecture, science of any kind, medicine, etc, et. al. Yep we are a new form of life. We are called human beings and we have been around for a very long time and we are NOT animals but we love animals and we know that we are not humans unless we live amongst animals and all of the other friggen manifestations. And ...we are a part of a WHOLE. lol. And we are entitled to a sense of Wonder and screw the rational. OOOOPS. I forgot to include car mechanics. Masters of the Universe. Until I remember that I can walk and saddle up a horse. Then...fly me away.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 952
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 5:45:58 AM
Oh hey! Evolution observed!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-capture-evolution-lab/story?id=13197168


The offspring had doubled its number of chromosomes, a normal process in species formation, but something else clearly was at work. Years later, the couple began experimenting with the plant in a lab they share on the Gainesville campus.

It was an extraordinary opportunity because the flower had evolved recently, "before our very eyes," as Soltis put it, and it had already passed through about 40 generations in 80 years, leaving a genetic history.

They were able to duplicate in the lab what they had already observed in nature, but in controlled conditions.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 953
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 5:03:22 PM

Rationality doesn't exclude a sense of wonder.


In fact, I'd say it enhances it. It's the desire to understand things as they are and not add additional special properties to them.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 954
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 5:15:14 PM
I thought evolution was observed every year, when we find that the flu virus is immune to the stuff that killed it last year. Cold germs too. I understand that some other, nastier germs have evolved, and become immune to the drugs that used to kill THEM too. Just because they are small, doesn't mean they aren't perfectly good examples of evolving beings. In fact, at my relatively ignorant level of understanding, I suspect that the smaller something is, and the more prolific, the more likely it is to evolve, and evolve quickly. Since people tend to notice only BIG things changing, it's somewhat understandable that we missed evolution for a long time.
Then there's the whole do-it-yourself-evolution, that we used to call animal husbandry, and breeding for better stock. I guess that's "cheating?"
No use arguing with someone who simply BELIEVES that all is explained by religion, though. His definition of logic, facts, science, and reality itself is different from those he criticizes, and therefor none of their rules apply to him, nor his to them.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 955
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 5:51:39 PM

After reading your post, you make it sound like there is no difference beteween adaptaion and evolution....... When did that differentiation end?


Paul, you're doing it again. Adaptation is a process of evolution through natural selection. It is not a conscious process. Evolution does not consciously "adapt" a species in one direction or another. Animals best suited for survival and reproduction in changing conditions live on to reproduce and the features that enhanced the survival are passed on to successive generations. This has all been explained. Revisiting it time and again in an effort to try and get someone to "slip up" in an explanation so you can shout "Ah HA!!! Gotcha!" is just another creationist tactic that is, ultimately, dishonest.


but is it possible to eventually, through selective breeding, get a whale from the starting point of a dog?


How much time have you got? What sort of innumerable individual pressures do you think you're going to have to exert? The evolution of whales is already well documented. So really, what's the point of the question?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 957
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 9:30:27 PM
Random mutation is not proven, simply a means of explaining the unexplainable, where mutations have been found to be detrimental. Perhaps genetic variation is a "goal". Just sayin'.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 958
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 9:35:09 PM

And I always thought that "adaptation" was the process where an animal/organism effected changes as far as its genetic genome would allow. And any further change would require change to the genome....................

Adaptation can be a concious process, say if a farmer keeps breeding only the largest sheep to each other....... However, correct me if I am wrong, BUT, unless the genome were to change, you would reach a point where the particular change that you selectivley bred for no longer changed.............


Which is a degree of detail that would be readily available, including emailing an evolutionary biologist, if you were truly interested in learning. Or, at the very least, reading up on evolution.


As far as my motives, I'll make you a deal........ I won't lump you in with others, and you do me the courtesy of the same............ fair enough?


