August 25, 2019, 01:21:46 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: "Tut, Your Lab Results are In"  (Read 18556 times)
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« on: February 16, 2010, 10:03:03 PM »

DNA study concludes that Tut was "probably the son of Akhenaten" by a hypothetical sister of Akhenaten (i.e., a sister not known from archaelogy)!  In other words, the scientists are totally clueless!  Other findings are that Tut really was lame and had other severe health problems.  Tut is acknowledged to be inbred, but sounds like the scientists are not yet able to handle the extremity of it.  We'll hear more tomorrow when the journal paper is made public.

http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/9fffc92b12934d78a492c6b3b18f1697/Article_2010-02-16-Egypt-King%20Tut/id-pab86dcb3c9b04ce68b045c01b2d03307

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ga4G96HXif0cFiMzDdK5PGYqTthgD9DTH7I82

Logged
Yuya Joe College
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2010, 02:02:08 AM »

Maybe there's more than initially meets the eye, as it seems there are people updating Wikipedia who have seen the full data.

Here are four examples:

Under Queen Tiye's entry:

In the tomb KV35, a mummy known as the Elder Lady was identified as hers. The British scholars Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton once stated that "it seems very unlikely that her mummy could be the so-called 'Elder Lady' in the tomb of Amenhotep II."[18] Evidence cited to support this view includes examinations stating that the Elder Lady's teeth look as if they were those of a twenty-nine year old rather than a fifty-nine year old. However, recent evidence (DNA analysis) of the Elder Woman's teeth and the lock of hair found in Tutankhamun's tomb proves that the body is Tiye[19] and is nearer to a middle aged woman. This was further proven in February 2010, when the mummy was officially identified via DNA testing along with multiple other Amarna era mummies


From Nefertiti's page:

In the most recent research effort led by Egyptian archaeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, a mummy known as the "The Younger Lady" was put through CT scan analysis. Researchers concluded that she may be Tutankhamun's biological mother, Queen Kiya, not Queen Nefertiti. Fragments of shattered bone were found in the sinus, and blood clots were found. The theory that the damage was inflicted post-mummification was rejected, and a murder scenario was deemed more likely. Scholars think Kiya's identification as KV35 is consistent with the fact that, after Tutankhamun returned Egypt to the traditional religion, he moved his closest relatives: father, grandmother, and biological mother, to the Valley of the Kings to be buried with him (according to the list of figurines and drawings in his tomb). Nefertiti may be in an undiscovered tomb

From Kiya's wikipedia entry:

In recent research the mummy of Kiya has been identified as KV35YL [5].

From Wikipedia information on Valley of the Kings Tomb KV35:

A Younger Lady who, in June 2003, was controversially claimed to be Nefertiti by British Egyptologist Joann Fletcher, whereas Egypologist Zahi Hawass believed it to be Kiya, another wife of Akhenaten who is believed by some to be the birth mother of Tutankhamun. Some believed this mummy to be a male.[3] However, with DNA testing, this mummy was shown in February 2010 to be a woman, the mother of Tutankhamun, and the daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye (making her both the sister and wife of Akhenaten). Her name, however, remains unknown, leaving open the possibility that she is Kiya or another, unknown wife of Akhenaten.


These pages were recently updated and if the interpretations are correct, these DNA results prove many of the assertions on Domainofman.com regarding this branch of the royal family. BTW, if it really is her, I'm happy Kiya is in KV35, a VERY important tomb!

Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2010, 03:21:23 AM »

Two different web sites claiming that DNA proves that the Elder Lady and the Younger Lady are Tut's mom.  That's interesting! 

