Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 'Abraham' was First Century Asian

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Abraham' was First Century Asian
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First off all let me welcome you all as long lost relatives! In fact I want to embrace the whole world as family too! No I haven't taken anything, it's scientific news - we all have one common ancestor and you only have to go back a few millenia, cousins.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71298-0.html?tw=wn_index_9

"everybody on Earth descends from somebody who was around as recently as the reign of Tutankhamen, maybe even during the Golden Age of ancient Greece. There's even a chance that our last shared ancestor lived at the time of Christ."

"The model also had to allow for migration based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists know about how frequently past populations moved both within and between continents. Rohde, Chang and Olson chose a range of migration rates, from a low level where almost nobody left their native home to a much higher one where up to 20 percent of the population reproduced in a town other than the one where they were born, and one person in 400 moved to a foreign country.

Allowing very little migration, Rohde's simulation produced a date of about 5,000 B.C. for humanity's most recent common ancestor. Assuming a higher, but still realistic, migration rate produced a shockingly recent date of around 1 A.D."

One in the eye for every kind of racist out there.

[ July 04, 2006, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Cytania ]

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
nemes_ie
Member
Member # 804

 - posted      Profile for nemes_ie   Email nemes_ie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could be true in general. However, surely some very isolated populations are unlikely to be related that closely ( Brazilian rainforest tribes, Australian aborigines, etc?)

Mind, on the other hand, it would explain nicely the extreme genetic similarity of humans- the average pack (troop?) of chimpanzees has more genetic variation than the whole human race.


G
[edit for spelling errors]

[ July 04, 2006, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: nemes_ie ]

Posts: 312 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, there could be isolated still points in all this mixin'n'multiplying but they'll be the exception not the rule; I think the general mathematical principle applies very well.

Even with isolated exceptions the claims of racists are still utter bunkum. If humans were somehow inately keyed to detect genetic disimilarity then the whole stadium would have looked aghast when Cathy Freeman ran the 500 metres.

One question I wondered is can anyone on Earth verifiably trace their family tree back to the millenia before Jesus?

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One question I wondered is can anyone on Earth verifiably trace their family tree back to the millenia before Jesus?
Wouldn't that be cool if one could do that? I suspect just trying to go back more than 5-6 generations for most people would be problematic at best.

I read about this yesterday, and found it pretty fascinating. A related article claimed that using the same model, everyone on earth can claim some sort of royal ancestor or another.

(Where's my kingdom, damn it?!)

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Jews are known for their record keeping. My family has been traced verifiably to Rashi, who was a world-renowned commentator on scripture in the 13th century. Rashi is said, by tradition, to be of the house of David, who was king of Israel around 1,000 BC.

Ergo - I am the heir to David's throne.

QED. Now where's MY kingdom???? [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Erm, your kingdom has, ahem, internal security problems at present sire. Having said that you might bring some welcome leadership to Israel, all hail King Ricky! [Wink]
Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My family has been traced verifiably to Rashi, who was a world-renowned commentator on scripture in the 13th century.
You mean the world even had pundits back then? [Big Grin]
Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you're looking to the Bible to grab a name for humanity's most common patrilinial ancestor, I'd reccoment the name "Noah," not Abraham.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just about to say...Didn't you mean Adam? [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eric - you kidding? That was THE favorite pastime of the middle ages. Thomas Aquinas? [Big Grin]

Cytania, thou art our most beloved vassal. We accept thine alleigance and vow eternal protection, in return for a modest levy, of course...

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't buy it. This is a mathematical model. Mitochondrial Eve, sure. Geological factors initially, with cultural factors as back up would inhibit the mix.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yep - this is the first I've heard that there was even irregular semi-modern transmission of DNA across the Bering Strait, although it certainly wasn't impossible. Plus, the geological and cultural barriers within North and South America would have made DNA migration quite slow. It's hard to say how their analysis took these factors into account.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
yep - this is the first I've heard that there was even irregular semi-modern transmission of DNA across the Bering Strait, although it certainly wasn't impossible. Plus, the geological and cultural barriers within North and South America would have made DNA migration quite slow. It's hard to say how their analysis took these factors into account.