Do the rest of us a courtesy of not asking questions for which you already have a pre-decided answer...especially when it's already been asked and answered numerous times before. The motivations behind such tactics is not really so hard to decipher.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 959
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 9:36:31 PM

Random mutation is not proven, simply a means of explaining the unexplainable, where mutations have been found to be detrimental. Perhaps genetic variation is a "goal". Just sayin'.


Just sayin' the same old thing we tend to hear from creationists. And it's as burdened by fallacy the first time as it is the 100th time.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 960
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/1/2011 10:14:37 PM

Just sayin' the same old thing we tend to hear from creationists. And it's as burdened by fallacy the first time as it is the 100th time.


It would seem, then, that is proven fact that mutations seen as detrimental are random. As this is not the case, it would seem that your problem is with creationists, as I never even mentioned the term. Since you have all the answers already, why participate in the discussion of the question?

Scientific theory is simply that, scientific THEORY. Why would one scientifically inclined dismiss ANY scientific theory without actual proof requiring dismissal, I wonder? Are you refusing to acknowledge that science itself chooses to focus on that which is currently unexplainable? Forgive me, as I thought that that was the goal of science. My bad.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 961
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/2/2011 8:16:56 AM
I have made no claim to being official expert level about this subject, I just understand a few things more clearly or correctly than many who fuss inaccurately about evolution.
Krebby made yet another good point along the lines I've been trying to get at. A tremendous amount of the fuss over evolution is really not about what reality is, but about what teh nomenclature can be taken to mean. Add on top of that, the various power struggles over who gets to be in charge of this or that aspect of our lives (religion over science and vice versa).
Minor "whaaa????": someone poked in and said "random mutation is not proven." I can barely even figure out what in the world this person was thinking, writing that. 'Random' might be a confusing word to some, as to whether it means 'unpredictable,' or 'with absolutely no understandable mechanism of causation.' In that sense, you'd be entering into an even more esoteric conversation than applies here, so I guess I'll simply say "Oh yes it IS proven," and leave it at that.
Krebby's comment about "goal" being a human concept only, is at the heart of one of the most common misunderstandings about evolution. It applies to some other significant areas as well, like politics, war, and history, but I'll stick to the subject at hand. When we look at the RESULT of an evolutionary change, we can misrepresent that an adaptation happened IN ORDER to allow the animal to survive a changing world. But that has it exactly backwards, as far as what evolutionary theory is about.
Another related common confusion, is over whether or not a CONSCIOUS behavioral change is a part of evolution. The word ADAPTATION is what I think triggers people to misapply this thinking. AS far as I understand, the use of ADAPTATION in evolutionary thinking is not related at all to it's use in an existing creatures' behavioral adjustments to changing conditions. Many of us, including me, are in the midst of having to "adapt" to a changing (worsening) economy. But we aren't "evolving."
Maybe what Paul was challenging me about was related to that sort of things somehow. In evolution theory, words like 'adaptation' have a very specific meaning, that they do NOT have in common conversational parlance, just as the word 'theory' has a very different meaning in science than in common chat. And as far as I know, or think I know, 'adaptation' in evolutionary theory is not meant to indicate that a creature CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE to change, or even that individual creatures DID change biologically, in response to their life challenges. It is meant that AS A SPECIES, that changes that can be seen OVER GENERATIONS, can be DESCRIBED AS 'adaptations' to the changes of the species environments. The word 'adaptation' is thus applied AFTER THE FACT, in a descriptive way, and NOT as a purposeful ACTION.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 962
Evolution.
Posted: 4/2/2011 8:21:42 AM

It would seem, then, that is proven fact that mutations seen as detrimental are random.


By definition, mutation is going to be random. However, consider that mutations have three possible outcomes - beneficial (expression of the gene results in traits that benefit the survival of the creature), harmful (expression of the gene results in traits that compromise the survivability of the creature) and neutral (has no impact on the survivability of the creature). So that means that harmful mutations are more likely to be minority compared to beneficial or neutral. And we are talking over innumerable generations.


