Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Brief biography of my paternal side of the family tree (Denman)

Earliest verified paternal ancestor, gg-grandfather William C. Denman (b. August 9, 1836-d. March 31, 1906; served in the C.S.A. 1861-1865, & buried in the Denman Family private cemetery in Flemington, Marion county, Florida, alongside his wife, Sarah F. (Sallie) Crankfield, of South Carolina (b.1844-d.1937). They married in June of 1865.

Edit: I recently, finally was able to trace my paternal lineage back to John Denman (age 14 at time of emigration), who sailed w/ his twice-widowed mother (Judith Stoughton Denman Smead, sister of Boston merchants Israel & Thomas Stoughton), his sister Mary, & his younger half-brother William Smead, on the 'Dorset' in 1635 (Capt. Flower), from Gravesend, London England, to Boston & then to Salem Colony by way of Barbadoes.

(In those times of religious & political oppressions, a direct route to Boston might have met w/ interference from British authorities; who sometimes forced ships to drop anchor in the harbors, not allowing them to sail right away. So Captains often booked their voyages to Barbadoes first, never mentioning that they would also later head over to the Colonies.)

UPDATE:  The spelling in ancient records (such as ship logs) is often pretty wonky, but my current understanding is that the ship Dorset, on which John Denman sailed, actually was headed to ~Bermuda (not Barbadoes).

The family was from Suffolk and/or Essex Co., England (it eventually traces back in time to Retford, Nottinghamshire, up North); Judith's father was a Puritan 'reverend', who later endured religious discrimination when Charles II regained the throne. One of the descendants (a cousin or nephew, I believe) of John Denman (b. ~1620 in England) was William Stoughton, Lt. Governor of Salem Colony & Chief Magistrate for the notorious Salem Witch trials (1692-3).

There were also two Protestant English Queens (sisters Mary II & Anne, the Stuart daughters of James II and Lady Anne Hyde), who descended maternally from a Denman: I suspect we're related to them somehow, also.  But neither one of them had any living children to survive to adulthood, so their lineages ended with themselves.

I traced our Southern branch of the Denman tree (of whom the majority have resided in Northern states or in California) from Westfield, New Jersey to Wilkes Co., Georgia, where a Daniel Wright Denman (my ggggg-grandfather), along with his son, James, and brother, John, helped defend Georgia against the British in the American Revolution.  Daniel's wife (and Jame's mother) was Deborah Scudder.

Evidently Daniel's eldest brother, John, was disowned by their father (receiving only "2 shillings" in the will).  His mother, Mary Elizabeth Williams, was also excluded from inheriting any of her husband's property, for some reason (although like John, she was acknowledged by name in the will) Daniel (my ggggg-grandfather) and his brother John (Daniel had inherited properties in New Jersey, including a part of a 100-acre "plantation" and his portion of a half interest in a mill) apparently abandonned their New Jersey families to remake their lives in Georgia, during the Revolution. John, the eldest Denman brother, may have returned to New Jersey afterwards).

Daniel's son (James) won some Georgia land in the post-Revolutionary lottery. Daniel didn't participate in the lottery, & no further record of him exists (possibly partly owing to Civil War General Sherman's later march to the sea, whence he burned every courthouse & home in his path).

James married Claranna Wellborn & had a big family (including my ancestor, Blake Denman).

Blake married Neaty Elston & had my gg-grandfather, William C. Denman (already mentioned). He & wife Sallie had 2 living children, including my g-grandfather (Isaiah "Isaac" Cranfield Denman, a man reputed to be musically gifted).
 
Neaty Elston was the g-granddaughter of John Sevier, the first and six-times governor of Tennessee.  He was also a Revolutionary war hero, an Indian fighter, a foe of Andrew Jackson, a multiple times elected Congressman or Senator (not sure which), who died having attained the rank of General (George Washington himself promoted him to the rank of Brigadier General).  Furthermore, John Sevier came from a noble Basque family called the de Xaviers.  St. Francis Xavier was one of his (and thus my) uncles.  The family which was once Catholic, later converted to Protestantism (Huguenots) and moved from Navarre, Spain, to France; then later again moved from France to London, England.

William C. & Sallie Denman, a daughter (Willie Denman Brown, age 20 at death) & an infant grandchild, a girl also named 'Willie', are all buried on private land once owned by the family in Flemington, Florida.  Sallie (Sarah J.) was the daughter or granddaughter of Littleton Crankfield, of South Carolina.

Isaiah & wife Lillie V. (Vernon?, perhaps) had 3 children, including my grandfather (Vernon Winters Denman, who died age 38 in 1944, under suspicious circumstances, leaving his wife (my grandmother, Lillie Yarbrough) a widow with orphanned children eventually spending some time in foster homes).

I intuitively knew that these were my paternal ancestors, but now I'm quite sure of it. Before going South (so to speak), our clan picked up a little bit of Dutch DNA, through Marie Madelain Gerneaux (var. spellings, most commonly Mary Gano), in Staten Island, New York. She had sailed to America with her family at age 1 1/2, on the 'De Beaver', from La Rochelle, France, in the second half of the 17th century. (The Stoughtons are probably also of Dutch heritage, apparently.)  The first John Denman to come to America (from Gravesend to Boston, on the Dorset), married Sarah Hollander (which I believe is a German surname).

[UPDATE: Seems I'm a daughter of the Revolutionary War, just as I suspected (Daniel Wright Denman fought for Georgia, along with two of his brothers. We are descended from Daniel & his first wife, Deborah Scudder, whom he abandonned in New Jersey when he went south to Georgia).

Also we do trace back to the earliest Puritan colonists in Salem, Massachussetts. Then our family settled in Dutch New York & later, New Jersey. The line is traceable all the way back to 1430, to John Denman of Redford (or, Retford, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, England).

We are related to the (Dutch/English) Stoughtons, Judith Stoughton's son John Denman (who emigrated to the New World via the 'Dorset' which embarked on September 30, 1635 & captained by a man named "Flower"). We're also related to (Dutch) Marie Madelain Gayneau (many spelling variations).

We have two Protestant queens on the tree (Mary II, who reigned with her husband William III, Prince of Orange - "William & Mary" - & Queen Anne, who was married to the Prince George of Denmark. Both women were either childless or had many stillborns, children who died in infancy, etc. So none of their heirs survived to continue their branch of the Denman tree.

These two sister-queens were descended maternally from a Reverend Nicholas Denman, husband of Lady Anne Hercy. Their son, Francis Denman's, daughter (Lady Anne Aylesbury) had a daughter (Lady Frances Hyde) who had a daughter (Anne Hyde) who married king James II (a Stuart, & Catholic) & was the mother of Mary II & Anne (Stuarts). He evidently was deposed & replaced first by Mary, then later by Anne.

