Genology & ancestry

[Seagull 387]

8 minutes ago, Francie, said:

She was a small monkey mate,nothing more nothing less

Which has been pointed out to you, shares a common ancestor. Obviously we can't say for certain if she is a direct ancestor to us or a side branch that ended up at a dead end, but that still doesn't change the fact that her species shared a common ancestor with us.

Edited 5 hours ago by Seagull

[Francie, 2,765]

3 minutes ago, Seagull said:

Which has been pointed out to you, shares a common ancestor. Obviously we can't say for certain if she is a direct ancestor to us or a side branch that ended up at a dead end, but that still doesn't change the fact that her species shared a common ancestor with us.

Where is the evidence to show Lucy was an ancestor of ours?

Lucy like all these other "ancestors" of ours deceptive,an outright lies,like Piltdown man another evo whopper lol

Lucy in fact was 3foot tall an a male,not female,they found only 30% of the skeleton,so 70% missing,no feet bones at all.

The guy that found it Johansen said its hips were chimpanze,but some ejit later down the line plaster cast its hips,an added back parts that were "broken" to make it more human like.

Seagull for as much as you make out you know on here I'm surprised you haven't done your research into this mate

[mushroom 14,052]

I'm hungover to near only can be saved by a full English lol.

Firstly, a thank you for keeping this an interesting and amicable conversation.

Secondly, why are talking about monkeys?

 

[Francie, 2,765]

Oh an they renamed it from Lucy to lucifer lol how convient

[byron 1,265]

15 hours ago, chartpolski said:

The only ancestry check I’ve done is on my surname. Not very scientific but it traces back through Ireland to Normandy and the Conquest and then to Scandinavia.

Cheets.

 

Did that few years back charts..

Came up as pre seven century English.

[byron 1,265]

15 hours ago, mushroom said:

Anyway, let's keep this a good thread and any advice or experiences anybody adds, thank you

 

Which dna did you use mush..

Ancestry?? And is it easy to figure out.thanks.

[Seagull 387]

27 minutes ago, Francie, said:

Where is the evidence to show Lucy was an ancestor of ours?

Lucy like all these other "ancestors" of ours deceptive,an outright lies,like Piltdown man another evo whopper lol

Lucy in fact was 3foot tall an a male,not female,they found only 30% of the skeleton,so 70% missing,no feet bones at all.

The guy that found it Johansen said its hips were chimpanze,but some ejit later down the line plaster cast its hips,an added back parts that were "broken" to make it more human like.

Seagull for as much as you make out you know on here I'm surprised you haven't done your research into this mate

You are just showing how little you understand Francie.

What evidence? The fact that her body shows clear signs of being bipedal, a hallmark of hominins, human ancestors. The fact that footprints dated over 3 million years old, around the time she was around, show bipedal walking.

Her teeth have less pronounced canines, more human like than chimp like.

So what if 30-40% of her skeleton was found, that still makes her one of the most compete ancient hominins ever found and it still contained crucial body parts that are essential for studying posture and movement.

There was no cover up, they just had reconstruction issues, the final peer reviewed analysis showed a human like pelvis suited to upright walking.

Lucy was classed as a female because of her pelvic bone shape and size comparison with others of her same species, so no, chances are she wasn't male.

Back to science class for you mate. 

[Greyman 31,277]

Not wishing to derail your thread mush but here’s an alternative I was told many years ago is that it’s a load of made up bollox   A   the first people to join in there was no data base so the results were a lie B I know of twins that have had different results and C all these ancestry company’s are harvesting your DNA for the next phase which will cost your next generation money and health actually surprised the oracle scotty hasn’t warned you all before lol

[Francie, 2,765]

18 minutes ago, Seagull said:

You are just showing how little you understand Francie.

What evidence? The fact that her body shows clear signs of being bipedal, a hallmark of hominins, human ancestors. The fact that footprints dated over 3 million years old, around the time she was around, show bipedal walking.

Her teeth have less pronounced canines, more human like than chimp like.

So what if 30-40% of her skeleton was found, that still makes her one of the most compete ancient hominins ever found and it still contained crucial body parts that are essential for studying posture and movement.

There was no cover up, they just had reconstruction issues, the final peer reviewed analysis showed a human like pelvis suited to upright walking.

Lucy was classed as a female because of her pelvic bone shape and size comparison with others of her same species, so no, chances are she wasn't male.

Back to science class for you mate. 

Whatever you say monkey man lol

[Seagull 387]

1 minute ago, Francie, said:

Whatever you say monkey man lol

Back to the bible, the preferred escape for those that can't grasp evolution. Lol

[Seagull 387]

6 minutes ago, Greyman said:

Not wishing to derail your thread mush but here’s an alternative I was told many years ago is that it’s a load of made up bollox   A   the first people to join in there was no data base so the results were a lie B I know of twins that have had different results and C all these ancestry company’s are harvesting your DNA for the next phase which will cost your next generation money and health actually surprised the oracle scotty hasn’t warned you all before lol

A) Certainly isn't the true 

Each individual has their own unique DNA, no suprise there.

C) Conspiracy theories everywhere 

[mushroom 14,052]

35 minutes ago, byron said:

Which dna did you use mush..

Ancestry?? And is it easy to figure out.thanks.

I forget the name, I think it was that though. I did it 3 years or so ago.

Have a Google and see the reviews etc on the different companies before deciding who to go with 

 

[mushroom 14,052]

11 minutes ago, Greyman said:

Not wishing to derail your thread mush but here’s an alternative I was told many years ago is that it’s a load of made up bollox   A   the first people to join in there was no data base so the results were a lie B I know of twins that have had different results and C all these ancestry company’s are harvesting your DNA for the next phase which will cost your next generation money and health actually surprised the oracle scotty hasn’t warned you all before lol

Wasn't mine

 

[mushroom 14,052]

Anyway.....

The DNA I did a few years ago confirmed the family oral history and then the paperwork trace also confirms it but goes way back...

Can anyone else add their search experiences to the thread please.

[Greyman 31,277]