Scientific theory is simply that, scientific THEORY. Why would one scientifically inclined dismiss ANY scientific theory without actual proof requiring dismissal, I wonder? Are you refusing to acknowledge that science itself chooses to focus on that which is currently unexplainable? Forgive me, as I thought that that was the goal of science. My bad.


Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "just a theory." In scientific parlance, "theory" is the highest degree of truth a hypothesis can ascend to before becoming law. Plain and simple. So I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "science chooses to focus on that which is currently unexplainable." Additionally, the fact that scientists have always worked on things that, at the time, was considered "unexplained," well, that's the job of science. However, how do you determine "unexplainable?" That implies you would know, well, everything and so can make an ultimate determination of what is and is not explainable. Are you god?

If you are insisting that god is "unexplainable," then you have no more reason to consider god as being any more "real" than I do. The difference is that I am happy to wait for evidence that justifies at least a probational acceptance, versus many (not all, but many) theists - and particularly creationists - who insist on what is essentially bronze age mythology be given the same level of credibility as modern scientific discovery and understanding.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 963
Evolution.
Posted: 4/2/2011 10:28:56 AM

With the polar bear, and the Eskimos -- well, the Eskimo part first. What is being wiped out is the culture of the Eskimos' -- their ability to survive as they have for eons. The Eskimos will not be wiped out --


Ummm....'Inuit,' not "Eskimo."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 964
Evolution.
Posted: 4/2/2011 2:51:26 PM

Oooops, my bad. I stand corrected and plead ignorance when it comes to sensititivities of the Inuit, having not been exposed much to that culture.


I'm sure they'll forgive you. Another point of interest: in Canada, at least, our aboriginal peoples are frequently referred to, not as "indians" but as 'First Nations.'

I rather like it, myself. Not only is it more descriptive, it sounds cooler, too!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 965
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/2/2011 7:49:22 PM

Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "just a theory." In scientific parlance, "theory" is the highest degree of truth a hypothesis can ascend to before becoming law. Plain and simple. So I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "science chooses to focus on that which is currently unexplainable."


The "job" of science is to earn income for those who practice the profession. They develop a hypothesis, then seek funds with which to perform research in order to prove their hypothesis. At this point in time, no "law" has been enacted in regards to the topic at hand. Lack of evidence does not necessarily undermine a theory. Science justifies believing in one theory over another by virtue of the description of reality, rather than proof positive. "Scientific theory is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science."

To this end, much theory has been challenged, disproven, and scientific law is self described as limited; many have become obsolete, even. As far as I am concerned, that is just an "out" for that which truly is unexplainable. You can choose to call that advancement if you wish, but it doesn't make you more correct by any means. The choice to continue to search for answers is no more "correct", nor superior to, the choice to be content, especially when the limited amount of time one has on earth. Superiority of intelligence is not defined by quest, that's all I'm saying.

Perhaps one who believes on God doesn't require more evidence, as they have not enough evidence to the contrary. Certainly you are entitled to wait, but it is unlikely that you will live long enough to see the day when "law" in regards to this issue is stated, given reality. So, yes, "just a theory"..... as opposed to a belief, all the while being much the same, even if the end result differs on a personal basis.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 966
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 4/3/2011 1:05:39 AM

To this end, much theory has been challenged, disproven, and scientific law is self described as limited; many have become obsolete, even.

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true."
"Scientific Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method. "
http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

You can choose to call that advancement if you wish, but it doesn't make you more correct by any means. The choice to continue to search for answers is no more "correct", nor superior to, the choice to be content, especially when the limited amount of time one has on earth. Superiority of intelligence is not defined by quest, that's all I'm saying.

'Superiority of intelligence' is not defined by quest, but it may well have a correlation to to the means used to collect the evidence, and it certainly does have relevance to readiness to classify and accept information, including even mere 'belief', as 'evidence'.

Perhaps one who believes on God doesn't require more evidence, as they have not enough evidence to the contrary.