So, we've had many prominent & wealthy individuals on our family tree. But our specific line fell into economic hard times (like so many other Americans, these days).]

Brief biographical info in my maternal lineage

Earliest known maternal ancestor, gg-grandmother *Cely Bird* (b. 19th century).  She married Steven Hilburn in North Carolina.  One of their daughters was our g-grandmother Polly Hilburn Elkins (b. June 17, 1868-d. June 7, 1953, & buried at Cedars of Lebanon cemetery near Inglis, Levy county Florida).

Polly married George Washington Elkins, who worked in the turpentine industry. The family migrated south to St. Augustine, Florida, from Wilmington, North Carolina.

I don't know much about Cely's husband, Steven Hilburn (so far); but have seen several "Hilburns" listed on the Cherokee Dawes rolls. My grandma, Mary Gladys Elkins Thompson, told me that "old Cely" (her maternal grandmother) was from Fayetteville, N.C.  I believe both Cely and Steven were either full-blooded or part-blooded Cherokee.  I'm fairly certain, based on Grandma's testimony, that Cely at least was full-blooded and that she spoke her native language.

Edit: I recently found a marriage record online, of Polly Hilburn & George Washington Elkins (in Columbus County, N.C.), dated January 5, 1890. (Polly is mispelled "Dolly" in this copy of the record). Her parents, who witnessed the marriage license, were identified as 'Stephen' Hilburn & 'Celia' Hilburn. (My grandmother informed me of "Celia's" (Cely's) maiden name, Bird).

[UPDATE: I've read that the Native American branches of family trees are very difficult to fill in, that people frequently end up running into brick walls there.  That's what has happened to me, with Cely Bird & Stephen Hilburn (so far); and it makes logical sense, in light of the fact that Indians didn't keep written records!  Also, North Carolina (ie Cherokee country) & many other courthouses have been hit by arsonists so many times, wiping out valuable vital statistics & other legal records. Then there was also the destruction brought about by the Civil War, with further burning & losses of the 'paper trails'.]

http://thelibrary.org/lochist/periodicals/wrv/v4/n12/s73b.htm
The Kimberling Family.

Final replies to BioGeek & AnnTurner on "Inheritance from 10th to 12th generation ancestors"

You give more credence to a bureaucrat census-taker (lol) who in those days might have labelled practically anyone with brown skin, "mulatto", than your own mother & grandfather?

(I only doubt people who I know are not very intelligent, suffer from severe mental illness, are motivated by things like greed or lust, or are simply habitual liars. People do make mistakes, but you accused your grandfather of lying. Hmm.)

Also, I assure you that Indian ancestry didn't elevate a person's status to any higher levels than African ancestry did, in times past. My mother treated the subject like taboo. So, there was not much logic in choosing one over the other, to cover it up.

(How old are you? You didn't live through the Civil Rights movement, with all the riots & stuff, did you? You've been brought up on PC tolerance, & don't believe that discrimination even exists, do you?

Yet, you seem to think there would have been some reason for Native American ancestry to carry more status than African. Why? It isn't because it did so, many years ago! Only since the casinos made a bunch of Indians rich, has anyone really thought it might be a good thing...lol).

Also, since African DNA has a more ancient origin, doesn't it make logical sense that some percentage (however small or rare) of that mtDNA would have survived the processes of mutation, in practically ~any~ given demographic?

So logically, there ought to be nominal percentages of at least a few of the older haplogroups in the indigenous populations of nearly any geographic region. (Unless you also dispute the 'Out of Africa' theory of Human migration?)

To AnnTurner: I understand now (through my own research), that mothers' two X chromosomes are recombined in their ova. I appreciate your attempts to enlighten me on that detail.

However, can you give me solid referential *proof* that the mtDNA genome isn't also copied (having been preserved during the recombination process) in the X chromosomes? I understand that there are genes that haven't been decoded as of yet.

That may seem like a dumb question, but when I look online I find NO discussion about the possibility. It's as if no one knows, or no one has bothered to pose that question! (I would think it might be one of those questions that the experts would get quite often, from schoolchildren at least, and would want to explain to us lay people - especially if there really is an obvious answer.)

I understand that in fact most mitochondrial processes are coded in some of the nuclear genes. I suspect they're probably encoded in the *X* chromosomes of both, men & women. That must be the reason both men & women possess X chromosomes in their cells. (Logically, they shouldn't be found coded on Y chromosomes, but I suppose I could be mistaken.)

Reply to Gattaca - Will that Day come?

The OP, 'Gattaca' asks:
"Is the Gattaca scenario a possibility in the future of the human race?"

My reply:

A) Genetically inferior beings (Hybrids) ~already~ pose as our (Human beings') superiors.

B) Eugenics is ~already~ being practiced by our (Hybrid) 'leaders' (Nazi, fascist megalomaniacs), and has been going on for many centuries.

C) The possibility of intergalactic space travel is an obsessive ~delusion~ held by genetically inferior beings (psychotic Hybrids).

Friday, November 25, 2011

Reply to thread: "Why so few studies on Haplogroup X in North America?"

(OP for this thread was 'supertigerCH')

Excellent question. I believe the reasons NA-X isn't further investigated, are mostly political.

Native status in America was historically something many people were discouraged from admitting. NA's were encouraged by the BIA to downplay or underestimate their blood quanta for the tribal membership 'rolls', for example; & NA's were commonly, officially & socially classified as inferior, 'colored folk' (albeit "'free' persons of 'color'"), much like Negros & 'Mulattos' or 'Mestizos';

& it remains an 'exclusive' designation, reserved for only a few who are granted certain necessary (though deeply resented & jealously guarded) 'privileges' (due to the circumstances of the invasion of America & displacement/genocide of NA's, by European colonists).

Bottom line: the fewer 'official' or 'bona fide' NA's, the less it ~costs~ the Federal & Tribal governments, lol.

So DNA testing of NA's has historically been mostly about ~exclusion~ from the 'club' (so to speak). I believe that's why the 'experts' & 'authorities' won't admit more than the 'Big 5' haplogroup subclades for NA's. There are ~legal~ & ~economic~ components to the problem of who is or isn't NA. Thus, there is definitely an 'agenda' surrounding it.

(And NA's rarely make a fuss about how we're treated; we've been punished too often, for doing so. Hints: genocide & confinement to 'reservations' which are more like concentration camps.)

The whole culturally accepted 'story' about how America was settled by the many varied tribes we now refer to all as 'Native Americans', is textbook (as if carved in granite); it isn't really open for discussion.

Because if it was, we would learn things about America & its indigenous people that would blow a lot of minds & burst a few bubbles. It would shatter some stereotypes & cost the governments more $$$ & natural resources (land).

