[dumbo-octopus]

What is your claim exactly? It seems as if you think somehow DNA didn’t exist as a means of transferring genetic information to offspring prior to it being discovered. I can’t imagine you actually think that, so I’m at a loss for what your point might be.

[danans]

> It seems as if you think somehow DNA didn’t exist as a means of transferring genetic information to offspring prior to it being discovered.

No that's not what I said. I said that DNA, though inherited, is irrelevant for determining cultural identity.

If I discover tomorrow that I carry YDNA haplotype J1, that doesn't make me Jewish, either culturally or ancestrally. Nobody could claim me as ancestrally Jewish based on that either.

Having a documented lineage stretching back many generations, however, would possibly do both, should I choose to embrace it.

[dumbo-octopus]

You’re the only one here fascinated with this haplotype. Which is odd, considering you yourself call it inconsequential. Nobody but you has equated it with anything, and you have specifically said it does not equate to anything. So all in all this is just a textbook strawman, which I have no interest in further considering.

[danans]

> You’re the only one here fascinated with this haplotype. Which is odd, considering you yourself call it inconsequential.

Then substitute it with haplotype G or E1b, or include all of them. Or swap out both the haplotype and the cultural group for different ones, i.e Y Haplogroup R1b among people from Iceland.

The particular haplotype is irrelevant to the argument, which is that genes don't define cultural identity, and at best are trailing and largely low resolution indicators of historical social patterns.

[dumbo-octopus]

Again, you’re letting your machines decide what information exists, rather than accepting they might not have the capability of deciphering all that is out there.