NYT: English, Irish, Scots: They’re All One, Genes Suggest

[mddock58]

good scholars who attempt to present the most accurate perspective of a historical person, event, place, etc.

T.

I agree with you Todd...

The problem sometimes lies in the attempt. We all have biases, known or unknown, and we approach everything we do based on those biases. The best history would be someone (or many) totally disconnected from the event, viewing the event at the time of the event, and recording it.

This of course does not happen. Historians have a passion for the events that they study, and hopefully they present as close to a balanced, unbiased viewpoint as possible. This is why it is always good to read different views of the same "history" and take it in as you can.

Unfortunately there are many history books out there that are extremely biased, and have been the basis for our understanding of events for so long, that they are assumed to be total truth.

Unfortunately, I don't think the information from these geneticists will change either general history as currently perceived, or relationships between the people groups involved.

[Bob C]

Human DNA differs from orangutan DNA by only two percent. I don't see that as any particular reason to develop closer relationships with orangutans.

[mudd]

Human DNA differs from orangutan DNA by only two percent. I don't see that as any particular reason to develop closer relationships with orangutans.

I'd much rather have closer relationships with orangutans than with some of the people in the world today.