The 'Out of Africa' theory of Human migration is a very logical one, based on the enthusiastic, early studies of mtDNA. But its scope has since become ~stunted~ by the same & other political reasons.

And according to the Theory, it should not be at all surprising to find certain geographically specific subclades of nearly all the major mtDNA haplogroups; at least of practically every major Human 'race' & 'subrace': Asian, Polynesian/Indonesian, Caucasian, perhaps Aryan/Indo-European, 'Semitic', African, etc.

The more archaic the haplogroups, the more rarely one might expect to find them represented in the modern NA populations (if at all, since some or many of them may have eventually become extinct in America).

It's already been proven time & again, that NA's have existed in the New World far longer than originally presumed. I would expect that comparatively later emigrants might have fought against the more archaic peoples, perhaps wiping most (but not necessarily all) of them out of the landscape.

But the American subclades should also be proven to be mostly specific to ~America~, due to the varying degrees of longterm continental/hemispheric isolation of the many different tribes here. IOW the longer they've been here, the more specificly 'American' I would expect their subclades to be.

However, the 'experts' don't mention subclades much, when informing NA's who've had their DNA tested, that they're "not Native American" because their haplo~group(s)~ is/are "European" (or "African", whatever).

If you ~knew~ indisputably that you were NA (based on your families' ~oral traditions~ - since American Indians didn't keep written records & later Colonial courthouse records were often destroyed by ~arsonists~);

& you also ~knew~ that you might be 'officially' excluded by self-made, government funded 'experts', based on shoddy, mickey-mouse 'science' - would you care to have your DNA tested? I think not.

And do I consider these reasons "nefarious"? Was the genocide of Native Americans "nefarious"? Lol.

I realize my views on this subject may be unpopular or politically 'incorrect'; but I must tell it as it is (or, at least as I see it). And my point of view on the matter is quite relevant to this discussion of DNA/Genealogy.

[UPDATE: This reply wasn't 'approved' by the Moderator (R1a1a, presumably); & the OP was deleted from the forum. They will allow all sorts of political / social discussion, as long as it has nothing to do with Native America. $$$ They are protecting their interests, is the logical conclusion.]

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Rebuff to R1a1a

There is nothing that makes you or anyone my superior, except in your own imaginations. In future, when you "correct" my "mistakes", make sure you 1)keep it in the proper context & 2)provide me with valid cited reference(s) for your argument.(Otherwise, I couldn't take you very seriously.)

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

posted 4th Reply to, "Inheritance from 10th to 12 generation ancestors

[quote name 'MMaddi']
OK. Your quote of my question to you and your answer clarify what you think is happening. Reread my post and other posts which have given you information about how the various types of DNA are transmitted and what they do or provide. There is nuclear DNA - the x, y and autosomal chromosomes - and mitochondrial DNA, outside the nucleus. I've bolded the last sentence I've quoted from you to show that you mistakenly believe that somehow there is a connection between mtDNA and a woman's x and that only the woman's x from her mother can be transmitted to her children. This is what I thought your misconception is.

Again, mitochondrial DNA and the x chromosome have different functions, are located in different parts of the cell and are not transmitted in the same way, especially since the x recombines in a woman, just like the autosomal chromosomes. No one here disagrees with you that mtDNA does not recombine and is transmitted solely from a mother to her children, sons and daughters, and then transmitted unchanged only by her daughters. What you are misunderstanding is the x chromosome, mixing it up in your mind, it seems, with mtDNA.

You wrote, "I'm dismayed that talking to a non-professional is so confusing for you; I may not know everything that you do, but how could you miss my point? You took the conversation away from the OP's question, & tried to school me in biology." I'm a non-professional myself. I guess you would call me an educated layman. But I'm able to grasp the concepts involved by learning from others with more knowledge. With all due respect, you could do the same, if you would not be so committed to defending mistaken ideas.
[quote]

My statement which you highlighted is actually germaine to the issue here:

"How would the X received from their fathers ever be capable of carrying their own mothers' mitochondria, which women then pass along to their own children?)"

Admittedly, it's poorly phrased, but as you have pointed out yourselves - I'm not a DNA scientist.

Also, in that post I attempted to answer several of you at one time. So you might be confused about ~which~ X chromosome "the X" is referring to; do you realize what I'm talking about?

I'm referring to the one & only X chromosome that is contained in each ovum, the single cell which combines with the father's sperm (containing either an X or a Y chromosome, not both), to make babies.

Women pass their mtDNA along to their children in that ovum with that one X chromosome. Which copied X (the one she inherited from her father, or the one she inherited from her mother) is in those eggs?

I maintain that it's the maternal X chromosome, the one that is inherited repeatedly down through potentially vast numbers of generations of a family, in an individual's direct maternal lineage. Why do I believe that?

Because, mothers "typically" or "normally" pass their own maternal mtDNA, generally unchanged/unrecombined, to all of their biological offspring. And the coding for mtDNA is found in the nuclear DNA, not in the mtDNA itself (which contains codes for other sorts of body/life processes.

Every mother's specific maternal mtDNA's structure is encoded within the nuclear DNA or genes of her cells. I assume that means also the ova, right? So the paternal X chromosome copies inherited from her father shouldn't be the same ones that are found in ova, for that to happen correctly.

Lol, but I was taken by surprise when you all began talking about recombination, since mtDNA doesn't "normally" recombine. However, many of you continued to insist that it does. Someone even said it's the rule, not the exception. And you are entitled to your beliefs.

But I provided solid evidence that mtDNA doesn't recombine, nevertheless. I don't pretend to know everything, but I don't judge what people tell me by their professional work qualifications. Instead, I try to pay close attention to what they're saying.

I must say that I did learn quite a lot here, & in my prior post I shared some of it with you, with references. All the chatter about X chromosomes & recombination, etc., etc., forced me to do even more research on my own, & I find the subject to be quite fascinating.

mtDNA contains a relatively small number of genes, compared to nuclear DNA;

and, the coding for mtDNA is located in the nuclear genes.

I stand by my original claim that mtDNA rarely (if ever) undergoes recombination; and contributes set, relatively fixed percentages of DNA to practically every individual offspring in any direct maternal lineage.

That is one piece of the equation, suggested by the OP's question posed in the title of this thread. (I also learned on my own, that male (Y) DNA chromosomes tend to lose genes somehow, over similarly long time periods, in their paternal lineages; another part of the equation...)

Johi, I'm Native American through my direct maternal lineage; AND my mtDNA is haplogroup W. You'll just have to figure that one out. Your statement, that I'm not NA "because W is 'European'" sounds quite ridiculous to me. But, that is because I know the true facts of the matter.

