Slashdot Mirror
The Shallow Roots of the Human Family Tree
An anonymous reader writes to mention an AP story about research discussing the relatively recent origins of every human on earth. Despite the age of our species, every human on earth can trace their ancestry back to someone who may have lived as recently as the Golden Age of Greece (around 500 BC). From the article: "It is human nature to wonder about our ancestors -- who they were, where they lived, what they were like. People trace their genealogy, collect antiques and visit historical sites hoping to capture just a glimpse of those who came before, to locate themselves in the sweep of history and position themselves in the web of human existence. But few people realize just how intricately that web connects them not just to people living on the planet today, but to everyone who ever lived."
You might be able to trace your geneology, but the process assumes that all your ancestors were entirely forthcoming when it came to their nuptial reltaions. Makes you wonder why children take the male's family name?
May the Maths Be with you!
I've never been able to trace back any further than 1650 or so. Not that I've tried all that hard - it's at that point where I have to leave the US and travel to England to find more, and that's way beyond my budget. My ancestor arrived in the US not only broke, but in debt - he had to pay for his passage with several years of indentured servitude. Not much has changed...
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
What population? The were white settlers hunted the Tasmanians down like animals, then herded the last few survivors to a Christian-themed labor camp on a desert island where they succumbed to starvation and disease. The last pure-blooded Tasmanian died in 1876. Her skeleton was put on display in the Tasmanian Museum (as an example of "primitive human") and was finally cremated, over the museum's vehement objections, in 1976.
The fact is, we live in the present, and that's what is important. I couldn't care less if your great-great-grandmother was the queen of spain, or if your grandfather's second cousin's dad was a slave. That needn't have any effect on how I interact with you.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
here's the beginning, taken from:
... as if her regal bearing and fierce eyes somehow "ennobled" me and all her descendants ... as if the "character" of the entire species, our potential for virtue, somehow depended on having at least one ancestor who could have starred in a Leni Riefenstahl documentary.
g an.htm
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook918.htm
With hindsight, I can date the beginning of my involvement in the Ancestor Wars precisely: Saturday, June 2, 2007. That was the night Lena dragged me along to the Children of Eve to be mitotyped. We'd been out to dinner, it was almost midnight, but the sequencing bureau was open 24 hours.
"Don't you want to discover your place in the human family?" she asked, fixing her green eyes on me, smiling but earnest. "Don't you want to find out exactly where you belong on the Great Tree?"
The honest answer would have been: What sane person could possibly care? We'd only known each other for five or six weeks, though; I wasn't yet comfortable enough with our relationship to be so blunt.
"It's very late," I said cautiously. "And you know I have to work tomorrow." I was still fighting my way up through post-doctoral qualifications in physics, supporting myself by tutoring undergraduates and doing all the tedious menial tasks which tenured academics demanded of their slaves. Lena was a communications engineer--and at 25, the same age as I was, she'd had real paid jobs for almost four years.
"You always have to work. Come on, Paul! It'll take fifteen minutes."
Arguing the point would have taken twice as long. So I told myself that it could do no harm, and I followed her north through the gleaming city streets.
It was a mild winter night; the rain had stopped, the air was still. The Children owned a sleek, imposing building in the heart of Sydney, prime real estate, an ostentatious display of the movement's wealth. ONE WORLD, ONE FAMILY proclaimed the luminous sign above the entrance. There were bureaus in over a hundred cities (although Eve took on various "culturally appropriate" names in different places, from Sakti in parts of India, to Ele'ele in Samoa) and I'd heard that the Children were working on street-corner vending-machine sequencers, to recruit members even more widely.
In the foyer, a holographic bust of Mitochondrial Eve herself, mounted on a marble pedestal, gazed proudly over our heads. The artist had rendered our hypothetical ten-thousand-times-great grandmother as a strikingly beautiful woman. A subjective judgment, certainly--but her lean, symmetrical features, her radiant health, her purposeful stare, didn't really strike me as amenable to subtleties of interpretation. The esthetic buttons being pushed were labeled, unmistakably: warrior, queen, goddess. And I had to admit that I felt a certain bizarre, involuntary swelling of pride at the sight of her
Well worth reading, along with the rest of the stories in the collection "Luminous" by Greg Egan. here's another link to some favourable reviews of his stuff: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/books/e/e
Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
Given the worldwide geographical spread of Homo sapiens it's a believable number. As recently as 75,000 years ago we lost around two thirds of the population in the Lake Toba eruption and there have been a fair few fluctuations since then.
