|
|
#11
03-04-2007, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] that strikes me as quite interesting but is it true? link? 
|
|
#12
03-04-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] that strikes me as quite interesting but is it true? link? [/ QUOTE ] I don't remember where I read it originally, but a quick google search brings up a couple of books written by different geneticists that stands for that proposition. I haven't read it, but this book also seems to discuss it: Alex Shoumatoff's "The Mountain of Name: A History of the Human Family."
|
|
#13
03-04-2007, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D.
|
|
#14
03-04-2007, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D. [/ QUOTE ] 25 years a generation seems kinda low. I thought it would be around 50.
|
|
#15
03-04-2007, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D. [/ QUOTE ] What I read (and its probably discussed in the book I cited above), is that there has been so much migration of people's and intermarriage throughout human history that someone from a Chinese fishing village and an African Bush-Man, or an Australian aborigine, or an eskimo, are indeed, at most, 50th cousins. What this also means is that most of us are much much closer than 50th cousins. Just think of all the nomadic people's out there, realize that people have a lot of sex with strangers, and it makes more sense. Its kind of like the Kevin Bacon degrees of separation thing. The Chinese Fisherman doesn't have to have direct contact with the African Tribe, they just have to have had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with the African tribe, 50 times over. Since most people in small local villages are all inter-related anyway by no more than fourth or fifth cousins, all it would take is one person in the village inter-marrying with someone else in the chain for the whole thing to work.
|
|
#16
03-04-2007, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D. [/ QUOTE ] 25 years a generation seems kinda low. I thought it would be around 50. [/ QUOTE ] Unless I have my cousin terminology wrong, I thought 50th cousin meant you share great^49 grandparents. By "generation", I meant each succesive ancestor. So, for example, 25 years would just represent the average age at which a great^12 grandparent birthed a great^11 grandparent.
|
|
#17
03-04-2007, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D. [/ QUOTE ] What I read (and its probably discussed in the book I cited above), is that there has been so much migration of people's and intermarriage throughout human history that someone from a Chinese fishing village and an African Bush-Man, or an Australian aborigine, or an eskimo, are indeed, at most, 50th cousins. What this also means is that most of us are much much closer than 50th cousins. Just think of all the nomadic people's out there, realize that people have a lot of sex with strangers, and it makes more sense. Its kind of like the Kevin Bacon degrees of separation thing. The Chinese Fisherman doesn't have to have direct contact with the African Tribe, they just have to have had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with the African tribe, 50 times over. Since most people in small local villages are all inter-related anyway by no more than fourth or fifth cousins, all it would take is one person in the village inter-marrying with someone else in the chain for the whole thing to work. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I think this applies to the vast vast majority of people on the planet. I guess I was just conceiving of some sort of near replacement level, insulated, millenia old tribe where, despite the vastness of the chain, it has never been "broken". I guess I'm wrong, but it sounds like an interesting read.
|
|
#18
03-04-2007, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I think this applies to the vast vast majority of people on the planet. I guess I was just conceiving of some sort of near replacement level, insulated, millenia old tribe where, despite the vastness of the chain, it has never been "broken". I guess I'm wrong, but it sounds like an interesting read. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I remember in sociology classes reading about primitive tribes that besides camera crews have never had any outside contact with the world. Hard to see how they fit in.
|
|
#19
03-07-2007, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. [/ QUOTE ] Source?
|
|
#20
03-07-2007, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: McCain and Edwards, the slave owners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, there is no human being on earth who is greater than 50th cousins from any other human being on earth. So when you think about it, who you were related to from 200 years ago is really pretty irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] Really? 50th cousins (assume a generous 25 years per generation) gets you back about 1275 years. It seems likely that a descendant of some remote African tribe and a Chinese fishing village won't have a common ancestor as early as 725 A.D. [/ QUOTE ] What I read (and its probably discussed in the book I cited above), is that there has been so much migration of people's and intermarriage throughout human history that someone from a Chinese fishing village and an African Bush-Man, or an Australian aborigine, or an eskimo, are indeed, at most, 50th cousins. What this also means is that most of us are much much closer than 50th cousins. Just think of all the nomadic people's out there, realize that people have a lot of sex with strangers, and it makes more sense. Its kind of like the Kevin Bacon degrees of separation thing. The Chinese Fisherman doesn't have to have direct contact with the African Tribe, they just have to have had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with someone who had contact with the African tribe, 50 times over. Since most people in small local villages are all inter-related anyway by no more than fourth or fifth cousins, all it would take is one person in the village inter-marrying with someone else in the chain for the whole thing to work. [/ QUOTE ] You don't become cousins with someone by marriage.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
