Slashdot Mirror
Research Suggests One To Three Men Fathered Most Western Europeans
Taco Cowboy writes "'While the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in Africa took 12 thousand years to spread, those in Europe started from around 3rd millennium.' The speed of spread of the European haplogroups was totally astounding, to say the least. 'There was no R1b found in Europe before a Bell Beaker site from the 3rd millennium BC and today many Europeans (most in western Europe) belong to this haplogroup. 'We used coalescent simulations to investigate the range of demographic models most likely to produce the phylogenetic structures observed in Africa and Europe, assessing the starting and ending genetic effective population sizes, duration of the expansion, and time when expansion ended. The best-fitting models in Africa and Europe are very different. In Africa, the expansion took about 12 thousand years, ending very recently; it started from approximately 40 men and numbers expanded approximately 50-fold. In Europe, the expansion was much more rapid, taking only a few generations and occurring as soon as the major R1b lineage entered Europe; it started from just one to three men, whose numbers expanded more than a thousandfold.'"
The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The problem with claiming that all Europeans came from a small number of people based upon a Y-chromosome study is that such a study, by design, misses many men who failed to leave male descendants. If, for example, I have four children, but they are all daughters, then my Y chromosome dies with me, even though many other of my genes will still live on in my daughters (in aggregate, if I had four children, around 94% of my genes would survive into the next generation).
This means that over time, we lose the Y chromosomes of many ancestral men just due to random chance. Those 1-3 men might well have been traveling in a group of 200 or so, and Europeans may still carry many genes from many of the other men in that group. But because the other members of the group didn't leave behind Y chromosomes, we don't see them in a Y-chromosome analysis.
The study seems to have found good evidence that Europeans are all descended from a small group, but 1-3 men seems to be stretching it.
Of course that only applies for monotheistic religions. In polytheism, it's easy: Our god favours us, and the other tribe's god favours them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
a belief in God's favor... Tribalism and lack of empathy
If god favors my group, then the other groups are not favored and are therefore inferior and unworthy of my concern. His reasoning why a belief in god's favor does not cause violence is the reason why it causes violence.
No. Seriously, read the book.
What it boils down to is that such logical deduction isn't how people work at the level where what sort of violence we're comfortable with is decided. The logical arguments are a veneer laid over the top to justify the lizard-brain reactions to "otherness", and the psychological infrastructure that's been built up to determine who is "other", which is based primarily on familiarity. At the end of the day, whether god was invoked or not, the same evaluation of otherness occurs and the same impact on empathy or the lack thereof.
For a modern example which easily cuts out the religious question, look at discussions on immigration. I often have a very different perspective on it from others around me, and I can see exactly where that perspective arose, my own life experiences. I spent years living and working in southern Mexico, with people from all walks of life, and specifically trying to build empathic rapport with them. As a result, my attitude about immigration and global competition in general is that all of the people in other countries have just as much right to my job as I do, and if they can do it better, or cheaper, or faster, then they should. Because to me they're not "other". This is not the case for the majority of Americans, at least, so I often get blank stares of complete incomprehension when I make such statements, and a response of "their lives aren't my problem, and my government should be protecting me". It boils down to foreigners being perceived as "other".
Now, I'm not holding myself up as any kind of paragon. I fully recognize that there are groups around me that I perceive as "other", and my reactions to them are much less empathic than they should be. Of late I've become strongly aware of this as my daughter has moved herself to such a group, and it's difficult for me to reconcile my conflicting reactions. Rationally, I recognize that they are not "other", and she certainly isn't, but my brain isn't wired to think that way, and at 45 years of age it's hard for me to re-program (particularly, when I am both emotionally and rationally quite certain that her choices will lead to unhappiness, but that's just a complication, not the core issue).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Of course that only applies for monotheistic religions. In polytheism, it's easy: Our god favours us, and the other tribe's god favours them.
A very valid point... and one that highlights the fact that it's not the religion that generates the violence. Whether the argument is that my god favors me and not you so I'll kill you, or that my god hates your god, so I'll kill you, or you oppose the rise of the proletariat, so I'll kill you, or you're a dirty thieving gypsy, so I'll kill you, or... the rational justifications are endless, but they're only justifications. The real issue is tribalism and lack of empathy for others.
One of the points that Pinker really pounds on in the book is that lack of empathy was endemic in the past (in the future they'll probably say the same of our age; we say it of times just a few generations past). For example, a few hundred years ago I might not only have thought nothing of murdering the heathen, even torturing him to death in order to save his soul, but I would also have thought nothing of brutal punishments and tortures for people of my own village who I perceived to have done wrong, or to have offended me or my family. In the past, governments routinely used horrific tortures like breaking on the wheel for relatively minor crimes, or even just political disagreements, even though the tortured was part of the torturer's "tribe".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The reason I'm pointing you at the book is that the ideas are not simple, and the very thorough research supporting them is something I cannot reproduce in a slashdot post. Not everything can be reduced to simple language in a few paragraphs.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.