Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Research Suggests One To Three Men Fathered Most Western Europeans

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-are-the-father dept.

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.'"

168 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

    What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

    1. Re:Proof! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      So did most Europeans. It's one of the reasons that European history is such an unmitigated meatgrinder from about the moment the Roman Empire started to lose it, right up until the US and USSR got serious about stocking up on nukes. (or, um, I mean, the humanitarian ideals of the UN and EU ushered in a new era of peaceful cooperation. I, um, must have made typo there. Or maybe my keyboard firmware is misanthropic.)

    2. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You jest, but you're actually closer than you think. Japheth was the son of Noah that moved north into Europe. Shem moved east. Ham moved south. All of them left roots in areas at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

      Also, if you had read the Bible's account of the flood, you'd know that there won't be another flood. God concluded a "rainbow covenant" with Noah and his family, promising that he would never bring that kind of destruction on the earth again. All future destruction the Bible speaks of will be of people only. The flora and fauna will be left intact.

    3. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      So up to two sons of Noah's wife weren't actually his?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Proof! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That always struck me as a bit of an empty promise. God said he'd never destroy the world by flood - but he still has fire, massive tectonic activity, meteor impact, quantum vacuum collapse, wandering microsingularity, atmopheric poisoning, extreme heat...

    5. Re:Proof! by Chas · · Score: 1, Funny

      Luckily I'm not an atheist.

      I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:Proof! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them... However I doubt they are rarely as grandiose as the stories make them out to be.

      However if a story in the Bible is shown to be true or false, it really doesn't but a final clinch in is their a god or not belief.

      Now did Noah build a massive boat. Or was a merchant, with a set of connecting rafts, and when a big flood came he got lucky, he had enough supplies to wait it out and get to a safe spot... Perhaps in Europe were there wasn't much population...
      That stated, Europeans probably came from a small group of nomads who have been out casted from their home land... (The family of Kian?) and probably made their own society there, growing over time.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Proof! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      Yep. My research suggests that global warming is really God's anger at the hippies.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Proof! by dicobalt · · Score: 2

      The article makes claims that the world is more than 6000 years old. It actually tries to assert that people were around 70 thousand years ago. How crazy is that? This article can be further discredited because it uses things such as science, and math. Clearly the authors have an agenda.

    9. Re:Proof! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that this gene is primarily found in Western Europeans and is non-existent in Asians and other races on the planet. The flood that supposedly took out everyone on the planet would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is absolutely not the case here.

    10. Re:Proof! by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..

      sure it would make sense if we had a passage reading "And 20,000 of the best bitches boarded the arc to keep Noah and his boys busy!" and "Gawd turned his back to all the fornication that he had outlawed"

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    11. Re:Proof! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      So did most Europeans.

      So did most humans. Throughout history, nearly all tribes and nations have felt themselves superior to their neighbors. There was nothing particularly "European" about tribalism and war. In fact, tribalism isn't even a specifically human trait. You can see the same behavior in a pride of lions, a troop of chimpanzees, or even between anthills. It is a predictable emergent behavior of social Darwinism.

    12. Re:Proof! by PPH · · Score: 1

      Luckily I'm not an atheist.

      Luckily I'm not Western European.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re:Proof! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What. You think Noah looked throughout all of the ark? That was a pretty big boat. Cubits and cubits of horseshit, zebra shit, rotifera dung etc.

      I'll bet there were more than a few extra humans hiding away in that thing. And would they have stuck around once the ground dried up? Of course not. They would have high tailed it away from the rest of the group.

      Problem solved.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Proof! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.

      No. Because there still is the possibility of some sort of definitive proof. Although how you would show that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists to an organism which is inherently extremely limited in what it can perceive or do sounds rather impossible to me. There's only so much input a human can receive over a finite life span and only so many internal state changes (including thinking) that the human can do over that life span.

    15. Re:Proof! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps older humans looked out over some vast ancient flood plain and realized it was a flood plain. A couple of nibbles off some fun mushrooms and a bag of fermented something or other and the prefrontal cortex goes wild....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Proof! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..

      sure it would make sense if we had a passage reading "And 20,000 of the best bitches boarded the arc to keep Noah and his boys busy!" and "Gawd turned his back to all the fornication that he had outlawed"

      nah the fornication laws came several hundred years later to mosses, gods last command to humanity before the flood was be fruitful and multiply so...

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    17. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Since there is no evidence for the claim that nobody knows whether there is a god, that claim can only be believed on faith. But faith is the antithesis of agnosticism.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists? OK, apart from the obvious option of killing everyone and then stating that since there's no one left, there's no one who could know anything – but then, in that case it won't matter any more anyway ;-)

      Of course you'll also get into the problem of defining exactly what "knowing" means, and if you are not careful, you'll easily define it in a way that no human is able to know anything. Of course in that case, the statement that no human knows whether a god exists is trivially true, but just as trivially meaningless.

      Indeed, in the case that an omnipotent god exists, that omnipotent god should have the power to let anyone whom he wants to know it know that he exists. Therefore if you could proof that nobody can know if a god exists, then you would, by this very act, have disproved god, and therefore could no longer logically be an agnostic, but an atheist.

      But that means that to proof that nobody knows whether a god exists, you'd have to do the proof without denying the possibility that they could possibly know. However, since you can't know what happens inside someone else's mind, how could you exclude that they gained that knowledge somehow?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    19. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So did most Europeans. It's one of the reasons that European history is such an unmitigated meatgrinder

      Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" (which also thoroughly discusses the demons of our nature) argues that the idea that a belief in God's favor caused the violence is false. Tribalism and lack of empathy (the evolution of empathy, especially empathy for people outside of your closest circle, is fascinating and non-obvious) were the cause of the unmitigated meatgrinder, and it wasn't just Europe, it was everywhere. In fact, recorded European history is mild compared to the pre-history archaeology shows us came before it.