My claim probably sounds ridiculous to you, because it seems you accept without question or further investigation, government funded 'scientific' studies of Native American DNA & inheritance, which are often quite ~biased~ & sometimes very outdated.

Biased and / or outdated 'science' isn't real science. Otherwise (if it was, iow) the world would never enjoy news of any surprising discoveries. We would never hear of any corrections or adjustments in conventional, consensuous, commonly utilized  knowledge.

Scientists & educators used to teach that the Sun is the center of the Universe; the Earth the center of our solar system, things like that. But knowledge is dynamic, not static. It's gained mostly by thought: thinking; not strictly by reading texts which may sometimes be flawed (even with typos, etc.); nor necessarily from paid educators or professional experts who are only human, after all (like yourself, I presume). Every scientific conclusion is ~hypothetical~: they're always subject to ~change~, by way of further investigation / research or through serendipitous discoveries.

And the 'Out of Africa' theory of Human origin hasn't been satisfactorily disproven, imo; thanks to the genuinely earnest study of mtDNA by the early pioneers of DNA research. However, I'm sure there's an amazing amount of knowledge about Human origins & DNA yet to be discovered. And probably much more than that, which we may not ever know.

To conclude this post: 1) mtDNA seems likely to retain most of its original DNA over many, many generations, because it doesn't normally recombine, but is inherited practically unchanged, through the maternal lineage.

2) Ydna apparently gradually ~loses~ genetic material (genes, I suppose), over time, along paternal lineages. I suppose that might be due to all the recombination that goes on with it.

3) And although these two basic factors certainly must display varying rates, depending on circumstances & in different families, they must also significantly effect the percentage amounts of DNA retained in individuals from their ancestors of 10-12 generations back in time.

(As you know & have politely pointed out, I'm not prepared to discuss the finer points of recombination with you. But feel free to believe as some of you stated above, that ~inherited~ mtDNA recombines, lol.)

Monday, November 7, 2011

3rd Reply to, "Inheritance from 10th to 12 generation ancestors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_mtDNA_transmission

Wikipedia: "In genetics, paternal mtDNA transmission and paternal mtDNA inheritance refer to the incidence of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) being passed from a father to his offspring. Paternal mtDNA inheritance is observed in a small proportion of species; in general, mtDNA is passed unchanged from a mother to her offspring, making it an example of non-Mendelian inheritance. In contrast, mtDNA transmission from both parents occurs regularly in certain **bivalves**."

(Bivalves, not human beings.)

"In human mitochondrial genetics, there is debate over whether or not paternal mtDNA transmission is possible. Many studies hold that paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring. This belief is central to mtDNA genealogical DNA testing and to the theory of mitochondrial Eve. The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time."

(Is this what your argument is about, MMaddi, AnnTurner, & those defending your statements about mtDNA inheritance?)

AnnTurner's post to me: "Recombination on the Y is generally limited to the very tips of the chromosome, which do exchange material with the X chromosome (not mtDNA). The bulk of the Y chromosome (and the place where the genealogical Y-STRs reside) is called non-recombining Y (NRY), and this is passed from father to son every generation."

(Here he missed the whole point of my post: that in Humans, mtDNA is inherited virtually unchanged from the maternal lineage & doesn't recombine; & he also doesn't refute my own statement that yDNA does recombine. I was talking about how mtDNA affects the percentage of unchanged familial DNA over many generations.)

Here AnnTurner claims: "Women can pass on the exact same X chromosome they inherited from their mother OR their father, but more often it is a combination of the two. Thus in most cases, each child will inherit a somewhat different X chromosome from their mother, a mixture of the X's from their maternal grandparents.. Fathers have only one X chromosome to pass along, so sisters will inherit identical X's from him."

(Again AnnTurner missed my point: about the role mtDNA plays in inheritance & how that might affect the amount percentage of DNA retained by an individual after a number of generations - that it must be a relatively fixed figure; because mtDNA is inherited unchanged/unrecombined through the direct maternal lineage.

Instead he veered off into lecturing me about chromosomes & other various aspects of genetics. Ok, I'm not a biologist, doctor or geneticist - not even a genealogist; but why would I take someone seriously, who doesn't understand how mtDNA functions, when that was the very point of my first statement? Facts are facts: 1) a Human mother carries in her cells one X chromosome from her own mother & one X chromosome from her father's own mother. 2) Ovum are cells

3) However a Human mother donates to her children only the mitochondria she inherited from her ~own mother~. Do you really believe that mothers may inherit their mothers' mitochondria from their fathers' mothers? Do you really believe that a woman's mitochondria is a combination of that of her own mother's plus that of her father's mother? It isn't. Mitochondria - as you kindly pointed out - is in a class of it's own.)

Wikipedia again, because I'm tired now & it's so much faster: "Since the father's mtDNA is located in the sperm midpiece (the mitochondrial sheath), which is lost at fertilization, all children of the same mother are hemizygous for maternal mtDNA and are thus **identical to each other and to their mother**. Because of its cytoplasmic location in eukaryotes, **mtDNA does not undergo meiosis** and **there is normally no crossing-over**, hence **there is no opportunity for introgression of the father's mtDNA**. **All mtDNA is thus inherited maternally**; mtDNA has been used to infer the pedigree of the well-known "mitochondrial Eve."

(My OP's ~point~ was that we would tend to inherit a certain relatively fixed percentage of DNA - mitochondrial DNA, specifically - regardless of how many generations we go back in our direct maternal lineages. That would have to be the case, if as so many real experts have already pointed out what I tried to get across to you all at the start: mtDNA is inherited ~unchanged~ through the maternal lineage. I believe "unchanged" means that very little if any of the original mtDNA would ever be lost, under normal circumstances. The only very rare exceptions might be such things as random mutations.

I'm dismayed that talking to a non-professional is so confusing for you; I may not know everything that you do, but how could you miss my point? You took the conversation away from the OP's question, & tried to school me in biology.

Unfortunately many of yours & some statements which followed, by posters defending you, continue to insist that Human mtDNA "typically" recombines or is inherited paternally - it doesn't & it isn't.)

Wikipedia: "Over the last 5 years, there has been considerable debate as to whether there is recombination in human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (for references, see Piganeau and Eyre-Walker, 2004). That debate **appears** to have finally come to an end with the publication of some direct evidence of recombination. Schwartz and Vissing (2002), 2 years ago, presented the case of a 28-year-old man who had both maternal and paternally derived mtDNA in his muscle tissue – in all his other tissues he had only maternally derived mtDNA. It was the first time that paternal leakage and, consequently, heteroplasmy was observed in human mtDNA. In a recent paper, Kraytsberg et al (2004) take this observation one step further, and claim to show that there has been recombination between the maternal and paternal mtDNA in this **individual**."