Well, I'm glad at least that DNA testing has including both mummies.
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2010, 11:57:12 AM »

Here's some additional "unofficial" commentary on the results:

http://xenohistorian.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/king-tuts-dna-results/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/16/dna-tests-reveal-mysteries-boy-king-tut/
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/6818797/tutankhamun-not-effeminate-egypt-antiquities-chief/

I don't see any mention of Yuya and Tuya, which concerns me.  Their well-preserved DNA should be the baseline for evaluating all of these "House of Joseph" mummies, i.e., Amenhotep III, KV55 mummy, Elder Lady, Younger Lady, Tut, etc.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 12:10:37 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2010, 11:58:47 AM »

I sincerely doubt the folks that edit the Wiki page were privy to the full data prior to release. A more reasonable assumption would be that interpreting the word "probably" as meaning absolute. A common mistake amongst the non-educated and those pre-disposed to a favored belief is to interpret implication or possibility as an absolute. If I understand the DNA science correctly, depending upon the number of data points, relationship can be inferred to some degree but not necessarily be an absolute certainty. To state anything other than probably or likelihood is to predjudicially discredit any alternative possibility.
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2010, 02:59:17 PM »

Mork,

Yes, somehow "probably" has instantly turned into "definitely"! 

I don't have a problem with the KV55 mummy being Akhenaten, per se.  However, the dental evidence indicates that this mummy was aproximately 20 years old.  That isn't consistent with Akhenaten's age at death at all.  But maybe Akhenaten lived on sunshine and didn't need to use his teeth!

Making "The Younger Lady" a full-sister of Akhenaten also throws up a red flag.  It's not impossible, but still an unlikely marriage relationship.

It's going to take some time to digest the new information, and we need to get our hands on the source data itself, not just the reports from Fox, Wiki, Yahoo, etc.

However, it's obvious why Hawass doesn't want to acknowledge "The Younger Lady" as Nefertiti.  That would imply that her mother Tiye (Tey, the wife of Aye) was one and the same as Queen Tiye the wife of Amenhotep III.  It's a conclusion that's already been drawn here, but not one with express consent of the commissioner of Egyptologists.

I'm o.k. with Tut being the true son of Nefertiti rather than Queen Tiye (or even Kiya, but I'd like to know who this lady really was).  It's a minor adjustment to our model.  None of this affects the general framework for associating historical/archaelogical persons with Biblical ones.  We're sorting out details now!

Something for College Joe -

We've considered the possibility that Amenhotep III and Aanen were the same.  The DNA tests indicate that we might need to consider whether Amenhotep III and Aye were the same person, instead!

Logged
Yuya Joe College
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2010, 12:12:38 AM »

Chucksta,

RE College Assignment - We've considered the possibility that Amenhotep III and Aanen were the same.  The DNA tests indicate that we might need to consider whether Amenhotep III and Aye were the same person, instead!

Yes, worth looking at for sure, but if Amenhotep III became Aye and his multiple identities, from where did Shalmaneser III emerge? Possibly the most powerful man in the world and no wives?? Don't think so... he still slots well as Amenhotep / Aanen, but until evidence precludes it that is an avenue worth strolling upon.


RE: Two different web sites claiming that DNA proves that the Elder Lady and the Younger Lady are Tut's mom.  That's interesting!

Which website is claiming that DNA proves the Elder Lady is T's mama? Wiki has Tiye as Elder Lady and Kiya as Younger Lady, Tutankhamun's momma...


RE: I don't see any mention of Yuya and Tuya, which concerns me.

If that's the case, well there you go...

Including them would reveal the extent of the royal inbreeding and would also allow the world to begin seeing how the ruling family had Egyptian and Babylonian identities, directing the scenes from a main central stage in Assyria / Mittanni...

RE: Making "The Younger Lady" a full-sister of Akhenaten also throws up a red flag.  It's not impossible, but still an unlikely marriage relationship.

No red flag, just the opposite. Why include something so controversial if it's not true? You leave it in, but you don't mention that the mutual parents of Akhenaten and Kiya, whom they name as Bro-Sis Amenhotep III and Tiye, were also brother and sister. The only way to not mention that is to leave out Big Daddy Joe and Queen Mama Ashratu.


RE Mork 1: I sincerely doubt the folks that edit the Wiki page were privy to the full data prior to release.