      I could try to summarize the arguments, but I wouldn't do them justice. I highly recommend the book.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Proof! by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2

      hence, anthropogenic :)

    21. Re:Proof! by khallow · · Score: 1

      So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists?

      Well, an existing god for starters would probably know that. You have to bootstrap from the supernatural side and make the supernatural, natural. Nobody seems inclined to do so at the moment.

    22. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    23. Re:Proof! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Didn't Sting make a song about that? Someone had to shovel all that manure, and Noah was the wealthiest man on Earth, wasn't going to be him!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Proof! by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them...

      Really? Care to name any, and any objective proof whatsoever that they have this "source of truth"? If not, you're just hand waving as much as the pope.

    25. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    26. Re:Proof! by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      Well, their god may have promised never to use floods again, recent evidence in the Philippines to the contrary. That said, there are numerous references to death by fire in the Bible. That's not going to leave much either.

    27. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    28. Re:Proof! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Of course you'll also get into the problem of defining exactly what "knowing" means, and if you are not careful, you'll easily define it in a way that no human is able to know anything.

      The best definition for "knowledge" is "justified, true belief". Can you be justified in believing God exist? Sure, if you've met him or whatever. Can you be justifies in believing no god exists? That's a tricky one - it seems likely that the origin of the universe hides behind an event horizon, and so we'll never be sure how the universe itself happened. Can you be justified in believing that one specific deity as described by one specific faith does not exist? I think so - surely most of them are wrong.

      It's possible to justify belief that "if a god exists, he must be the kind of god whose existence doesn't directly affect the ongoing operation of the Universe". I don't think we know enough yet to claim that, but it seems possible we might one day know enough.

      Of course, you'll never be able to rule out God as described by Spinoza/JMS "the universe itself is God, and intelligent life is its self-awareness".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:Proof! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      I've also found that *being* an immigrant tends to alter your perspective on such matters considerably.

      (For extra credit, try doing it twice.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    30. Re:Proof! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Now did Noah build a massive boat. Or was a merchant,

      Well, there seem to be multiple accounts of the boat-builder story, so I give it a lot of credibility. Every civilization has it's "preppers", it's survivalists, whether building boats or bunkers. With all of the survivalists, and all of the disasters afflicting mankind through the ages, eventually one of them was bound to get it right, and prepare for exactly the disaster that happened. A series of events so unexpected that we're still talking about it 10000 years later!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Proof! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..

      So you read from bottom to top, eh? Most people do it the other way round. Thus:

      'above' = previous/before;

      and

      'below' = upcoming/next.

      (Det var så lite, så!)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    32. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bible's account is not about the human race as we see it but about the history and development of specific tribes living in those areas. In their mind, they were and possibly are the only humans alive.

    33. Re:Proof! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      There are no monotheistic religions. Christians believe in God

      who is a god

      Jesus, Satan, angels, saints, prophets, etc.

      who are not gods. Hmm.

      But okay, let's say you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong about monotheism. All you've done is show that three religions aren't monotheistic (in your terms). What about Eckankar? Rastafari? Tenriyko? Zoroastrianism? The Baha'i Faith?

      Did you bother to look into those or did you just want to take a cheap shot at the Big Three?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    34. Re:Proof! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      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".

      I suspect that the phrase "pour encourager les autres" applies....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    35. Re:Proof! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      God, the first politician.

    36. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    37. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 1

      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".

      I suspect that the phrase "pour encourager les autres" applies....

      Absolutely. But the point is that those sorts of encouragements are no longer even thinkable, because we empathize too much with the wrongdoer. This is a big change, and it's completely independent of questions of religious belief.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    38. Re:Proof! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Dude, he is asking you to read the book because the idea here is long and involved and Steven Pinker does a much better job of explaining it. He is not holding that book to be scripture and accepted without question. To conflate the GP with fundies is condescending

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    39. Re:Proof! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You missed Collataralized Debt Obligations, interest rate swaps and derivatives. They are far more damaging .

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    40. Re: Proof! by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >Mice build houses and Alpha males can cooperate, also live as families in big groups with NO wars.

      You are really clueless and completely wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments

      The size of human social structures are an order of magnitude larger than mouse structures.

      Ants on the other hand, which form colonies that rival humans, war between colonies is very common.

    41. Re:Proof! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      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

      But our cost of living is higher in the US, in part because such countries have minimum safety, labor, human-rights, and pollution regulations & standards. We cannot compete with their cost of living advantage if we stay in the US. We could lower our standards in the US, but then we become a 3rd-world country. Do we really want to lower our standards to theirs? This is why it's often called a "race to the bottom".

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    42. Re:Proof! by jbolden · · Score: 2

      I think we sympathize with different kinds of wrong doers. We are much more generous to pick pockets. But we will starve millions with sanctions because they won't support us against their government.

    43. Re:Proof! by Yosho · · Score: 1

      I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)

      Actually, a better description of your position would be agnostic atheism. Theism is a declaration of whether you worship a supernatural entity or not; clearly you do not, so you are an atheist. Gnosticism is a declaration of whether the existence of supernatural entities is knowable or not, so you are also agnostic. The two terms are compatible with one another.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    44. Re: Proof! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, obviously you have never actually read the Bible, not only is there nowhere where in the Bible where it says there is only one God, there are several verses that speak to gods as in a pantheon. Most of what " Christians" believe either isn't in the Bible or is obviously a blatant political motivated miss-translation.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    45. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, men in this family were always idiots. Imagine that when certain Joseph was puzzled how his wife got pregnant when he never had sex with her, she persuaded him she never slept with anybody else either. He went around and told this story to everybody...what a laughing stock this guy must have been.