The stuff later in the article is interesting. One question it raises is the effect of the increases in travel will have on the genetic mix. Traditionally the vast majority of the population married someone within a small radius of their initial home. As larger numbers of people move further away there could be some interesting effects.
Despite the age of our species, every human on earth can trace their ancestry back to someone who may have lived as recently as the Golden Age of Greece (around 500 BC)
Well damn, I can trace my ancestry to someone much more recent than that. To boot, I'm pretty sure we all have ancestors that lived during 500 BC... I dare you to find me someone who lacks a living ancestor during anytime past the origin of life on earth and before their own time. I frickin' dare you.
Ohhhhhh... They mean to say that everyone can trace their ancestry back to a single person who lived during the Golden Age of Greece. That guy must've been a stud.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
No it wouldn't. Despite the wealth of information available today, racists will consider people with different color skin or slightly differently shaped eyes to be less than human. There is no rationale behind it whatsoever and having a pedigree to show that say, (for the most common example) a white supremacist and Martin Luther King Jr. share common ancestors 60 or so generations back would not change their attitudes.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The "New York Times" gives a detailed analysis of genetic disease in Saudia Arabia, where more than 50% of marriages are ones between blood relatives.
Curiously, the nature of genetic disease suggests that if you want to ensure the survival of your descendants into the eons upon eons, you should marry outside of your ethnic group. The offspring of an Eskimo-African couple will typically have a stronger set of genes than the offspring of an Eskimo-Eskimo couple, a German-German couple, or a Vietnamese-Vietnamese couple.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Curiously, the nature of genetic disease suggests that if you want to ensure the survival of your descendants into the eons upon eons, you should marry outside of your ethnic group. The offspring of an Eskimo-African couple will typically have a stronger set of genes than the offspring of an Eskimo-Eskimo couple, a German-German couple, or a Vietnamese-Vietnamese couple.
That is patently false. Humans, before we had modern technology that allowed us to travel great distances in short periods of time, had very little contact outside of our own tribes. To put, humans lived within their own tribes for hundreds of thousands of years.
Mixing does not create a "stronger" result. If anything, it creates a weaker result, depending on how different the two parents are. Why do you think the traits of various ethnic groups were selected? Do you think they are randomly arranged? No, they were selected based on adaptations to the environment of that group of people. Mixing in differnet traits that do not fit well into that environment will result in those traits being removed.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
WE'RE ALL REDNECKS!
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Walking just 100 yards a day would allow a population to reach the entire earth in about 1000 years or 30 generations. Do it at the right time and there was a permanent ice/land bridge between asia and alaska.
Richard Dawkins writes in The Ancestors Tale (page 43, "The Tasmanian's Tale") that roughly 80 percent of all invidiviuals of a current population will be universal ancestors to all living decendants a certain number of generations later. How many generations? That depends on the populations size: roughly the base 2 logarithm of the population size number of generations. This is more true for small, isolated populations, especially on islands (Tasmania is given as example) - you can not take the current population of people on earth today (6 billions) and trust this number.
but I dunno. I mean, they still give me mod points every other week, and I just close my eyes and click.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
is passed through the female line. As the Roman author had it, mater certus, pater semper incertus est (The mother is certain, the father always uncertain.)
Pining for the fjords
A way to visualize what he is saying would be to take two overlapping cones/triangles, one with the point aiming up, one with the point aiming down, like a star-of-david, or an angular hourglass.
The cone with the point at the top represents one person (A, for ancestor) who lived X years ago and their descendants. The cone with the point at the bottom represents one person (D for descendant) who lives today and their ancestors. Any overlap is where A and D share mutual ancestors/descendants.
Using this representation, the argument here is that there exists (erm, existed) a person A, for whom every human who is alive today falls into their descendancy cone. Or more importantly, they assert that this is inevitable, and sufficient time has passed such that it has already happened. The key, according to this visual model, is that "now" is below the line where the two cones cross.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
If you knew anything about Iraq & Iran, you'd know that Iraq is an Arab country and Iran is a Persian country.