Very soon you will perceive that folks privy to full data edit Wikipedia pages, yet they would rarely post the full data; knowledge is power. A grand exception to this rule is the noble giant who threw the entire Dead Sea Scrolls up on the Internet in the late 90s, smashing up fiefdoms and hurtling conniving bureaucratic nutjobs earthward with one swift powerful click.

RE Mork 2: I understand the DNA science correctly, depending upon the number of data points, relationship can be inferred to some degree but not necessarily be an absolute certainty.

You kidding me? And evolution's just a theory right? Utilizing DNA to establish close familial relationships is a sophomoric use of the technology, and extremely precise. Utilizing mitochondrial DNA, it has been determined that almost all of Europe's women have maternal lines tracing to seven different African women, from about 8,000 years ago to about 45,000 years ago; these are known scientifically as the Seven Sisters of Eve. Scientific Adam is an African male that lived about 160,000 years ago that is likely the ancestor of you, me, Charles and Peter Paul and Mary to boot! Matching up close relatives is easier, and even though precise relationships have surely been identified and are causing excited conversations, it doesn't mean all of them will be released. You may have to connect some dots...

Be aware that people know things before you and I do, so you have to interpret the timing and content of any release. Charles comment about the data not including Yu and Tu is extremely important, as is Hawass' remark that he will update us all in "about a year."

That's one multi-coloured cloak my man Joseph is wearing; Have fun!!!


Collegial Joe
Dean of Philiscriptura
Northern Campus
21st Century Dynasty Online





Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2010, 12:26:05 AM »

I coughed up the 15 bucks and got access to Tut's "lab report".  The link to the site is found in this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/16/dna-tests-reveal-mysteries-boy-king-tut/

1) Genetics definitely show Yuya and Tuya as parents of Queen Tiye.  

2) Yuya is possibly the father of Amenhotep III but not certainly.  Only six of the expected eight markers match.  Tuya is quite clearly not the mother of Amenhotep III, therefore it is not likely that Amenhotep III and Aanen were one and the same individual.  It is still possible that Aanen was appointed king in Assyria as Shalmaneser III.  The Assyrian name of Aye appears to have been Asshur-resha-ishi.

3) The mummy of Amenhotep III appears to have been labeled properly by the priests that reburied him.  Genetics do not suggest that this mummy could have been Akhenaten.

3) Queen Tiye and Amenhotep III are very strongly the parents of the mummy in KV55.  They are also very strongly the parents of the "Younger Lady".

4) The mummy in KV55 is not likely to have been Akhenaten, as concluded by the Hawass study.  The leading candidate is still Smenkhkare.

5) The "Younger Lady" is very strongly the mother of Tutankhamun.  The leading candidate for the "Younger Lady" is Nefertiti.  The similarity of her names and titles at Amarna and those of Smenkhkare appear to be linked to their role (as biological parents) in the birth of Tut.  (Did Elisha refer to Elijah as his father?  He certainly followed him around like one, and also asked for a double portion of his spirit.  Hmmm.)

6) Queen Tiye was inter-fertile with both Amenhotep III and Aye.  It is a fair question, then, whether Amenhotep III and Aye were actually one and the same.  If they were, then Amenhotep II was trying to achieve parity between the competing lines of Thutmose IV (Judah) and Yuya (Joseph) by appointing Thutmose IV's son Aye as pharaoh (under the name Amenhotep III) prior to transferring the "birthright" to Yuya.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 04:21:06 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Yuya Joe College
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2010, 02:55:20 AM »

We definitely have to look at Aye / Amenhotep synchronicity again, for if most of Aye's aliases appeared after Amenhotep's reign, that would be the second life. There may also be a big overlap, as Tiye and Aye appear to be ruling up by Judea and Samaria while Tiye and Amenhotep were reigning on the Nile...

If the study shows Tuya is not Amenhotep III's mom, does it say who likely is? In most cases, Aye / Amenhotep would then play Ephraim (as Yuya's adopted royal son) in the South and West while Aanen / Shalmaneser would handle the East and the North playing Manasseh, as the true bioson of Joseph and Asenath.

