+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! (/showthread.php?tid=4737)
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - Dinosaur - 28th February 2013
So rare haplotype after all, why didn't they just say so at the time? dumbing-down or hype?
Why didn't they put the stuff from last night's prog in the original - would have cut down on some of the speculation, and frankly the 'useful' bits from both would all have fitted into the original format.
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - BAJR - 1st March 2013
Absolutely Dino... absolutely - this seemed to be the grown up version... and it seems almost as if they knew the questions that would be asked of the first one... and had this ready and waiting...
Even to seeing that teh feet had not been machined off. and how the DNA evidence worked and ... well a host of things!
Sure they read here as well. so perhaps they took it to heart
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - kevin wooldridge - 1st March 2013
I still don't quite understand how they can claim 'rarity'...there still must be 18,000 or so living descendants of Elizabeth of York.....
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - Dinosaur - 2nd March 2013
Think the arguement they were promoting (but didn't bother explaining for some reason) was that the other evidence made it pretty likely the body was R3, and the 1-2% haplotype therefore made it 50-100 times even more likely...still an element of doubt though...}
...as bad/frustrating as C14 and isotope results, always that element of 'but'... :face-crying:
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - Dinosaur - 2nd March 2013
kevin wooldridge Wrote:...there still must be 18,000 or so living descendants of Elizabeth of York.....
Covered on the programme, rather briefly so if you blinked you missed it, apparently lots of the line they were following had a bad attack of spinster daughters during the 19th century which severely trimmed the options - wierdly same thing happened on my mother's side, several generations where they only had loads of daughters and only one each time ever married, phew! At least I've got siblings who've got the next generation sorted, felt a bit sorry for the DNA donor...
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - kevin wooldridge - 3rd March 2013
Dinosaur Wrote:Covered on the programme, rather briefly so if you blinked you missed it, apparently lots of the line they were following had a bad attack of spinster daughters during the 19th century which severely trimmed the options -
But that would only make a difference if the 'spinster daughters' provided a significant proportion of all of the descendants of Elizabeth of York...and to prove that they would have to have researched every branch of the family to show that was the case. I just cant imagine that an infinite number of monkeys researching every family line would have been able to achieve that result in the time available. Don't get me wrong I am not doubting the result, but it does seem they are dressing up a lack of applied research by throw-away statements. The implication is that any research along these lines does not need to apply systematic methodology if the smallest iota of data points to the anticipated/desired result. That sounds like bad news for archaeology...
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - Dinosaur - 3rd March 2013
Actually they let slip that it seemed to based on old geneological work rather than commisioned from scratch for the R3 project, think 2008 was mentioned but I didn't record the prog and dont have the technology to download it in less than a month, so relying on the bits I can remember in between eating my tea...
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - kevin wooldridge - 11th March 2013
At last!! .... geneticists are getting their act together and explaining that much so called DNA research is little more than media titillation. 'Sense about Science' sounds the kind of organisation that archaeologists should be actively supporting and the perfect way to respond the next time someone suggests archaeology get involved in speculation along the lines of the Richard III media circus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9917945/Are-you-related-to-Cleopatra-Or-are-genealogists-fishing-in-the-Nile.html
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - CARTOON REALITY - 11th March 2013
In paternity cases (unless things have changed in last few years) DNA tests can only legally be used to establish who the father isn't.
Rickeeeeeeeeeeeee! - Unitof1 - 11th March 2013
whys that then?