The Arabs have a long running grudge against the Persian empire, which Saddam used to unite the Iraqi people during that war.
Maybe 30% of Iraqi families are mixed Sunni-Shia. To pretend that the sectarian violence in Iraq isn't religiously motivated is ignorance in the extreme.
It's exactly the thing that Bush Sr. predicted would happen if he invaded Iraq. So he didn't. If you honestly believe that "This generally artificial tension is being produced as a convenient cover" then i suggest you go read a book or two, because Civil War is exactly what most political scientists expected would happen.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Genealogists discover royal roots on every family tree
In which they discuss the royal roots of Brooke Shields.
What is it about Brooke? Well, nothing -- at least genealogically.
Even without a documented connection to a notable forebear, experts say the odds are virtually 100 percent that every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
then there is this old link to the notion of the Most Recent Common Ancestor of Mankind.
The huge number of proven descents of people from common European royal ancestry in historical times, when considered with the vastly greater number of descents that must exist but are not among the rare few that can be proven, suggest strongly that everyone, in the West at least, is descended from an MRCA in historical times. They suggest, for example, that everyone in the West is descended from Charlemagne, c. 800 AD.
It would seem possible that, even with a lot of geographical separation, the MRCA of the entire world is still within historical times, 3000 BC - 1000 AD. In fact, it is quite likely the entire world is descended from the Ancient Egyptian royal house, c. 1600 BC.
We pick them as an example because they left proven descents for centuries, so it seems likely their descents did not die out, and they are ancestors of some people alive today. Hence probably ancestors of all people alive today.
Quite likely almost everyone in the world descends from Confucius, c. 500 BC. We pick him as an example because he is the proven ancestor of some people alive today. Hence probably the ancestor of all people alive today.
Atlantic Magazine, among others, had a story on this a few years back.
The mathematical study of genealogy indicates that everyone in the world is descended from Nefertiti and Confucius, and everyone of European ancestry is descended from Muhammad and Charlemagne
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
There is no rationale behind it whatsoever and having a pedigree to show that say, (for the most common example) a white supremacist and Martin Luther King Jr. share common ancestors 60 or so generations back would not change their attitudes.
I agree it won't change their attitude, but given the deplorable fact of extensive inter-breeding between mostly black slaves and mostly-white plantation owners prior to the Civil War, it is extremely likely that a white supremacist in the U.S. South and Martin Luther King Jr. would share a common ancestor a lot less than 60 generations back.
The idea of "racial purity" is a myth for stupid people, and as more knowledge of human genetics and human ancestry accumulates this will become so obvious that even people stupid enough to be racists will have a hard time avoiding it. We will find there is a literal handful of "racially pure" people on the planet, and they will be from isolated tribes who simply lacked the opportunity to practice the vigorous out-breeding that is part of humanity's evolutionary modus operandi.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I've just completed a bachelor's degree in Biology and a graduate level course in evolutionary genetics and I have never heard of these kinds of statements from any scientific source. In fact, the only place I have heard them from were from people who stress racial purity and--more specifically--white supremacy.
Regardless, what you're saying is ridiculous. Humans are the most prolific mammal on the face of the earth; we're everywhere. We are this way because it is our nature to be both curious and aggressive. You're not giving our ancestors or the human drive for exploration enough credit. Besides, even under your theory, how did the individual ethnic groups arrive in their respective regions were it not for this migration, mmm? (Hint for the uninitiated: the typical answer to this is "God put them there.")
For any human population a certain number of migrants is a given. This inevitably creates geneflow between populations which are otherwise isolated. The result is that human populations are generally homogenous, despite the great geographic distances separating the groups themselves. A very extreme example of this effect is demonstrated with ring species, whose sub-populations are actually infertile with one another (clearly not the case with people) but still maintain a common character (ie. they do not diverge) because of geneflow.
To be certain, there are differences between racial and ethnic groups, but these differences are superficial and do not reflect the genome as a whole. Scientific studies of DNA microsattelites have confirmed this time and time again. In fact, the study in the article is just one of many.