    46. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 1

      So we're entitled to a higher standard of living? Why? Forget the "them" and "us". We're all people, and we all deserve the same opportunity to make what we can of ourselves.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    47. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think that's more a result of the fact that we consider them "other". Different color, language, culture, religion... they're strange and therefore not us, and therefore we have little empathy for them as people and our ideological interest in their government following the form we'd like and doing what we want is stronger. At least we're no longer willing to simply massacre them out of hand, though.

      On the other hand, to my moral sensibilities "starve millions with sanctions" is an odd phrase; do we really equate refusing to trade with someone with forcibly depriving them of sustenance? After all, we're not taking anything from them, we're just refusing to give something to them, something we have no obligation to provide. And it's not like the countries aren't capable of feeding their people, it's just that their corrupt governments and institutions don't care to bother. So do we really have a moral obligation to trade with them?

      I have to think about whether you're oversensitive, or I'm deficient.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    48. Re: Proof! by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The experiment quoted only indicated the breakdown of social structures after straining resource availability through sufficiently high population density. Prior to this, the "culture" wasn't in a state of war and turmoil.

      Human social structures may be an order of magnitude bigger, but we've also got a few orders of magnitude bigger brains. This includes the critical ability to intellectually analyze the functioning of social structures and make changes, rather than rolling along with instinct until all hell breaks loose. Those who consider a state of war and brutality to be inevitable among humans are those who want to deny the existence of human minds, and their ability to analyze and alter social arrangements (denial of which is usually prompted by the brain-denying party profiting from a current state of violence and dysfunction).

    49. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 2

      I got typhoid fever when I was in Mexico, does that count?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    50. Re:Proof! by swillden · · Score: 1

      The problem is that when one is WHITE, one is expected to exist and compete as an atom, an individual absolute with no assistance from any entity outside oneself. Meanwhile, the NON-WHITE is permitted to exist and compete in whatever form said non-white may have. There are ETHNIC CREDIT UNIONS but no WHITE CREDIT UNIONS. there are ETHNIC COMMUNITY CENTERS but no WHITE COMMUNITY CENTERS. Therefore, unless you have your life ahead of you paid in full via inheritance and/or windfall, you remain JUST AS "OTHER" as before you attempted to renounce WHITE PRIVILEGE.

      Sometimes the truth is racist but it does not undo the fact that it is the best representation of reality. You remain just as "other" to them despite the fact that you renounced viewing them as "other".

      Good fences make good neighbors.

      I'm glad I don't live in your head.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    51. Re:Proof! by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

      Totally agree on immigration. The biggest issue with illegal immigration is that most taxes in the country are only paid by legal citizens (excluding sales based taxes) so it's effectively cheaper to live and work in the US illegally than legally. The Fair Tax that would eliminate the income tax, replace it with sales tax and pay out a monthly stipend to every legal US citizen to offset that tax against basic needs.

      It pretty much turns immigration into a non-issue.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    52. Re:Proof! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

      No problem. We'll be the ones setting up to survive, while you're praying. And anyone on *my* ship who praises god for saving them will be kicked overboard.

      Pay attention. If you believe your god has anything to do with a natural disaster, that means your god is trying to kill you. If anyone from anything but your specific sect of your specific religion helps you, then it means your god intended you to die.

      Don't worry though, the Mormons will give you a posthumous baptism, so you'll be one of them for all eternity.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    53. Re: Proof! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      God's sarcastic tone doesn't come across in the written text.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    54. Re:Proof! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

      Your god is such a bastard.

    55. Re:Proof! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound at all like hogwash. The idea is in the book, shame that has to be explained.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    56. Re:Proof! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I save in a credit union and am "white". Also there's lots of community centres here but not very many 'ethnic' people. In other words, what you say can be safely disregarded. Phew.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    57. Re:Proof! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      No I think this just proves ancient Europeans lead the world in inbreeding.

    58. Re:Proof! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Sorry led my spelling sucks because of my inbred heritage.

    59. Re:Proof! by larpon · · Score: 1

      Who's your daddy?

    60. Re:Proof! by doccus · · Score: 1

      This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

      Well, that *is* how it appears...

    61. Re:Proof! by doccus · · Score: 1

      ...But.. there's also the possibility that aliens used three templates to hybridize the european strain.. let's fgace it.. light skinned folks are poorly suited to theis planet.. evolution would surely ALWAYS defer to darker skinned types.. meaning there's Earthlings and Martians on the same planet ;-)

    62. Re:Proof! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

      What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

      For that kind of multiplicative spread, Noah and his sons must of had two dozen wives each.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    63. Re:Proof! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I remember first encountering this back in High School when I made a joke about Jehovah's Witnesses and someone in the class claimed to be a Jehovah's Witness. Whether they were or weren't, I realized that I had rationalized making fun of a group simply because they were "an other." Years later, on a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, I saw a piece that explained how Hitler approached the Jehovah's Witnesses and basically told them "sit quietly while we do this and you won't be harmed." They didn't feel they could morally do this and protested. Thanks to this, they were persecuted alongside Jews, Gypsies, etc. Those two experiences taught me that every "Other" group is comprised of individuals. Some are going to be bad, yes, but some are going to be good. I try my best not to assign labels to whole groups based on the actions of a few individuals. (Sadly, this is a lesson that my father didn't learn and I'm constantly rolling my eyes when he gets talking about how SOME GROUP is ruining America. It doesn't help that he listens to some particularly bad right-wing radio/TV commentators.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    64. Re: Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      miss-translation

      Misogynist! ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    65. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I've once heard that originally, besides the god Yahweh there was a goddess whose name I forgot. Yahweh was the god of war, and the goddess was the goddess for fertility.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    66. Re:Proof! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, men in this family were always idiots.

      You recognize that according to the bible, we all are in his family? So at least if you're a man, you might want to reconsider that statement. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    67. Re:Proof! by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Well, I've travelled alot, and I've seen "British Grocery Shops" In far flung places. Holy shit, even one or two Anglican Churches. There's your white ethnic community centre there, fuck face.

    68. Re:Proof! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I used to live about 2 blocks away from a Ukrainian credit union and we once rented a hall in a Latvian community center.
      FYI, if the sign above the bar in a Latvian joint says "limonade", it means soft drinks, not actual lemonade.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. Sources ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Article seems to indicate itself as source .... Selfy !

    1. Re:Sources ? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Well, that way they get their first citation right on publication. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. On The Female Side It Was Just One by JohnPerkins · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...your mother.

    1. Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      According to science, we're all brothers (and sisters, and whatnot) descended from the same greatest grandmother, Mitochondrial Eve. So in that sense, it was your great (etc.) grandmother, and mine too. Burn?

      Finding out that most Europeans are descended from just a handful of people is not shocking, for a variety of reasons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      It also means that at least 1/3rd of the population is some kind of royalty, possibly 2/3rds or all of them!

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      According to science, we're all brothers (and sisters, and whatnot) descended from the same greatest grandmother, Mitochondrial Eve. So in that sense, it was your great (etc.) grandmother, and mine too. Burn?

      Finding out that most Europeans are descended from just a handful of people is not shocking, for a variety of reasons.

      Yes, yes, yes, my family tree needs some serious pruning. I'm kinda busy at the moment, though...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It also means that at least 1/3rd of the population is some kind of royalty, possibly 2/3rds or all of them!

      Given that royalty seems to have traditionally run around fucking everything that wiggled, that seemed like a safe bet, anyway. If you study European history it seems like there should be more royal bastards and progeny of royal bastards than everyone else put together, by now. Also, I can't help but think about how the royalty then went on to enshrine inbreeding. I guess you return to your roots, or in this case, trunk.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Sure.

      And some Guardian-reading idiot leftie will use that to justify why we should throw open our borders to all comers.

  4. This would explain a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In regards to the constant bickering and wars, it all makes sense! Three families? That is a shit ton of brothers fighting over stupid shit

    1. Re:This would explain a lot by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      In regards to the constant bickering and wars, it all makes sense! Three families? That is a shit ton of brothers fighting over stupid shit

      They don't even need three... The Habsurgs, in all their imbred glory, managed to keep south-western Europe in a state of more or less constant dynastic turmoil for a few centuries...

    2. Re:This would explain a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Carlos II pronounced Hapsburg as "Habsurg", when he wasn't drooling too much to speak.

  5. Noah by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

    Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...

    There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.

    I don't believe science can prove OR disprove a god or buddah or FSM or anything beyond the natural world. Supernatural is unprovable scientifically by definition....**super** natural.

    Why not talk about the mythology?

    Are we projecting (because the Noah story is still widely told) onto this finding if we compare it to the Torah's account of Noah and the repopulation of the world after?

    There are several ancient maps showing **very testable** notions of population distribution. If these are anywhere near accurate in explaining human population distribution why not do more science based on it?

    Is anyone really concerned about proving god exists somehow? what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re: Noah by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."

      "A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Noah by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Not really. This is a gene that's particular to Western Europeans. Not Asians, Aficans or any other race on the planet. The flood that supposedly took out everyone on the planet except for Noah and his crotch fruit would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is not the case.

      Evolution theory, on the other hand, predicts that beneficial genetic mutations will spread exactly like this.

    4. Re:Noah by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

      One of the biggest industries on the planet would cease to exist. It would create economic chaos. Next thing you know, nihilism... and anarchy!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Noah by khallow · · Score: 1

      insert long winded scientific explanation of chain reactions that sounds just as outlandish as "a wizzard did it" to most people.

      No. I imagine the usual explanation is that someone came up with a great story which didn't really happen the way that they claimed.

    6. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle." "A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.

      You're missing the point. The GP used a non-existent word ("alot") but probably wouldn't use a similarly constructed non-existent word ("alittle"). The fake word "alittle" was presented to cause that person to stop for a second and think about the word they're typing. A "lot" is a measure of quantity, usually used to imply a non-small number of something. Like, "I suppose I could take just the one, but since they're a bargain, I'll take the whole lot." A follow up would be, "Did you see what he bought? He went shopping for one, but bought a lot." Not "alot," but "a lot" ... where "a" is singular a refers to quantity one lot. Like saying he bought "..a bunch of bananas, not just one." But if someone asks how many bananas you bought, would you say, "abunch" or "a bunch"? A bushel of corn, or "abushel?" A pair of socks or "apair?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Noah by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

      Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...

      There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.

      The problem with that is the stories were presented as literal truth until proven otherwise and then they conveniently became mythology buried under abstraction.

    8. Re: Noah by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Of course that doesn't proof that there is no word "alot". For example, "cannot" would be more logically written as "can not". With all other words it's separate "I must/I must not", "I may/I may not", "I might/I might not", "I shall/I shall not" etc. So from pure logic you'd also conclude that it's also "I can/I can not". But it isn't. It's "I can/I cannot".

      The only way to see whether "alot" is a valid word is to consult a (sufficiently recent) dictionary.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re: Noah by Arker · · Score: 1

      I have not seen anyone writing 'alittle' or heard it spoken either. I rather suspect this actually has more to do with a/an being effectively a prefix in most spoken English, and perhaps also on analogy with 'another' which is comprehensible as 'an other.'

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re: Noah by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      I rather suspect this actually has more to do with a/an being effectively a prefix in most spoken English

      I'd say it has a lot more to do with ignorance. Trying to apply uniform principles to a creole like English is like pushing on a rope.

    11. Re:Noah by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest industries on the planet would cease to exist. It would create economic chaos. Next thing you know, nihilism... and anarchy!

      You mean there'd be no more hookers, and people would just start fucking in the streets whenever the mood came over them?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Noah by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I really wish I had not Googled that.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re: Noah by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? there's no such word as alot.

      No, but "allot" does exist, which probably fans the confusion.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    14. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Excellent! I love corrections that bring some special bitterness to the conversation in ironically self-referential ways.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re: Noah by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      "Can not" and "cannot" are two completely different meanings. "Can not" means you are physically able to not perform the action, but there is still a choice in the matter. "Cannot" means you are unable to perform the the action. It's the same as the difference between "may" and "must".

    16. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, but "allot" does exist, which probably fans the confusion.

      It might ... though the verb "allot" and its noun-form variation ("allotment") aren't seen in very common usage. People type "alot" because they're typing sounds they hear in conversation without actually thinking about the words they're using. Like "their/there/they're." Many people utter sounds from familiar phrases, lazily drop a syllable or so, and say they opposite of what they mean. The classic, of course, is "I could care less" - when they mean the exact opposite ("I couldn't care less"). This is a sign that that someone isn't thinking about what they're typing - it's like a mockingbird imitating another bird. Just making sounds.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re: Noah by lennier · · Score: 1

      The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."

      I like this alot.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    18. Re: Noah by lennier · · Score: 2

      "Can not" and "cannot" are two completely different meanings. "Can not" means you are physically able to not perform the action, but there is still a choice in the matter. "Cannot" means you are unable to perform the the action. It's the same as the difference between "may" and "must".

      I can not believe this, but I won't. I also could care less, and do.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    19. Re:Noah by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      No way, that proves that prayer taps our spiritual energy and power.

      But anybody knows that it has to do with the connectedness of the universe, and not "God", duh.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are alot of fun at parties...

      I don't remember ever being at a party where someone trying to make a pseudo- academic point about mythology use air quotes and deliberately tried to convey to me that the term "alot" was one word, and being used that way so that I'd take him seriously on the mythology thing. Are your parties like that?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re: Noah by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      If 'a' is a prefix in the case of alot then alot probably means not many or not much. It might even be an a definition of a subset of a lot in which case a better word in english would be allotment (n) or allot (v).

      'A' as a prefix doesn't mean 'one'. Another is a strange word in that it is more like the German sytem of gluing words together than it is like English and it uses 'an' where there is less ambiguity about the intended meaning. Alot kind of means "not one lot" or a little.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    22. Re: Noah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There wasn't much pizza, but everyone was allotted allitle.

    23. Re: Noah by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You went off at the deep end, strongly suggesting that parent's post had about as much semantic meaning as a gong being banged, merely because he contracted 'a lot' to 'alot' which you didn't like. The parties quip was justified I think. No-one cares. And no, people copying other's syntactical mistakes doesn't mean what they say is akin to a mynah bird copying every noise it hears.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    24. Re:Noah by Maritz · · Score: 1

      World created in six days. Want another?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    25. Re:Noah by rlwhite · · Score: 1

      Until the 1600s, the common interpretation was that those were not literal days. The Hebrew word used has an alternate meaning as "a period of time", and the passage uses it before the sun is created. Young Earth is a relatively new interpretation within Christianity.

    26. Re: Noah by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. He says he deliberately mis-spells "a lot" (and then surrounds it with asterisks) so that people will notice him and take him more seriously. I'm saying that's silly, and erodes his credibility when he's talking academics. As for sound-copying... why else do you think that people say, for example, "I could care less" - ? Obviously they mean the opposite, but those are the sounds coming out of their mouths, and it's not done ironically. What's your theory?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re: Noah by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm serious. And so is your lack of reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim that "alot" is a word. Indeed, I did not say anything at all about whether "alot" is a word or not. I only wrote about the invalidity of the parent's method of deciding whether it is (by the existence of other words built the same way, which cannot work because the language is not entirely consistent to begin with), and pointed out the correct way to do it (consult a dictionary).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. 2, maybe 1 or 3? by jovius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Must have been quite a night!

  7. SO.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The truth comes out. Most of you are a bunch of inbred bastards.

    1. Re:SO.... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Explains the preponderance of recessive traits like blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin. You people need to get out more.

    2. Re:SO.... by Arker · · Score: 1

      While in some cases you can spot such visual clues, in others you cannot. For instance, most people would assume that Australian aborigines are closely related to some African people. In fact their closest relatives are native Americans and east Asians.

      Fair complexion was heavily selected for in certain climates before the advent of cheap and reliable supplies of vitamin D.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:SO.... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      But it helped that everybody for 500 miles in any direction was a close cousin.

  8. Jake, Fred, we've been found out! by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 1

    Dang modern science, guys, they found us! It'll only be a matter of time before they round us up. I mean, it's not like you all should be GRATEFUL to your elders but NO

  9. Re:Racist! by AvitarX · · Score: 2

    Actually the neanderthal DNA is primarily in Europeans.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  10. Re:Racist! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Which may be because the neanderthal people were primarily in Europe.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  11. Summary errors by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    * Bell Beaker site mentioned in summary but not in quoted article.
    * Summary says R1b entered after 3rd millienium BC. Quoted article says the European expansion took place roughly 12000 years ago:

    In Europe, the expansion was very rapid, taking only approximately 325 (50 to 600) years and ending approximately 12 (6 to 14) KYA,...

    No mystery there. The last glacial period ended about 12000 years ago, turning much of Europe from a hard place to live to a much easier place to live. People moved in and expanded greatly.

    1. Re:Summary errors by lennier · · Score: 1

      The last glacial period ended about 12000 years ago, turning much of Europe from a hard place to live to a much easier place to live. People moved in and expanded greatly.

      With all the good eating, I'm sure they did. Their population also probably increased as well.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  12. define "believe" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I'm not playing this game...

    define "believe"...

    I watch Fox News...when Stephen Colbert is parodying it...but I watch what is happening just like anything else, analyzing and processing it...Fox News is ridiculous!

    But I can't say I've never watched it...even in the course of parody...and I've seen that **sometimes** not **everything** they do is bullshit. I've seen a few clips where Colbert or John Stewart are actually giving respect to Fox News and makign fun of someone else.

    In that same way, I "believe" what I see as true in **any** text...

    So...that's where I'm coming from...I want to know how **YOU DEFINE BELIEVE**

    If you want to have a value-added conversation you have to start there...what do you mean by "believe"?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:define "believe" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      define "believe"...

      to believe: to assume something is true despite not having sufficient evidence to support that assumption

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:define "believe" by rossdee · · Score: 1

      > define "believe".

      A recent album by 2002
      It's available on Amazon $8.99 for the .mp3

      I'd give it 5 stars

  13. Re:Racist! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Complete mischaracterization. What the article says is that there was an African expansion from a smallish group in West Africa that spread out and populated most of the continent and that Europe was colonized really quickly in the aftermath of the latest glaciation by people rpobably from the middle east.

    The African expansion took longer because there were more people there to compete with the expanding group.

  14. berlusconi by Therad · · Score: 1

    Wow, his bunga-bunga parties must really draw a lot of women!

  15. Indo Europeans? by TarPitt · · Score: 1

    The mystery of the origin of the Indo-Europeans may be solved within the next 2 years , and yes I know Discover is not a peer reviewed journal.

    The timeframe is correct for the supposed origin of indo europeans in Europe.

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    1. Re:Indo Europeans? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Origins of Indo-Europeans within Europe, or introduction of Indo-Europeans to Europe? Last I checked, the current reigning hypothesis was that Indo-Europeans originated near the Caucuses, and spread remarkably rapidly in several directions, probably aided by their successful domestication of the horse and the development of horse-drawn wheeled vehicles such as chariots.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  16. dont forget the wives by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    everyone on the planet except for Noah and his crotch fruit would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is not the case.

    if you're going to talk about Mythology you should get it right.

    the Torah records **8** humans aboard the ark...Noah, his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth...and all of their wives.

    this is the problem...people who talk about things they know nothing about...these kinds of comments only give fuel to the people trying to put Young-Earth Creationism into textbooks in Kansas...

    get it right for fucks sake....**we're** supposed to be the scientific side of the debate!!!

    is 8 people enough genetic material? who cares? it wont prove or disprove anything to anyone...

    TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:dont forget the wives by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      If you're going to reply to a comment, you should get it right. I pointed out that there are many races that do not share the genetic code found in Western Europeans. Noah's sons didn't manage to marry one of every ethnic race on the planet.

      Of course you ignored all that and took one sentence out of context to try and make some point.

      TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science

      I didn't respond to TFA. I responded to a post from someone who was claiming that TFA supports the biblical flood.

    2. Re:dont forget the wives by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      All but four of those people have a notable lack of y-chromosomes, and the four remaining all share theirs (well, in the context of the bible, perhaps not).

    3. Re:dont forget the wives by Maritz · · Score: 1

      (Most) atheists can't be bothered to do more than flat out claim that things did not happen

      That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is a claim, 'the biblical flood happened'. The onus is not on a skeptic to prove that it did not happen.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. Going back far enough. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Going back far enough you only have one man and one woman that are the basis for Homo Sapiens.

    But they may never have met - the lineages for males and females have been on different paths. All the variations we see are from mutations, and maybe in some cases DNA exchange through viruses.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  18. Brown chicken, brown cow by Oysterville · · Score: 1

    Seriously, that's all that they had, so procreation was the only entertainment.

  19. Doubt it. by Chalnoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Doubt it. by Arker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, that's exactly why Y-DNA is useful. It's not a problem that a lot of Y gets lost along the way, as long as this happens uniformly you still wind up with a good sample. The prehistoric group that bore these genes was obviously larger than 1-3 men, but it may well have been a few dozen closely related men, so the ones that left no YDNA are still effectively represented by a cousin who did.

      (The same thing happens with MDNA as well - a woman who has only sons disappears from that readout and wont be part of either the male or female sample here - but more than likely a close relative of hers will.)

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Doubt it. by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's exactly why Y-DNA is useful. It's not a problem that a lot of Y gets lost along the way, as long as this happens uniformly you still wind up with a good sample.

      Why would it be lost uniformly? Evolution relies on the fact that better chromosomes would be lost from the genepool at a slower rate because they would lead to greater fitness and worse chromosomes would be lost at a faster rate because they would lead to a lesser fitness. Y-chromosomes would be even more sensitive to this effect since men only have one and so (in my admittedly limited knowledge) it is impossible to be merely a carrier of any of the genes on it, meaning the effects of less capable chromosomes would quickly become manifest.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:Doubt it. by Arker · · Score: 2

      "Evolution relies on the fact that better chromosomes would be lost from the genepool at a slower rate because they would lead to greater fitness and worse chromosomes would be lost at a faster rate because they would lead to a lesser fitness."

      Because selection does not operate on Y-DNA (or MtDNA.) These genes are passed on directly with no mixing, so the only source of entropy in the signal is mutation. Most, if not all, of these chromosomes actually perform no role and are never activated, so they are doubly insulated from selection.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  20. Re:Bullseye! by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

    Shem, I have taken a woman. Inform the men.

  21. grammar nazi gets +4 Insightful by globaljustin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm asking for some mods to get a handle on this...

    Is this post really being modded up to +4 Insightful b/c of a spelling correction?

    If so this is complete lunacy...

    Also, how do you know I didn't just mispell it...b/c I do that alot too

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:grammar nazi gets +4 Insightful by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      It's probably modded up because when someone makes an assertive post that categorizes other people and comments on the state of humanity and research and mythology in an authoritative tone while using extra keystrokes to emphasize the badly used non-word, it undermines the credibility of whatever point was rattling around in there somewhere. It's like lecturing a group of people about what they should be thinking about, but having walked into the room trailing toilet paper.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  22. im not debating the premise by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I'm simply demanding that the sides be accurately represented!

    science can't prove or disprove anything that is by definition supernatural

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:im not debating the premise by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Since this study is about y-chromosomes, the sides were quite accurately represented. The Noah story, as written, can't adequately explain the observed variation in y-chromosomes, even in light of this story that Europeans may be descended from a very small pool. There weren't enough y-chromosomes on board the ark.

      Science can't prove or disprove anything. It can put probabilistic limits on conjectures. Chromosomes might do weird things, like mutate massively, on occasion that we haven't observed. Aliens might have done some genetic engineering. God might have created some extra y-chromosomes out of nowhere. Or maybe every non-aquatic species in the world (except unicorns) didn't pile onto a boat.

  23. I don't "believe" anything then by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    by your definition I have zero beliefs...

    0

    none...

    I don't "assume" anything is true without evidence

    BTW: your definition of "believe" is non-standard and guaranteed to cause confusion in ANY conversation about religion, science, or spirituality...

    this is why people get into so many pointeless arguments...stupid "personal" definitions of common terms

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  24. this is why we fail by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I responded to a post from someone who was claiming that TFA supports the biblical flood.

    sigh

    I want to say "fuck you asshole" but I wont...

    I'll just point out that nowhere did I say that...(see other comments on this thread for a fun definition of 'believe')

    I didn't claim that...anyone reading, please understand that it's exactly this kind of crap that causes these discussions to be acrimonous and horribly unhelpful

    When we act like GrumpySteen it makes us just as bad as young-earth creationists on the Texas school board

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:this is why we fail by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that nowhere did I say that...(see other comments on this thread for a fun definition of 'believe')

      You didn't say that. this guy said that and my original post was a reply to that guy, not you.

      You're obviously too confused to actually read posts in sequential order and have no clue what I'm talking about. It would really be best if you took the time to read and respond intelligently without jumping to wild-ass conclusions that aren't supported (much like the person I responded to), but it seems you aren't willing to do that.

  25. They were... by Ashe+Tyrael · · Score: 1

    ...milkmen. Housewives choice, and all that.

    --
    "How fine you look when dressed in rage."
  26. Extreme speculation based on insufficient data by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

    Sample sizes of 8 and 13 respectively? Non-random?
    The mutation rate in humans is only .003% per genome.
    This is like trying to compare two different atomic bomb explosions given data on only 8 and 13 neutrons from each explosion. They don't even have enough samples to compute the genetic equivalent of temperature (what ever that may be), much less make over arching statements about the two populations. When they have done this analysis for at least 300 random samples from each population I would be interested in hearing the results.

  27. Re:And what about other haplotypes by drwho · · Score: 1

    I am not R1b either. I am I2a2b, which is not common. But, when all of the non-R1bs are totaled as a percentage of the European native population, we're a pretty sizable lot. Enough so, that saying "most" of western Europeans are R1b is rather deceptive. As far as the 1-3 fathers, well...yes. Haplogroups generally don't converge, by diverge, so that would mean one male ancestor. But how far back? There are also times when there are near-extinction events which cause the TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) to move closer to the present. This has been the case with my I2a2b haplogroup, which is likely the oldest in Ireland, but still has a rather recent TMRCA and small numbers.

  28. Antibiotics by turgid · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well, He's started to take away the effectiveness of antibiotics. HIV and ebola didn't work out so well so he needed another means of attack.

    --
    Stick Men
    1. Re:Antibiotics by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Nah that's humans using it more than necessary on themselves and even worse food stock.

    2. Re:Antibiotics by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Anti-bacterial soap and antibiotics are different. One of 'em kills humans too unless it's kept on the outside.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  29. Being a Western European mutt... by Nyder · · Score: 1

    ... I guess it's safe to say incest is the best when you keep in Europe?

    --
    Be seeing you...
  30. thanks for the feedback by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    in an authoritative tone while using extra keystrokes to emphasize the badly used non-word, it undermines the credibility

    Hey I appreciate that you gave a real answer...

    I know it doesn't matter but I know that my typing style can be grating, and I have been properly instructed in using the English language in print.

    I type this way because I choose to...I do it with intention. You don't have to believe me but I do have a reason....

    I'm trying to subvert the typical "point/counterpoint" babble that passes for intelligent conversation these days. People don't communicate...they *react* to words with retorts that are equally pre-determined. It is very much like "newspeak" from the oft-cited '1984'

    I make my words a bit grating precisely for that reason. I *want* people to pay attention...I am not making the same point everyone else has made. I **DO** believe we can all agree and move forward and I have had some very interesting conversations this way.

    Also, I must note, that if GP was bothered by the fact that I speak with authority making interesting points but do it using text are....welll....

    why didn't GP just say that???!?!?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:thanks for the feedback by Pulzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I make my words a bit grating precisely for that reason. I *want* people to pay attention...I am not making the same point everyone else has made. I **DO** believe we can all agree and move forward and I have had some very interesting conversations this way.

      That doesn't make any sense. The conversation ended up being about spelling instead of your point, which is completely opposite from what you wanted it to be.

      You don't make your words "grating" by misspelling them, you make them irrelevant... unfortunately.

      Following that up with an argument that you did it on purpose certainly doesn't help your cause. It only leads it us even further astray from the topic.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    2. Re:thanks for the feedback by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      I type this way because I choose to...I do it with intention. You don't have to believe me but I do have a reason....

      I think your probly just lazy.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  31. he didn't say it either... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I love how you took the time to *link* to the comment, but you couldn't just quote the specific words from the post...

    **because they don't exist**

    that post you linked to...I read it when it was first posted and again now from your link

    IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM

    If it does, then just quote it...you already took the time to type out a hyperlink...just blockquote where that comment you linked to claims that the Genesis account is litteral truth

    Lets see it

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:he didn't say it either... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I linked to the comment because your previous comment proved that you're too stupid and lazy to read back in the comments.

      If you'd bothered to do so, you'd have noticed that this entire comment thread was started by someone saying "This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics."

      So now you've seen it. Asshole.

  32. "this proves..." was a joke by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I know what started the thread, it was a guy making a joke about the fact that Y-E nuts would use this to say it proves the Bible true...

    I get all that...

    That was a joke...that everyone gets...I started a thread talking about mythology and science...

    where...the...fuck...did anyone say anything that you're complaining about?

    the comment you linked to did not say Genesis was true anywhere...the original GP was a joke...

    who said it???

    who said Genesis was true, therefore provoking your comment?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  33. Hard to believe by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Research Suggests One To Three Men Fathered Most Western Europeans

    Damn, you'd think they'd have gotten tired of sex after the first million or so.

    But I guess they deserve some props. To have fathered most Western Europeans, they had to be some serious playa's, you know? I mean, they put NBA stars to shame.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. if "alot" doesnt matter why correct it? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    GP seemed to think they were "grating" enough to take the time to correct my spelling of "alot"

    and actually you as well have taken the time to type out a response to something you think is "irrelevant"

    if my words didn't get noticed, GP would have never corrected my usage of "alot"

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:if "alot" doesnt matter why correct it? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      if my words didn't get noticed, GP would have never corrected my usage of "alot"

      No. Your use of that mis-shaped phrase (wrapped in asterisks, no less) served to draw my eye away from your intended communication, and to the typing that made me question whether you think about what you say. My first reaction isn't to read the rest of your post, but to dismiss it as having come from someone who doesn't care about his communication. I took the time to respond because I think it's one of those lazy communication tics that it would be nice to see less frequently as it dumbs down discourse and chips away at the value our culture places on thoughtful interaction.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:if "alot" doesnt matter why correct it? by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      and actually you as well have taken the time to type out a response to something you think is "irrelevant"

      You missed my point. You made "alot" the subject at hand, and the actual point you were trying to make on the topic became irrelevant. We're all talking about your spelling instead of whatever you were trying to say in the discussion.

      If your desire is only to get noticed and get replies correcting your spelling, then saying "alot" a lot :) is a successful way of doing it. But if your desire is to get a good discussion on relevant topic going, as you say it is, then this isn't very good.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  35. Illiterate press by Alomex · · Score: 3

    I love it how the press reports this result as if the family tree had a single root.

    A family tree has two parents, four grandparents eight grandparents, etc. Out of the 2^n ancestors in the n-generation, two branches standout, one the fully male one carrying the Y chromosome and the other the fully maternal line, carrying mitochondrial DNA. There are good mathematical reasons why such lines come to be dominated by a few individuals over the centuries if not millenia yet the press makes it sound like Warren Beatty was alive 100K years ago fathering each and every one of us. As someone else pointed out, if somehow I became Will Chamberlain and happened to father 10K daughters but no male offspring, the Y chromosome line would makes it look like I ws never there though in practice I'd be the (grand) daddy of half of New York within a few generations.

  36. From Pippin (The Musical) by Guppy · · Score: 1

    If god favors my group, then the other groups are not favored and are therefore inferior and unworthy of my concern.

    Charlamagne: "Oh God -- we who fight in your name and in the name of your Son -- ask for victory in combat tomorrow."

    Pippin: "Father, is the Visigoth king praying for victory, too?"

    Charlamagne: "Oh yes. Old King Aleric is one of the best prayers in the business."

  37. Re:Good by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I'd be more concerned we're all inbred. So 3 dudes, how many women?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  38. limited to 43,000 ancestors at most? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You have two copies of 21K-some genes. At some point an ancestor will make no contribution. (Of course there is a lot more stuff in the genome than the protein-coding DNA.)

  39. Wow by edrobinson · · Score: 1

    Busy dudes.

  40. Cold Winter Nights by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    Not much else to do on cold winter nights except make whoopee.

  41. Peer Review by Keybounce · · Score: 1

    This is the sort of study that demands peer review.

    It is far beyond me to understand the details of this study, and it's claims. But it is absolutely fascinating, if true, even taking the Male-only Y and Female-only Mit inheritance factors into account.

    When I see things like

    We used coalescent simulations ... The best-fitting models in Africa and Europe are very different. In Africa ... numbers expanded approximately 50-fold. In Europe ... as soon as the major R1b lineage entered Europe ... expanded more than a thousandfold.

    then I know enough to know that the assumptions used matter, but also that I don't know enough to evaluate those assumptions.

  42. Re:Good by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    I'd be more concerned we're all inbred.

    We're all inbred. Live with it.

    Or, choose a definition for a particular level of inbreeding to get concerned about and stop worrying about it.

    There is an awful lot of ink spilt, and sometimes blood, over this with respect to human breeding, but livestock breeders have a lot of practice at using controlled inbreeding as a tool to increase the representation of a desired stock animal's genes in future generations, prior to expanding the stock. They tabulate levels of relatedness of interest to them, down to 1 part in 16 (6.25% common alleles). From which I guesstimate that 1 part in 32 relatedness is close enough to random for them to not be of interest for the breeders. So, if you tabulate your family trees back to the 5th generation and find no-more than two great-great-grandparents in common between the two people, it's unlikely to be a problem. If you go back to the next generation and find no more than 4 ggg-grandparents in the family tree, it's also not likely to be a problem. For more complex layouts of consanguinity, you'd have to calculate the summed probabilities yourself - and that's where people have messed up repeatedly in the past.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"