(I cited this case in a prior post, linked to another website.)

Wikipedia: "Some sources state that so little paternal mtDNA is transmitted as to be **negligible** ("At most, one presumes it must be less than 1 in 1000, since there are 100 000 mitochondria in the human egg and only 100 in the sperm (Satoh and Kuroiwa, 1991).") or that **paternal mtDNA is so rarely transmitted as to be negligible** ("Nevertheless, studies have established that **paternal mtDNA is so rarely transmitted to offspring that mtDNA analyses remain valid**..."). **One study** **stated** that **about 1–2%** of a person's mitochondria can be inherited from the father."

(That last study mentioned above was the same one done by Schwartz & Vissing, involving the one individual with mixed mitochondria in his muscle tissues...published in New Scientist, 2002.)

Wikipedia: "The **controversy** about human paternal leakage was summed up in the 1996 study 'Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: Implications for theories on human evolution'. The following quotation comes from the abstract to that peer-reviewed study printed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

'“ In vertebrates, inheritance of mitochondria is thought to be predominantly maternal, and mitochondrial DNA analysis has become a standard taxonomic tool. In accordance with the prevailing view of strict maternal inheritance, many sources assert that during fertilization, the sperm tail, with its mitochondria, gets excluded from the embryo. This is incorrect. In the majority of mammals — including humans — the midpiece mitochondria can be identified in the embryo even though their ultimate fate is **unknown**. The "missing mitochondria" story seems to have survived — and proliferated — unchallenged in a time of contention between hypotheses of human origins, because it **supports the "African Eve" model of recent radiation of Homo sapiens out of Africa**.”'

(So, do you agree with the above statement published in 1996 by F. Ankel-Simons & JM Cummins, because you wish to dispute the "'African Eve' model of recent radiation of Homo sapiens out of Africa"? If so, there is scanty evidence to support such a view. mtDNA proves that Humans probably originated somewhere in that geographical region.)

Wikipedia: "The mixing of maternal and paternal mtDNA was **thought** to have been found in humans and chimpanzees in 1999. **However, there has been only a ~single documented case~ of human paternal mitochondrial DNA transmission, and it was linked to ~infertility~.**"

(I mean please, people: that was my whole point from the beginning. You are basing your opinions about mtDNA on nothing of any real substance. Btw R1a1a: Hinny's are infertile & far more rare than mules, but you knew that.)

MMaddi quote: "I've quoted three points in your post where you seem to imply that somehow mtDNA and the x a woman receives from her mother are the same thing. Do you realize that mitochondrial DNA and the x chromosome, in both the male and female, are separate types of DNA? In fact, mitochondrial DNA isn't even located in the nucleus of cells, where the x, y and autosomal chromosomes are located. And Ann is entirely correct that the x a woman receives from her father and mother can and, most often, do recombine."

(Missed the entire point. Don't the chromosomes an individual receives from each parent determine the individual's phenotype or is it genotype? Wouldn't the phenotype?/genotype? of an individual include which mitochondrial DNA it inherits? My eyes aren't in my X chromosome, either, but their phenotype/genotype - sorry - is. I already cited literature which proves that women carry one X chromosome from their own mothers & the other X chromosome is from their paternal grandmothers. How would the X received from their fathers ever be capable of carrying their own mothers' mitochondria, which women then pass along to their own children?)

johi quote: "Sorry, there are a number of misconceptions here so I will just address the above. The statement is incorrect, women typically pass on a recombined X, not a selective maternal line X. It is largely a random process."

(Sorry johi, again your claim doesn't make sense in light of the fact that women normally transmit their maternal lineages - mtDNA - virtually unchanged & unrecombined over vast numbers of generations & among all of their respective offspring. So since children receive only the unchanged/unrecombined mitochondria of their own mothers - how in the world would they get that through either the X chromosome that their mothers inherited ~paternally~, or through recombined X's, during fertilization? It only requires one out of the two differing types of X chromosomes from any given mother, combined with the one X or Y chromosome received from the father, to make babies.)

Wikipedia: "According to the 2005 study 'More evidence for non-maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA?', heteroplasmy is a "newly discovered form of inheritance for mtDNA. Heteroplasmy introduces **slight** statistical uncertainty in **normal** inheritance patterns." Heteroplasmy may result from a **mutation** during development which is propagated to only a **subset of the adult cells**, or may occur when two slightly different mitochondrial sequences are inherited from the mother as a result of several hundred mitochondria being present in the ovum."

(IOW, heteroplasmy - and also paternal leakage of mtDNA - are apparently extremely rare anomalies. Not "typical", as many of you have wrongly suggested.)

Wikipedia: '“Multiple types (or recombinant types) of quite dissimilar mitochondrial DNA from different parts of the known mtDNA phylogeny are often reported in single individuals. From re-analyses and corrigenda of forensic mtDNA data, it is apparent that the phenomenon of mosaic or mixed mtDNA can be ascribed solely to **contamination and sample mix up**."'

(LOL. You guys wear a person down. Most people wouldn't bother to argue with you. But big-picture, panoramic truth means a lot to me, & I always learn something in the process of these debates. Nearly every time I meet that sort of seemingly irrational & forceful opposition, I uncover something important. Now, I think I realize your motive: it seems you are supporting opposition to the "Out of Africa" theory, in this case.)

gbookhammer: "I should point out that Ann Turner is a medical doctor, and does know a bit about human biology."

(?; lol.)

gbookhammer: "You also need to know what mtDNA is. It is the DNA of bacteria-like structures that are found within cells. They are called "organelles", which literally means "little organs" and in a sense they function as organs of the cell."

(No, I don't need to know every little detail of what mtDNA is, to know what it DOES.)

gbookhammer: "Genetically, males and females are exactly alike except for one thing. If a person is male, that means he got a Y chromosome from his father...)

(In reality, male & female humans are not "exactly alike except for one thing"; because, **men have up to ~1900 fewer genes than women**. The rest of your lecture neither refutes my OP regarding relatively fixed percentages of mtDNA which might remain unchanged in a family's maternal lineage over many generations. I was talking about mtDNA's part of the equation, not the entire equation.)

NOTE: This took hours to write, gave me a headache answering so many forum trolls at one time on the exact same point. And since they have full moderator control over everything that I post (iow, they censor & discriminate against me) - I would be very surprised if it gets published. Nevertheless, I tried.