Yes and no. What you're talking about is a homozygous advantage. For many populations this is true--but not for people. Why? Because we aren't necessarily beholden to our environments anymore. If you're less tolerant of the sun, you can wear sunscreen. If you're less tolerant to the heat, you can get air conditioning. Even in the most extreme cases, homozygous advantage doesn't apply. For instance, populations that have lived in the Andes mountains have developed genetic adaptations that allow them to breathe in much lower concentrations of oxygen than normally allowed. And yet, still, most tourists to these mountains are still able to survive (and even enjoy themselves) by supplementing their oxygen.
But if no the environment, what are humans subject to? Their own genes. To some extent this can be compensated for. (I know I for one would probably have died in ages past because of my nearsightedness.) But even with today's technology, genetic defects are often untreatable and sometimes fatal. This is particularly relevant in the case of recessive genetic disorders, where the extreme effects of a homozygous recessive trait can be masked. This creates a situation where heterozygotes are superior, because of a reduced likelihood of genetic disorders. I'm pretty sure this is the scientific basis of the OP's more-simplified statements.
In practice, however, this is often difficult to take advantage of because our assignment of race is completely arbitrary and based upon the phenotype of an individual and not his or her genotype. So, for instance, a black and white couple in Claxton, Georgia (a historic site of genetic samplin
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_an
ok, it seems to vary from about 5%, but rates of 20% - 30% are common. So... Guys... have you had a DNA test?
Deleted
Angel Boris actually has a Bacon Number of 2:
1. Angel Boris was in Suicide Blonde (1999) with Robert Deacon
2. Robert Deacon was in Wild Things (1998) with Kevin Bacon
(Source: The Oracle of Bacon at Virginia)
Which makes three steps from you to Kevin Bacon. HTH, HAND!
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Neither of David's parents were relevant to his becoming king. Jonathan was the scion of Saul, as he was Saul's son. David, the son of Jesse (and later Jonathan's best friend), was unrelated to Saul, and became king because he was annointed by the prophet Samuel. Neither David's patrilineal, nor his matrilineal line mattered to his being king of Israel.
Your facts were wrong, your point is right.
You may all go to Hell and I will go to Texas - Davy Crockett
The math only works if you assume that the ancestry never coincides with itself until it is mathematically impossible for it not to do so. This is ludicrous. Ancestry will coincide many, many times before that point. It is easy to demonstrate mathematically that it is more than possible for an ancestry to fold in on itself repeatedly, without touching other distinct lines.
The basic assumption (flawed), is that having trillions of "ancestors" means that it fold in across the entire spectrum of living people at a given time, when it can in fact fold in multiple times on a selection of that population; or that having any particular person as your ancestor is almost precisely as likely as any other arbitrary person. Historically, there are many social constrictions to make such statistics highly unlikely.
It also seems obvious to me, that were interracial marriages so common place so long ago (across the last few thousand years, even), the world would not be quite as genetically diverse a place as it currently is.
Disclaimer: IANAM(athematician). However, I do love math, and this seems like a fairly obvious and very easily provable flaw. I'm also probably misusing the phrase "fold in" above, though: but I imagine everyone can understand what I mean by that.
Iranians called their land Iran beginning around 226 AD/CE
Yes, I wrote that correctly. 1,780 years of calling themselves Iranians.
Before 226 AD, the Persians referred to themselves as Aryanam, which the word "Iran" is a spinoff of. The earliest written self-reference of the Persians as Aryanam was in 486 BC. That stretches the Iranian timeline back another 712 years.
Iran (the Persian Empire) started out roughly 700 BC when several Aryan tribes united.
Iran literally means "the land of Aryans"
Culturally and linguistically they're Aryans.
Ethnically, Iran (the Persian Empire) is a mix, which includes Caucusians.
It's a bit confusing to discuss since the 'Iranian (Persian) people' covers more than just the people inside Iran's current border.
P.S. Aryan, as I'm using it, has nothing to do with the racial supremecists or Nazis. In the 1900's they confused & bastardized the word.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is where a "+1 Pwned" modding would come in handy.
Not likely. The typical white supremecist's ancestors would not have been able to afford slaves.
Um, not. Great-granddaddy was poor white racist trash, coming from probably your typical subsistence farming South Carolina background, and his family owned slaves (just a few) before the war. This was normal - even the slightly better-off poor had slaves.
Also, need I mention Trent Lott or Strom Thurmond?