If Aye turns out to be Amenhotep III, Aaron would likely stay in the East, n'est-ce pas?

Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2010, 04:10:32 AM »

Unfortunately the study did not include the mummies of Thutmose IV or Amenhotep II.  Egyptologists generally conclude that Thutmose IV was the true father of Amenhotep III, and that now seems to be justified.

And, yes, I would expect Aanen to have received titles and territories in Mesopotamia and the East to counterbalance his secondary status in Egypt.  Similarly, if Aye later gave up his throne in Egypt (in favor of Akhenaten), it must have been due to victories in Mesopotamia and the East.  Kings generally only relinquished lesser thrones for greater ones.

I finished a second pass of the "Tut Report".  The basis for identifying the KV55 mummy as Akhenaten was presented in the 2007 documentary, "Nefertiti and the Lost Dynasty".  However, this documentary is not cited in the "Tut Report".  In fact, no reference is given to support the attribution.  It is simply stated that recent anthropological analysis (raising the estimated age of the KV55 mummy) outweighs previous radiological studies (assigning an age of about 20 years to the KV55 mummy).  The 2007 documentary did not convince many people, including Egyptologists, so I don't expect anyone to be swayed now.  

Nefertiti and the Lost Dynasty:
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?read=13013
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?read=10006
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1329834.php/NGC_debuts_Nefertiti_and_the_Lost_Dynasty
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Nefertiti-Lost-Dynasty/dp/B000RZEBXU

The "Tut Report" proposes that Beketaten or Nebetiah, younger daughters of Queen Tiye, could have been the mothers of king Tut.  (Mutnodjmet was not mentioned as a candidate for the same reason as Nefertiti - these older daughters of Aye are NOT considered closely related to Akhenaten.)  However, Beketaten was too young, possibly even younger that Tut himself.  I don't have any information about Nebetiah, but Nebat was a Biblical epithet of Aye!  See:

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-20.html

Other older daughters of Queen Tiye and/or Amenhotep III are Sitamun B (who we have mentioned previously), Iset C, and Henut-taneb.  Henut-taneb is of the same form as Nesi-taneb-tashru.  The suffix tashru is a variant of -tasherit, which was appended to the names of Kiya's (Nefertiti's?) daughters.

The report contains more assurances that members of the royal family were not really genetic mutants/freaks.  It is also claimed that there is no genetic basis for Tut's effeminate physique (other than his sedentary lifestyle).  It is finally admitted that Tut was not an athletic youngster, and that he actually needed those canes found in his tomb.  However, Hawass once again rejects any suspicion that Tut was murdered.  His fractured femur can only be viewed as accidental.  That's his scientific opinion and he's sticking to it.

Here are the links to the "Tut Report", but I don't know if they can be accessed without paying.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

Mummies in the Test Group:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/7/638/DC2?home
(Click on the tab "Kingship Analysis" if it will let you.)

Genealogical Rationale:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/7/638/DC1

« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 04:17:30 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2010, 06:16:45 PM »

Quote
However, Hawass once ...

I finally have seen this guy on TV. WHOA! I know this type - "I'm the boss, I'm in charge, I'm the authority!" Everything the guy spouted was as if all of this was "black and white" certainty. He seemed to be more impressed with himself being in front of the camera than the results of the testing.

Yuya - Wiki is compiled by volunteers whose only requirement is they can write per Wiki requirements. In my own field of physics, I've found enough errors to fill a book. For general information, it does quite well. As the topic complexity rises, so do the faults within. I take what's in it very lightly.

Yuya - Evolution is just a theory from the basis described in "Origin of the Species." It's been about 30 years since I looked at it. A friend of mine is a collector of first editions of the book. He has about 9 or 10 now. The problem with it is that it is a moving target. As time passes, the theory itself evolves and has evolved that it can show problems with Darwin's original findings. Even today, there are still significant conflicts within the theory but aren't taught at the introductory level.