UPDATE:  This forum, DNA-Forums, eventually became defunct.  I don't know whether they reorganized, or what happened, but the original forum where I posted is now off-line.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

My June 2011 reply to "Who were the Aryans?" on DNA forums

Aryans have been quite openly pounding the public with their canned propaganda, for quite a long time, but especially since around 1940, when the genetic trait for Rhesus negative blood-type was discovered.  They are especially fond of falsely pointing out that Rhesus positives have, "the monkey blood".   The truth is, that it is Rhesus negative blood which is compatible (does not agglutinate, or curdle) with Rhesus Macaque monkey blood...

Aryans are those Rh- blood-type, Neanderthal-descended, Rhesus macaque monkey *Hybrids*; who were intentionally, selectively bred in the agricultural Indus valley culture of Asian N. India in ancient times.

They were selected for "whiteness", by pantheists who worshipped the Aryans just as much as they worshipped their sacred hybrid Brahman cattle & their legendary "monkey god".

They were originally bred from ancient female Caucasian slaves (probably captured in battles), inseminated with male Rhesus monkey seed. The first few generations of that inter-species cross, was what we call 'Neanderthals'.

Neanderthals, like Aryans, are associated with specific recessive traits such as red hair, blue or green eyes, right-handedness, & Rh- blood, among others. Neanderthal skulls are similar in *shape*, to Rhesus monkey skulls.

Although the Neanderthal skull was large for its body size -- so are monkey & ape skull disproportionately large for their body sizes. However, the Human brain has been scientifically proven to have drastically reduced in size (on average), over the ages.

The Aryans' obsession with "whiteness" led to their irritating habit of deliberately *blurring* the definitions on government forms, etc., for the terms "white" & "Caucasian" (which are not the same thing). "White" is to 'Caucasian', as "Golden" is to 'Labrador retriever'...

In fact their recessive Rhesus traits are occasionally apparent in certain populations among all 3 of the major human races (Asian, Caucasian, & Negro), along with their scant ancient Caucasian heritage (which they later reinforced with further breeding with 'free' Caucasians, especially with Nordics in the Rhine region of Germany).

The recessive traits include (but are not limited to) certain unusual eye colors, certain shades of red hair, tow-headedness (straight, white hair) -- but *especially* the Rh- blood-type, a Mendelian gene.

Along with their recessive Rhesus monkey traits, & their selected ancient or modern human Caucasian features, you will also often find among Aryans many Asian & Negro facial & body bone-structures & colorings. Examples would be almond shaped eyes, golden skin, olive toned or darker skin, straight (Asian) or very curly (Negroid) black hair, etc.

Aryans also often carry many occasional *skeletal* features comparable to the Rhesus macaque monkey -- such as the prominent brow-bone, heavy eyebrows, receding forehead, heavy jaw, thin lips, small round eyes, close-set eyes, wall-eyedness, small round faces, noses which lie very close to the face, deep-set eyes which lie behind the nose bone (restricting peripheral vision), oddly shaped fingers & toes... Etc.

Their heads often tend to be large for their bodies, usually broad & round (but with a characteristic 'bump' at the back of the skull). Their arms are usually long, relative to their torsos. Their legs tend to be shorter, by comparison. They are barrel-chested, & the women tend to have large bosoms.

The offspring from the original hybrid cross (Neanderthals, iow) were then further mated with both male & female Asian natives of the area where it was done, in ancient India.
 

This is how Neanderthal genes have been carried forward in certain modern humanoid populations. The earliest Neanderthal hybrid was biologically unsuccessful for obvious reasons; they died out as a subspecies, comparatively quickly.

Contrary to the hype about them, Neanderthals were not that bright, nor terribly sophisticated. They used crude tools & language, lived in caves, & were not nearly as 'socialized' as some would believe. They were in fact vicious, cruel carnivorous omnivores, who probably ate most of their kills raw & gathered their plant food rather than grow it. Although part human, their IQ's were quite low on the scale.

Thus, the Neanderthals were only able to barely weather the Ice Age, due to their natural hairiness, low body temperatures, & other monkey traits adaptable to rugged living. And probably because they would EAT any humans who tried to share the same caves with them. Although they had low intelligence -- like the bear or other predators, they made up for it in both strength & stealth. They had massive jaws & teeth, too.

Even a pureblooded male Rhesus monkey can weigh up to 100 pounds, & can *easily* overcome a Human *man* in hand-to-hand combat. But the reason they were not biologically successful in the long run (in spite of their natural hardiness), was because of the hybrid genes: their *reproduction* capabilities were very substandard.

Aryans are the Neanderthals' *descendants*; just one of many by-products of that particular ancient cross-species hybrid experiment.

So were the Indian "monkey armies"; the Brahmins ("nobility") & some other (lower) castes of India; European & Egyptian 'royalty'; Altais, Gypsies, Khazars, Edomites, Kurds, (most of these are Asian or Caucasian *nomadic* types of tribes); some of the African, Arab or Semitic nomadic tribes; Basques; Canary Islanders; Turkish Khazars; Ashekenazi 'Jews' ... The list goes on & on. All are 'types' of Aryans.

Hitler too was descended from the *Neanderthal*, not a Cro-magnon as he claimed to be. You can see it clearly in his facial & body features. He was an Aryan/'Jew'(according to recent scientific DNA studies); who tried to turn Germany into his own *personal* breeding program.

He systematically selected for "whiteness" & other "noble" qualities from among the native Nordic & European population (while dispassionately, *heartlessly* 'culling' ANYONE - Jew OR 'Gentile' - who didn't meet his exacting specifications).

Quoting from the "Jewish Almanac" (1980) - "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew'; or to call a contemporary 'Jew' an Israelite or a Hebrew."

According to the standard "Jewish Encyclopedia", 96% of all known, modern 'Jews' are descended from the Khazar [Turkish, nomadic Gypsy] tribes of Russia, Eastern Europe, & Western Mongolia.

From Encyclopedia Americana (1985) "Ashkenazim are the Jews whose ANCESTORS lived in German lands...(not, in Israel or the Middle East)". The Khazars voluntarily converted to Judaism in ancient times, then settled in the Rhine region of Germany / Europe.

So *genetically* they (along with Hitler) are *mostly* mixed *Aryans*, not 'Semites'. I won't go into the subject of Judaism, the *religion*, here. But the fact that they are *not* Hebrew, is born out by their choice of *spoken* language: a *pidgen* form of Hebrew, riddled with vulgarities - *Yiddish*.

Further evidence comes from their 'own' scriptures, the Old Testament bible; which states that *Ashkenaz* is descended from the Noatic lineage of *Japheth* (father of Magog & the Asian race) -- not Shem (father of the Semites or Caucasians).

