XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: none@none.non   
      
   On Sep 15, 2025, jojo wrote   
   (Message-ID:):   
      
   > None wrote:   
   > > On Sep 12, 2025, None wrote   
   > > (Message-ID: <10a2usm$5del$4@dont-email.me>):   
   > >   
   > > > On Sep 12, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote   
   > > > (Message-ID: <10a2dt4$3cj$1@dont-email.me>):   
   > > >   
   > > > > On 9/12/2025 3:47 PM, Andrew wrote:   
   > > > > > "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:109vgq9$2vl7u$1@dont-email.me...   
   > > > > > > Andrew wrote:   
   > > > > > > > "Dawn Flood" wrote:   
   > > > > > > > > Andrew wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > That the origins of all human beings can be traced back to Africa,   
   which   
   > > > > is where the first modern humans arose.   
   > > >   
   > > > That is a total rewrite of Human history, migratory patterns, etc, even   
   DNA   
   > > > disproves that thinking. And so does the DNA and genomes of chimps and   
   > > > humans.   
   > >   
   > > Off topic for this thread and denoted why in the subject.   
   > > We have all been conned. Using scientific explanations to support the con.   
   > >   
   > > Just read this as it was part of an article.   
   > >   
   > > "Cosimo Posth, an archaeogenetics expert at the University of Tübingen, in   
   > > Germany, and colleagues described the genomes of ten different individuals   
   > > who lived in three key regions: Siberia’s Altai Mountains, the Kamchatka   
   > > Peninsula and other parts of the Russian Far East. Environmental   
   > > conditions—cold climates at high latitudes—allowed for optimal   
   > > preservation of DNA that was hundreds to thousands of years old. “In   
   these   
   > > environments you can find individuals with 70 to 80 percent of human DNA in   
   > > their bones, comparable to what you’d get if you extracted saliva from   
   you   
   > > or me,” says Posth. “You can actually generate a genome of the same   
   > > quality as a modern genome. It’s amazing stuff.”"   
   > >   
   > > If this be true then the tests are missing 20-30% of the info From saliva   
   > > tests. So all may not be as it seems. It is only a test of a likelihood a   
   > > best guess type of thing. Compound that with the spit tests of a husband   
   and   
   > > wife and that can compound the error significantly and a good statistician   
   > > will confirm that. Yeah, science is end all be all. Who are ya gonna   
   > > believe?   
   >   
   > you can give another fluid, that is whiteish. that's 100%..   
   > actually you have meiosis there, so there would be slight genetic   
   > variation. anyway, i think 100% dna can be gatehered from spit.   
      
   Yes, you think, no doubt. I assumed so also, but the article points out   
   otherwise.   
      
   So what are we missing give the high percentage of missing data. Otherwise it   
   is all a high likelihood based only on currently limited knowledge, spit. So   
   do we donate fresh bone samples to get the full truth?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)