That reasoning would justify belief in anything that can't be disproved. Which is simply ridiculous.
Perhaps there really are blue whale sized pink elephants living on a rainbow coloured square planet just beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes hey? Best not discount the 'theory' since there's no evidence to the contrary I guess...

So, yes, "just a theory"..... as opposed to a belief, all the while being much the same, even if the end result differs on a personal basis.

A 'theory' and a 'belief' are not necessarily the same thing. To imply a false parallel is either corrupt or a demonstration of incomprehension.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 967
view profile
History
Eskimos?
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:46:04 AM
By the way, from what I read, the Inuit are one SUBSET of Eskimo. So though you probably want to say "Inuit" when talking to north Canadoodlians, it doesn't work for ALL the northerners and Siberians who were already there when we caucasiatics showed up. It would be like referring to all Caucs as "French", or all Africans as " Zulu." We'll have to ask all the others what THEY prefer. I know at least one, who says he prefers "Bob."
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 968
Eskimos?
Posted: 4/4/2011 5:59:30 PM
Nope. When early white explorers asked the Dene who lived north of them, they were told "Eskimos." It was a derogatory term used by the Dene to describe the Innuit. I think it meant something like "Eaters of raw flesh."

That's why we don't say Eskimo in Canada anymore.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 969
view profile
History
Eskimos? is NOT the thread topic
Posted: 4/4/2011 8:04:16 PM
More ON topic later...
"Eskimo" has a number of suspected meanings and origins, including various versions of "eaters of raw food". The academic consensus is that the term does NOT have a pejorative origin, despite a common perception of that. In Alaska, where Inuit [Inupiat] eskimos and Yupik eskimos; plus Aleuts, live, the accepted term of the peoples themselves is "eskimo". The Inupiat of Alaska call themselves eskimo or Inupiat, but not Inuit. In Canada and Greenland, where only Inuit eskimos live, the people call themselves collectively Inuit or eskimo, and are made up of Inuit, Inuvialuit, Inuinnaq, and Kalaallit. Globally, these peoples call themselves ALL "Inuit", even though Yupiks [and Aleuts] are not Inuit, and Inupiat are but do not call themselves such.
Inuit is those people's own term, meaning "the people". Similarly, the community Inuvik is the "place of man". In the western Canadian arctic, the native people are Inuvialuit [people of the deer]. Other groups are Aleut, Yupik (with four or five groups/languages), Inupiat, Inuinnaq, and Kalaallit.

As for the actual thread topic, there's so much utter crap posted [repeated ad nauseum since my last response that it will require a treatise to properly deal with. Much of the nonsense could be resolved if a few people could learn some basics about the scientific method, logic, logical fallacies, and evidence.

That won't happen, so I'll see if I can squeeze the treatise in soon :S
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 970
Eskimos? is NOT the thread topic
Posted: 4/5/2011 7:06:37 AM
Actually, the etymology of "Eskimo" does sort of apply here.

I came in with a statement that I had heard. Someone with more knowledge than I have came in and told me I was wrong. I'm okay with that; it's not the first, nor will be the last time. If I was really invested in this, I'd do more research and try to defend my position, but I'd still concede the point if it turned out I couldn't.

The point is that I'm willing to accept the conclusions that the evidence leads to. I won't attack anthropologists because they are employed by universities instead of Exxon; I won't try to wave around an old book that says "Eskimo means flesh eater;" I won't dogmatically stick with my position and keep demanding evidence after it's already been presented.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 971
Eskimos are Valued on Earth; Therefore VERY On Topic
Posted: 4/5/2011 5:32:23 PM

The question that I posed, and that you took as sarcasm, was to point out that I would have no idea as to what to refer to them as.


You ask them.


It seems like nowadays you have to worried more about hurting people whose skin as become artificially thin, than you have to worry about polar bears.


