"...a female nor a male descent..."
I would advise to use the more precise terms, 'a
matrilineal descent' and 'a patrilineal descent'
There may or may not exist no hope of getting mr Bill
Arnold to comprehend anything meaningful about the
ways DNA is inherited;
but still, the odds would improve if the easily
confusable terms 'female descent' and 'male descent'
are avoided. After all, many people think that for to
have a female descent, it suffices to have some female
in the connecting pedigree, there being also males in
between...
As to the likelihood of having any DNA match between
Charlemagne, the Bruce, a person living today, and a
Stonehenge corpse (or between any two of said ones), I
must say that Todd Farmerie has presented the case
correctly.
As to the Egyptian case, there are some possibilities
to identify Thutmosis I on basis of DNA findings, but
only because his very close kinspersons' corpses are
available for comparison testing: were it mummies of
his son Thutmosis II, patrilineal grandson Thutmosis
III, daughter Hapsepsut, and possible father or other
near kinsman Amenhotep I, possible sister, possible
mother....
There would be only a snowball's chance in hell to
have any meaningful DNA test identification of
Thutmosis I, were there only corpses of a bit remoter
kin, not patrilineal nor matrilineal, available.
And there is not even that snowball's chance if the
time interval is centuries or millennia - like there
is between Charlemagne and corpses of Stonehenge.
|