Because, if Noah's three sons fathered the 3 major human races (as their Torah infers, & their Talmud also claims outright)

- and if Japheth fathered the *Asians* (as scriptural evidence from the Torah suggests)

- and if 96% of Jews have mostly *Asian* DNA (which they do not deny)

- and if Ham fathered the Negro race (as 'Jews' claim in their Talmud; & the Torah also infers)

- then, it is only logical that Shem (the father of 'Semites', according to tradition) was not the father of Asians; but was the father of the Caucasian race.

- and so, if the Ashkenazi 'Jews' are *Japheths* (or originally *Asians*, although now mixed)

- then, they cannot be the original 'Semites', or sons of Shem.

So, genetically speaking (putting their voluntary religious *conversion* aside for the moment) Ashkenazi 'Jews' are *Aryans*, not true Semites (according to History & their own sources).

Also, Semites are *Caucasians* - not Asians, like the Ashkenazi-Khazars.

And as I already explained: Aryans (although an admittedly exotic hybrid-hominid *mixture* of genes) *originated* in -Asia-.

So, it's ironic that 'Jews' (most of them, anyway; & especially German, Ashkenazim 'Jews') are also *Aryans*. And, that Hitler himself was an Aryan/Jew. Makes you wonder why he would kill his own people, Jews, doesn't it?

But it makes sense, when you recognize the important role that *selective breeding* plays in both -Judaism & Aryanism. After all, the Talmud itself (the main Jewish holy book of their religion) states that they ('Jews') are "superior" to all non-Jews.

In fact, it states that 'Gentiles' (or, "Goyim" in Yiddish) are not even *human beings* at all; but are rather, no better than *animals*. It also requires that (orthodox) 'Jews' not marry outside of their "race". In fact it suggests or commands them to marry their first cousins, most often.

Very much like the Hindu Brahmin caste rules of marriage; their Talmud sets them not just apart from (or separate from), but actually "superior" to Others. They even refer to themselves as the "chosen" people of God.

The important commonality, genetically speaking (among all Aryans), is the *Rhesus negative blood-type & the Neanderthal DNA markers*. This is especially the case for the elite, or aristocratic members of Aryan society.

So, although elite Aryans tend to consciously *select* for physical attributes, such as coloring & bone structures that they *prefer* (as if breeding livestock, iow); those things are not as critical in *identifying* them (nor are they *quite* as important to them, as their *bloodlines*).

Aryans are the hominid/hybrid, Illuminati wannabes whose websites & other attempts at propaganda would indicate that they think themselves superior to full-blooded human beings. They are the folks who are proud of their tails (along with all of their other recessive traits) & who claim to be psychic, claim to be friendly with extra-terrestrials, etc.

The elite among them continue in modern times, to practice their obsessive-compulsive, ritualistic, pantheistic, Canaanite/Babylonian/Egyptian/Luciferian, ancient "Serpent" religion; which involves (in addition to silly hocus-pocus & schizoid symbolism) abominations like human sacrifices, orgies, ritual tortures, blood holocausts, etc. -- but have been forced to take it *underground*, for obvious reasons.

The underground nature of their beliefs (& the necessity of keeping their lower-class followers in the dark, so to speak) has spawned numerous New Age philosophies, cults, & major established religions having only a *veneer* of normalcy. Their need for (& fondness of) secrecy & deception, has cranked out one 'Secret Society' or 'Fraternity' after another. They love money & authoritative power, more than anything else -- & they use religious brainwashing extensively as the means to those ends.

The elite Aryans don't consider themselves human (anymore than orthodox Jews consider Gentiles human), & admit to being "hybrids" on their own webpages. They love to spin the *facts*; possessing a great flair for *drama*.

They greatly enjoy embellishing on the truth; or telling barely disguised lies. So, some of them claim to be inter-bred with fallen angels (Nephilim). WTF?! And people actually believe that? Lol. They seem to want us to think that they possess "special" powers. Many of them are openly Wiccans, etc.

And lately, some of them have proposed a "new" money-making scheme: hybridization of human beings with chimpanzees or other subhuman primates. They claim they can legally trademark & *sell* the proposed hybrids, because they say that they would not be fully human -- thus should not have "human Rights".

I take it that means their 'new', patented hybrids also won't be subject to *obey* human law, either?

Lol, it's already been done. How ironic.

To illustrate, here are some typical Aryans (Notice how wacky they are?):

[Here, I provided 3 YouTube video links of Rh- Aryans behaving in their typical style. One had a young woman with hair dyed green, rambling on about some nonsense which involved her Rh- bloodtype; another made the claim Rh-'s are so fond of repeating, that they're 'ET/Alien-Hybrids', lol; & the third one was a couple who claimed that their Rh- bloodtype (a recessive trait, btw) proves that they're descended from Jesus Christ...Ahem. This thread, OP'd by 'GypsyWolve', was locked & I was put on 'moderator approval' - restriction, iow - shortly thereafter; lmao.]

2nd Reply to, "Inheritance from 10th to 12 generation..."

[quote name='Ann Turner' timestamp='1320561447' post='285774']
Recombination on the Y is generally limited to the very tips of the chromosome, which do exchange material with the X chromosome (not mtDNA). The bulk of the Y chromosome (and the place where the genealogical Y-STRs reside) is called non-recombining Y (NRY), and this is passed from father to son every generation.

Women can pass on the exact same X chromosome they inherited from their mother OR their father, but more often it is a combination of the two. Thus in most cases, each child will inherit a somewhat different X chromosome from their mother, a mixture of the X's from their maternal grandparents..

Fathers have only one X chromosome to pass along, so sisters will inherit identical X's from him.
This is easier to see with the animations at SMGF:

http://www.smgf.org/pages/animations.jspx
[/quote]

You sound very knowledgable, & I appreciate the feedback - but, quoting from the website you referenced:

"Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a type of DNA that is carried by both men and women but is only inherited from their mother. **Mothers, in turn, inherit their DNA from their ~mothers~** ... and so on back in time along one's maternal line.

"Note above that there is **no contribution from your paternal line, or from any other female ancestor other than ones in your ~direct maternal line~** (as shown below)."

And it has a nifty chart proving what I said in my op. I realize women inherit an X chromosome from each parent (which is why girls may have physical characteristics from both sides of their families), but I was talking about mitochondrial DNA which is passed on to a woman's own children through procreation (not the X chromosome donated from the father to form a female child) & this corroborates what I said: that women normally only ~transmit~ (through procreation) their OWN mother's DNA to their children.

http://www.smgf.org/pages/mitochondrial.jspx

That is the main reason why mtDNA is so useful in population & migration studies. It is also the reason why, in hybrid mammals the mtDNA of the superior species is always transmitted to the (fertile) offspring. Only the female of a superior species may produce ~fertile~ offspring. For example, mules always have the mtDNA of mares (horses), not of their sires (donkeys).