Yuya - I said "If understand the DNA science correctly, depending upon the number of data points, relationship can be inferred ..." The operative phrase is "number of data points" From what Charles posted, the number of data points in some cases weren't enough to prove absolution. I should have said "strongly inferred." Please understand where one's understanding of the science comes from - from a DNA biologist or the media or peers. I also said "IF." Don't be so quick to flame me even on a trivial level.



Logged
Yuya Joe College
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2010, 11:28:29 PM »

Morky man,

Yea bro, I caught the data points reference in Charles' post and then better understood your reference, my bad; don't take my post as a flame, more a spark to ignite discussion. It's funny when you live in Canada, and follow some USA "debates" on things like abortion, evolution and health care. On abortion and health care, the first is considered a woman's right and the second is considered a citizen's right; Pierre Trudeau was a brilliant PM for us who not only legalized gambling, homosexuality and bolstered our provincial (NOT national) health care system, he also enshrined a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that have institutionalized and permanized personal liberty.

The third thing is evolution, and nobody up here would tolerate the idea that someone would teach something as bogus as creationism / intelligent design etc. in a public school. There's faith and there's science, and you always have to separate Church / religion, and State.

It was the seeming lack of faith in basic dna analysis that made me wander off onto the evolution path...

My Buddy wiki:

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time ...

I will agree that it was a theory when proposed but as it has been proven by many thousands of rigorous scientific studies since, the basic premise of organic adaptability over time is unassailable. If you want to get into whether it's always evolution and not sometimes devolution, I'd say that is semantics but doesn't change the fact of organic adaptation for survival / prosperity.

The USA has so many positive attributes that Canada could never hope for a better neighbor or friend, and our thoughts are as closely aligned as any other nations on the planet. It has been proven through actual policy decisions in 100+ countries that the best uses of tax dollars are education (skilled work force) and health care (healthy, productive populace). I pray that President Obama is able to move the US forward and begin to lead by example again. When my wife and I were blessed with triplets twenty years ago and she had complications, on the day of checkout I was asked to view the bill to approve it was correct. It listed 3 weeks of medical procedures etc. and totaled $49,000 and I signed it as correct and they said "thanks" and that was it; we have no private insurance but were not required to or requested to pay a penny, as that's what our taxes are for. Why should a similar couple in the States have to go bankrupt in that situation? (This paragraph is just for general discussion / personal venting and not in response to anything on DOM...)

BACK to topic: Finally, I'm not saying wiki is competing with Google and China to run the world, but you can be certain that Hawass and Egypt control the pages they want to, just as every other country that cares about its image does. Try changing something and check back in a day or two.

In summary, Mork my man, it's great to have you hear and here, as sometimes there's just the Pope and Hughes with an occasional zephyr from the north.

Peace 2 All.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 01:20:56 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 318


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2010, 01:20:02 AM »

It is unfortunate that a few of the key mummies may still be missing (or not!) and a few others were not included in the study.  Even so, eight sets of base pairs for each of the mummies were resolved, and that seems sufficient to establish the family relationships "beyond a reasonable doubt".  It would be interesting nonetheless to know what an animal breeder would say.  For example, what happens when parents breed with offspring.  Does that significantly alter the appearance of recessive traits and significantly reduce the certainty of relationships.  The Tut study claimed over 99.99% accuracy.

For now, I'm conceding that Smenkhare and Tut were not the product of a mother-son union between Queen Tiye and Akhenaten.  Velikovsky sold me on that one, but it turned out to be wrong.  The Greek memory of Oedipus (Akhenaten) killing his father (Yuya) and sleeping with his mother (Tiye) is not necessarily also mistaken.  Queen Tiye may have been considered a consort of Akhenaten, before and/or after the end of Amenhotep III's reign.  Alternatively, she may have retained the status of "Great Wife" as the consort of Aye rather than Akhenaten.

