I appreciate the words of caution. Genetic studies are enormously
interesting, of course, and once sufficient data is accumulated, and
once the scientists involved agree on methodology, and tell us what is
significant and what is not, some genuinely useful information should
result.
I've mentioned the studies on Iceland, where most of the mitochondrial
DNA (80% or so, as I recall) seems to come from (Celtic speaking?)
northern Scotland. There is also the datum about certain of the Welsh
sharing certain otherwise very rare genetic material with Basques (I
don't know if this is the rH negative bit).
This kind of stuff asks more questions than it answers, but it
nonetheless throws light on population movements, and lets you think
in ways you might not have done so without such information.
Language and genes do not necessarily go together. For any language
grouping, however large or small, the original speakers might actually
be a very small component of the genetic makup of any such group.
--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> That goes without saying. mtDNA tells one story, Y chromosome DNA
> tells another story, and the story told by the complete genotype,
> including all mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, cannot even be
> represented as a tree-like diagram. Speculation concerning the
> language of any particular "Adam" or "Eve" has no scientific basis.
>
> Piotr
>
>
> --- In cybalist@..., jdcroft@... wrote:
> > Piotr wrote
> >
> > > Anyway, genes, languages and cultures do not necessarily migrate
> > > together.
> >
> > Even genes don't necessarily move together. The 10 sons of Adam
> > based upon the Y Chromosome have a different Genetic Tree that of
> the
> > 7 daughters of Eve based on mtDNA. Other genes seem to have
varied
> > independently.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John