Also, ftDNA states that, "2. The **mtDNA** test on the other hand is tracking DNA that is passed only through the Mother's line and **cannot be passed on through the male line**."

http://www.familytreedna.com/inheritance-chart.aspx

So again, while females carry an X chromosome from each parent, giving them combinations of physical characteristics from both parents, they only transmit their ~own~ mothers' mtDNA (iow, the X chromosome they inherited from their ~direct~ maternal lineage), when procreating.

And it doesn't normally recombine; I've been reading up on that very subject earlier. It seems that only under some very rare, anomolous circumstances (in very, very rare & possibly sterile individuals) - it might recombine a little bit, but not in a way that may be passed on to future generations. But good luck finding such cases, there aren't very many of them. Here's a case where a man was found to have combined mtDNA in his muscle tissue cells only (nowhere else in his body):

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v93/n4/full/6800572a.html

And while males typically always carry both their mother's mtDNA (the X chromosome inherited from his mother's ~own~ mother) & their father's yDNA (from his father, but recombined slightly somehow, as you pointed out), giving them some combination of physical characteristics from both parents, they naturally only transmit their yDNA to their sons.

That explains how males may transmit family traits from females of their lineage, to their sons: through recombination. Whereas, although women may express some of the physical characteristics of some of their father's female ancestors - they may only donate the X chromosomes from their *direct maternal lineages* to their own offspring.

In my op I stated that mtDNA doesn't recombine, whereas yDNA does recombine, & I stand by that claim. I was referring to the type of natural Human procreation that generally produces fertile offspring.

I believe your statement, that women may pass on either X chromosome to their children (her mother's "OR" her father's) is generally erroneous. Mothers don't normally combine the two X's either, before transmitting their mtDNA to their offspring.

It seems biologically fair, since the chromosome(s) donated by fathers depends upon the genders of their child(ren). Fathers normally don't combine their two sex chromosomes (X & Y) before passing them on to future generations, so why would women?

Additionally, men may potentially sire hundreds or thousands of offspring; but women are biologically fit only to have a few babies in a lifetime (unless you're octo-mom, lol). Even 25 kids (like the amazing Arkansas woman) is nothing, when compared to the number of children a man might produce.

(However, imo the number of children produced isn't as important as the number which survive & thrive.)

BTW, I watched the short but very impressive animation on Sorenson's Molecular Genealogy Foundation which you referenced; and it unfortunately does add to the confusion, by contradicting themselves in their own statement which I quoted for you above (that I got from the text section of the same website, under the title, mitochondrial DNA). I believe it's the animation which is flawed, not the text (based on all of my other research).

The animation cites no scientific literature to back its claim.

UPDATE:  Here, I was trying to hash out the finer details of inheritance with regards to mitochondrial DNA and the sex-linked genes (Y and X chromosomes).  The participants on the DNA Forums who were self-proclaimed geneticists were not being very kind or patient with me.  They didn't do much to shed light on the subject either, which meant that I had to figure most of it out all by myself, with my own research.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Reply to "Ramses III's Haplotype on TV Tonight on Science Channel"

I predict that he had Hybrid DNA. But if they only tested his mitochondrial, they probably wouldn't detect it.

Because, in Human hybridization the mitochondrial is practically always Human, being the superior species.

(Also, mitochondrial DNA generally doesn't recombine, and is passed on unchanged in most circumstances).

Reply to "inheritance from 10th to 12 generation ancestors"

I understand that mtDNA doesn't recombine under the usual (normal) circumstances, although it may sometimes mutate.

Male germal yDNA does recombine however, so it constantly changes generationally, depending mostly on which females they mate with.

So ~theoretically~ any Human *could* possibly carry in their cells, the same mtDNA of their female ancestor from the beginning of time (perhaps 10's of 1000's, or maybe rarely even millions of years ago).

Women most often pass on to their children, the exact same X chromosome that they inherited from their own mothers. So the maternal lineage is generally preserved over generations.

The only exceptions are mutations that may occur in individuals. I suppose that some random mutations may affect most, but probably not all, of a given population of females.

Men do not pass on their father's yDNA, although they carry it in their cells in ~combination~ with their mother's mtDNA. What they pass on to their children, is their combined yDNA.
 
UPDATE:  Lol, it's obvious genetics is not my area of expertise; however, I am at least trying to learn; and I still think I'm mostly correct about Human hybridization and certain other details of Human origins.

Quoted from the DNA forum

Thread: "Gujjars and Pashtuns-descendants of Turks..." (OP by 'newtoboards', who joined on 24Oct.,2011 - same OP that started the previous one about Neanderthal heritage, lol).

'Rambo' says, "Can we have no more discussion about pashtuns on this forum please, until we have some concrete evidence of their origin. I find it absurd when people just keep coming up with theories, instead of just testing the pashtun samples properly
 
I am "pashtun" from the alcozai tribe, in pakistan "
 
I could say the same about people pretending to be expert genealogists, making BS unfounded statements about Native American ancestry. R1a1a (idiot) doesn't believe you unless you have written documentation - lmao. Gg-grandmother / gg-grandfather were from North Carolina (Cely Bird & Steven Hilburn [Hillborn, Hilbourne], where the state's courthouses have been arsoned nearly 45 times since the Colonial period. And Cherokee didn't keep written records. But he wants paper trails. Kind of like Obama's birth certificate & a lot of fake ID's, driver's licenses, etc. ...

Thursday, November 3, 2011

DNA forum reply draft, re: Neanderthal inheritance

I'm not qualified to answer your question ~specifically~ (although, on the same subject matter); but I would like to point out that IF it's true that only a tiny number ("1-4 percent of modern European") people carry Neanderthal genes, that can only mean Homo Sapiens sapiens didn't evolve from them; because if it did, then practically everyone would carry some of those same genes.

Instead, modern Humans carry an astonishingly vast & varied mosaic of 'junk DNA'. I saw another article link recently (on this forum, I believe) which reports the recent discovery that 'junk DNA' may be used to distinguish Human vs Apes' genetic inheritance.

For example, some modern Humans carry a few of the same DNA mutations as Chimps; some carry DNA that Gorillas also share; some carry DNA found in Rhesus monkeys; & probably most of us carry combinations of the three (or others). Humans & other primates also have overlaps in blood groups & types.

Naturally we're all primates (although as a species Humans are obviously at the top of the IQ scale); so we should expect certain kinds of DNA is shared among all primates. Similarly, I'm pretty sure other kinds of DNA are shared among all Mammals.

Specialists have developed criteria to distinguish hybrid genes, however; & I've seen it reported scientifically, that Neanderthals were a hybrid species. I believe the subject of Human hybridization deserves more attention (though it seems to be a touchy one for a lot of people, unfortunately).