As far as Tut being the son of Smenkhkare, there is the Biblical episode (2 Kings 2:12) in which Elijah is taken from Elisha and Elisha exclaims, "My father! My father!"  It is also significant that Ahab (Aye) was especially devoted to Elisha (Tut) and his princely education.  Ahab persecuted Elijah (Smenkhkare), and vice versa, but this may have had more to do with role playing than actual animosity.

It seems also to have been a matter of role playing that Amenhotep III not have a male heir.  Amenhotep III and Tiye were not a full-brother/sister combination and they did have children of both sexes.  However, the leading princes and princesses are passed off as the children of Aye and Akhenaten.  

I definitely like the notion that the birth/personal name of Amenhotep III was Aye, and he continued to keep this name as a separate identity even after he was crowned successor to Thutmose IV and Amenhotep II.  I'm just a little "shell-shocked" by the DNA results.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 01:22:11 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2010, 02:04:23 PM »

Yuya,

No problamo.

I too find the debates in this country funny. Just the use of the expression "I have a right to ..." is crapola. One may be "entitled to ..." but never a right. How is anything that somebody wants seems to evolve into a "right" to have.

"Intelligent Design" - I like this one because it's a big target to poke fun at. OK, let's expand this to aliens creating this universe. Take it a step further and ZOG from universe Xk-11 created this universe as his second grade science project. He got a C+. It's unlikely that either are taught within the scope of intelligent design. My wife who works in one of the regions best childrens' hospital sees a child poisoned and expected to die. They do their best to save the child or, at least minimize the pain and suffering but the prognosis is still death. Through constant expert care, the child pulls through beating the odds. Now, did the child survive because of the care received or by "Intelligent Intervention?" I wonder if this is taught in medical school - "Mrs. Smith, we're going to treat your child's broken leg by "Intelligent Intervention" because the profit margin to hospital is greater."

The "Pro Choice" debate has similar flaws but, they're for another topic, another day.

Meanwhile, for something back on topic.

WRT: Wiki on topic at hand. I would say that the editor(s) of those pages are more likely those simply repeating mainstream or popular interpretations never mentioning possible alternatives unless the mainstream/popular discussions say so.

I see the staffs found in Tut's tomb as one such example. What was initially stated was that they may have or probably used to walk with and that got converted to they were used or needed to walk with. Having a disability myself tends to say might have used simply how some deal with disabilities, especially in public (or in front of those outside of their inner circle.) At one point, I purchased a custom-made cane to walk with. It didn't work the way I wanted so, it's now a prop in my house. If 2000 years from now my house is unearthed and the cane is found, would researchers conclude that I used or needed it to walk with? Probably, yes and they would be presumptuous and wrong. The reason why such interpretations get mangled is who makes the determination. Determinations are not always done by qualified people for a given attribute. I remember seeing a program many years ago about people with psychic powers. They brought in scientists to evaluate the powers such as a physicist, experts in paranomal, etc. All concluded that the powers were genuine but, they weren't. All of them turned out to be fakes. Not one of the "experts" were qualified to make such an evaluation - if they brought in a magician, the findings would have been much different. More recently, the famous "alien autopsy" film concluded to be real by those from the presenting TV show turned out to be faked. Again, having the "right" people making the assesment. Balloon boy - how could an under-inflated balloon kit that weighs less than two pounds carry a child several orders of magnitude heavier? Again, the wrong people making the assessment but with this example, the mainstream media erroneously reinforcing the possibility.

The scope of qualified knowledge a person has is limited but, others tend to take a more generalize belief of that person's expertise. I asked for assistance in writing some documentation. An associate chimed in with "my daughter has a degree in English so, she knows how to write." Sorry, the degree doesn't mean squat as she could have studied "American poetry" or "English literature" and had nothing more than grammer taught in her freshman year and not much writing experience. The problem is the general public doesn't grasp this concept so they take all statements made by Hawass and others as an absolute never questioning anything outside their true scope of qualified knowledge.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 04:29:22 PM by Mork » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 16 queries.