Sez la vie.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 972
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/5/2011 8:18:19 PM
I refer to myself as "Canadian" or "WASP". I don't take offense at "WASP" or "Canuck", and don't think I've ever heard "honky". I think most such terms don't arise as pejoratives, but rather as nicknames describing the peoples in question. They become pejorative when used that way or when people get sick of hearing it. "WoP" simply meant "without passport", as many Italian immigrants arrived in the USA without passports and "WoP" was stamped on their papers. "Chink" would be short for "Chinese", "Nip" for "Nippon" ("Japan" in Japanese), and the term for blacks is a corruption of "negro", which simply translates as "black". I think the lesson there is that most peoples would prefer to be called by their full cultural name rather than a nickname from any language.

The peoples of the north refer to themselves, collectively, as "Inuit" or "Eskimo" (see "Inuit Circumpolar Conference"). At a more local or tribal level, some will call themselves "Inuit", "Eskimo", and some will use neither. There are about a dozen major tribes plus a few subtribes, most of which have distinct names for themselves. As I mentioned, the Inuit (ie, not Yupik or Aleut) tribe of Alaska call themselves "Inupiat", but not "Inuit", while obviously the Yupik and Aleut also do not call themselves "Inuit". The term used depends in part on the scale - when refering to an individual or tribe, the tribal term is preferable. When refering to multiple tribes or cultures, a more general term is appropriate. When I lived in the north, the locals called themselves "indian", and more specifically "Loucheux". I learned this as only a seven year old is likely: "Are you an indian? What kind of indian are you?" Their own name for themselves is now in vogue - "Gwich'in".

All that aside, the discussion is the validity of evolution. Cultural (or biological) extinction really have nothing to do with that.

Paul - to address the first question you asked me (now months ago)...I started to reply right away, wrote a long response, and then decided I needed to rethink and simplify. Between one thing and another, as you suggested, I took something of a voluntary break. Anyway...

No, given the circumstances you described, I don't think ancestry could be directly traced to the individual you described. Two things, which were not conditions offered in your example, might change that: First, having genetic samples of both men to compare to. Second, if the man in question had some historical record of a very rare genetic deformity or disease (as documented for certain noble families), not present in his brother and preferably not known in his forebears. In both of these situations, one MIGHT be able to identify the ancestry by the presence of unique traits in the descendant which were present in only the brother of interest.

As for "no"...there are many problems. First is the fact that every reproduction adds new mutations, both those of the mother's egg and those of the father's sperm. Multiple mutations added with each generation. Second is that each generation likely involves the unique gene set of an individual from OUTside of the family line. Consequently, unique markers from the ancestor in question could be mutated or swamped out of existence in the time period allotted. Third is the problem of actually determining what exact genetic variants were present in that individual, while also NOT being present in any of the other ancestors. Note that each generation you go back, assuming NO intra-familial marriage, doubles the number of ancestors. For 20 generations back, that's 2^20 original ancestors. Accounting for mutations requires including everyone in between: 2^20+2^19+2^18... x Ma [where Ma is the average mutation rate per gamete, estimated at 175]. Ignore lethal mutations, since obviously none of the ancestors died without reproducing. Those who did, don't count. That's a stupendous number to deal with, although some mutations will reverse while only a few will occur with a rate and stability to be traced. A fourth problem will be the knowledge gap - the liklihood that any particular ancestor [and his or her ancestors] will be unknown and thus untraceable. Such unknowns could account for traits otherwise falsely attributed to the target brother. A FIFTH problem is the liklihood of having the wrong gender as an ancestor. That is, the target brother is obviously male and thus has a Y chromosome. Mitochondrial DNA will only trace back maternally and will never point to him. Y chromosomes will only trace back paternally, and will thus only trace back to him if all the intervening ancestors are male. One female in that line and Y-chromosome data is useless.

So I don't think it could feasibly be done. Such tracing can work for populations, in which all of the pooled data count, but not so well for individuals.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >