Posted on 09/30/2004 11:17:34 AM PDT by AZLiberty
Kerry's speechwriter?
My ex girlfriend was my cousin? Freaky!
;)
Occasionally yes, or else no human population ...
These computer simulations are even less reputable than mtDNA "studies". It's amazing how thin an ancestry can become. My best friend has no first cousins. He's an only child. His mother was an only child. Her father was orphaned at a young age, losing his parents and only sibling (sister) to an accident, so she had no first cousins.
For that matter... my family has lived on the same farm since 1851, and was in town (although calling it a town at that point was dubious) for about seven years before that. While doing some rudimentary genealogical research, I found another family has lived in the same town for most of that time, and prior to that, in similar proximity to my family, going back hundreds of years in America -- without ever intermarrying (apparently -- I wasn't meticulous).
GIGO. :')
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
First, it's a "simulation"..
Second, it's a "probability model"..
If we were talking Global Warming, we would dismiss it out of hand..
As a civil engineer I can guarantee that every time you walk into a building you're staking your life on both.
The math isn't too hard to follow. We all had two parents, four grand parents, eight-- well, you get the picture. Pat Paulsen said this proves the world population is obviously shrinking, but I think it shows that the world's common ancestry could be as recent as about 30 generations, or 600 years.
Hopkin took this idea a step further and plugged in how much people travel and showed that our common grandpa shouldn't be farther back than 3500 years.
It's "probably" true.
It's probably not true, since there are scads of assumptions in any such a simulation, most of which are probably either untested or untestable. Is it really reasonable to expect that every member of an isolated tribe in the mountains of New Guinea, that had never even seen Europeans (much less intermarried with them) before 1950, shares a recent common ancestor with a family in Iceland that has a complete geneology going back to 800 AD? Not hardly.
I realize that this study is hoakum but this date falls amazingly close to the date of Adam according to some biblical timelines.
If we're talking about physical movement and mathematical probabilities, then we're discussing whether or not the various populations (such as those in New Guinea) were hermetically sealed or was there any movement at all in the last three and a half millinea.
The world population back then was less than 100 million. For you or I to not be descended from cousins there would have had to have been a population of 4,789,048,565,205,902,682,369,834,459,844,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So we both agree that
1. We don't know anything for sure
2. People intermarried a lot
3. People moved around a lot.
We could go at this strictly from Sacred Texts also but (please forgive) I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Noah ping
Depends on how you define "recent".
If we're talking belief systems (i.e. the New Guinea and the Lakota were created separately) then we need to study the Holy Writings... We could go at this strictly from Sacred Texts also but (please forgive) I'm not sure where you're coming from.Keith was talking about genealogies, not Holy Writings or Sacred Texts. Since the authors of the study claim that everyone is descended from a single individual 3500 years ago, and humans have been in the Americas for at least 10,000 years (presumably having ancestry outside the Americas, although Native Americans generally believe their ancestors have always been here), there's obviously very little chance of these study results' being plausible.
If we're talking about physical movement and mathematical probabilities, then we're discussing whether or not the various populations (such as those in New Guinea) were hermetically sealed or was there any movement at all in the last three and a half millinea.Mathematical probabilities don't enter into it -- someone in Eurasia 3500 years ago couldn't be the ancestor of every Native American, even though (in my view) the oceans have been traveled by a huge variety of different cultures for tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of years.
The world population back then was less than 100 million. For you or I to not be descended from cousins there would have had to have been a population of 4,789,048,565,205,902,682,369,834,459,844,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So we both agree that.I know my family lines back (in some cases) ten or twelve generations. I've never found ANY overlapping lines. While it's true that my family seems a little unusual (my grandfather was born in 1875; his grown brother died in 1873; their father was born in 1825; one of our female ancestors from the first American generation died aged at least 100), family lines are unique, sometimes even among siblings. So, yeah, We don't know anything for sure, People intermarried a lot, and People moved around a lot.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
The point Hopkin is highlighting is that since (as we agree) that it's easy to believe that from say, 1500BC to 500BC that at least one guy visited the Americas from Asia, and shared genes. We don't have photos but it's simply not reasonable to say it didn't happen.
Since then, 2,500 / 20 = 125 generations have passed. Remember that this is 125 doublings -- a factor of some 40 digit number. This would spread the guy's genes to every single human in the Americas. This isn't hard to believe considering that it took about that long for the first Eurasians to cover that area. The only way that his family tree would not have spread would be that maybe the guy had some kind of genetic condition where everyone in his family dies at birth (rim shot), or maybe him and the little woman moved to the moon (cow bell).
But seriously folks, not to worry-- I promise not to take advantage of our newly discovered family ties in order to borrow money.
Well said.
Uh oh....don't let the Arabs know when they shake hands with a Jew ....it could be their cousin! :o
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.