I'd say it didn't, since within five minutes everyone reading this thread came to the conclusion that "our" most recent common ancestort means "the most recent common ancestor of people who fit this model, as opposed to the folks who we discounted or just plain forgot about" [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Australia.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But Rallan, the article specifically mentions the possibility of DNA crossing the Bering Strait - it just doesn't go into the details of how they calculate stuff.

Plus, the claim isn't just "our" most recent ancestor, but everyone worldwide - including Australian and South American indigenous people (by the way, flydye, the Australian continent isn't really that isolated - just above 50 miles of temperate ocean separate Australia and the closest New Guinean (sp?) island - and these were ocean faring people after all. Now the deserts within Australia...)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once you really get the hang of how inter-related we are then small isolated areas are really insignificant. Everyone here keeps chiming in with Australia forgetting that the aboriginal proportion of their population is small. In short if you were parachuted to an area of the Earth's surface at random the first person you'd meet would likely be a relative. Harping on about native indians etc. suggests an unwillingness to accept that we are all one human race and have the maths to prove it.
Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Harping on about native indians etc. suggests an unwillingness to accept that we are all one human race and have the maths to prove it.
Or more to the point, that two fellows have come up with a highly creative fantasy in which they can "prove" that everyone's common ancestor lived anywhere from 7000 to 2000 years ago, depending on the settings they use. i.e. the error in the model so damn high they've got a completely useless model, and their study is very interesting garbage. This is just like Drake's equation -- it's all very nifty but without actually knowing the values of each part of the equation, totally useless. I'm sure that "Assuming a lower, but still realistic, migration rate produced a shockingly removed date of 100,000 BC."
Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Err, no Cytania - we are nit pickers here, and don't like it when "scientific" studies overreach, thus casting doubt on the valuable parts of the analysis.

I think your agenda might be blocking your view...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
nemes_ie
Member
Member # 804

 - posted      Profile for nemes_ie   Email nemes_ie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the Australia thing-

Pretty much all the native population seems to be distinct aboriginal, and the small section that isn't (in Cape York, the extreme NE), is related to the nearby Torres Strait island people.

On the general thing-
While I don't dispute that the vast majority of persons may be descended from an ancestor within the last 7000- 2000 years (leaving aside comments by SerotoninsGone above), I would respectfully contend that it's unliklely that the same would apply to populations/ tribes/

If nothing else, if there was enough recentish DNA mixing going on to replace, say, native Korean DNA with hybrid "Abraham"/Korean DNA, then it's odd that the language is completely seperate to anything else. One would imagine that you would like to leave more behind than just your seed on a foreign visit!

This is not the only case of a unique, unrelated language either.

Posts: 312 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey hold it, "King Ricky". I'm descended from Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem. But, then, I'm also descended from Adam and Eve on one side and Zeus and Hera on the other -- if you can believe "family genealogies".

I'll trust DNA.

Just remember! Lorretta Lutzsky, lunch-counter waitress, got on a bus in Newark, and disembarked in Hollywood as Laura-Lee Lorilard, ingenue of the week.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In response to Cytania's question about tracing back geneology to the time before Christ, I am aware of atleast one such case. I know there is one line of Charlemagne's geneology that has been traced back all the way to Adam. It taps into a jewish line back about the time of Christ, I think, and then the bible pretty much fills it in from there. The beginning of the book of Mathew provides Josephs geneology back to Adam, and other books of the Bible are full of whole chapters of lineage. That's why few people have ever actually read the book of Chronicles. So, if you want to finish up some of your geneology in a hurry, you just have to get back to Charlemagne.
Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know there is one line of Charlemagne's geneology that has been traced back all the way to Adam.
*giggle*
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Basil Stag Hare
Member
Member # 2194

 - posted      Profile for Basil Stag Hare   Email Basil Stag Hare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
About DNA, most people's DNA only comes from about 2 of their ancestors in any given generation. IE, although I have 16 great-great grandparents, probably only 2 of them can be proven to be my ancestors through DNA analysis.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clark. That's my line -- and I'm told that it has "several kinks". I have no idea how it will come out, but here it is:

Well, the z is the marriage sign, (R) (is it?) is an arrow of descent


001 Adam z Eve 4000-3070 ® 002 Seth 3870-2978 ® 003 Enos 3765-2860 ® 004 Cainan 3675-2765 ® 005 Mahalaleel 3605-2710 ® 006Jared 3540-2578 ® 007 Enoch 3378-3013 ® 008 Methuselah 3313-2344 ® 009 Lamech 3126-2344 ® 010 Noah z Naamah 2944-2006 ® 011 Shem 2442-2158 ® 012 Arphaxad 2342-1904 ® 013 Salah 2307-2126 ® 014 Heber 2277-2187 ® 015 Peleg 2243-2004 ® 016 Reu 2213-2026 ® 017 Serug 2181-2049 ® 018 Nahor 2052-2003 ® 019 Terah z Amtheta 2122-2083 ® 020 Abraham z Sarah 1992-1817 ® 021 Isaac z Rebekah 1896-1716 ® 022 Jacob z Leah 1837-1690 ® 023 Judah z Tamar 1753- ® 024 Hezron ® 025 Aram ® 026 Aminadab ® 027 Naashon ® 028 Salmon (married Ella, penciled in J) ® 029 Boaz z Ruth -? ® 030 Obed ® 031 Jesse Trojan War 1250-1240 ® 032 David, King of Israel z Bathsheba ® 1085-1015 ® 033 Solomon, King of Israel z Naamah r1033-0975 ® 034 Rehoboam, King of Israel z Maacah ® 1016-0958 ® 035 Abijam, King of Israel r0958-0955 ® 036 Asa, King of Israel z Azubah ® r0955-0914 ® 037 Jehoshaphat, King of Israel ® r0914-0889 ® 038 Jehoram, King of Israel z Athaliah r0889-0885 ® 039 Ahaziah, King of Israel z Zibiah r0906-0884 ® 040 Joash, King of Israel z Jehoaddan r0885-0839 ® 041 Amaziah, King of Israel z Jecholiah 0864-0810 ® 042 Uzziah, King of Israel z Jerushah 0826-0758 ® 043 Jotham, King of Israel 0783-0742 Herakles founds the Olympic Games 0776 (1st knowable date) ® 044 Ahaz, King of Israel z Abi 0787-0726 ® 045 Hezekiah, King of Israel z Hephzibah 0751-0698 ® 046 Manasseh, King of Israel z Meshullemeth ® 0710-0643 ® 047 Amon, King of Israel z Jedidah 0621-0611 ® 048 Josiah, King of Israel z Hamutah 0649-0610 ® 049 Zedekiah, King of Israel 0578-0599 ® 050 Heremon, King of Ireland z Tea Tephi, daughter of Zedekiah, King of Israel fl 0580 ® 051 Irial Faidh, King of Ireland, reigned 10 years ® 052 Eithriall, King of Ireland, reigned 20 years ® 053 Follain, King of Ireland ® 054 Tighernmas, King of Ireland, reigned 50 years ® 055 Eanbotha did not reign ® 056 Smiorguil did not reign ® 057 Fiachadh Labhriane, King of Ireland, reigned 24 years ® 058 Aongus Ollmuchaidh, King of Ireland, reigned 21 years ® 059 Maoin ® 060 Rotheachta, King of Ireland, reigned 25 years ® 061 Dein ® 062 Siorna Saoghalach, King of Ireland, reigned 21 years ® 063 Oholla Olchaoin did not reign ® 064 Giallebadh, King of Ireland, reigned 9 years ® 065 Aodhain Glas, King of Ireland, reigned 20 years ® 066 Simeon Breac, King of Ireland, reigned 6 years ¬ 067 Muireadach Bolgrach, King of Ireland, reigned 4 years ® 068 Fiachadh Tolgrach, King of Ireland, reigned 7 years ® 069 Duach Laidhrach, King of Ireland, reigned 10 years ® 070 Eochaidh Buaigllcrg, King of Ireland ® 071 Ugaine More the Great, King of Irleand, reigned 30 years ® 072 Cobhthach Coalbreag, King of Ireland, reigned 30 years 073 Meilage ® 074 Jaran Gleofathaeb, King of Ireland, reigned 7 years ® 075 Coula Cruaidh Cealgach, King of Ireland, reigned 4 years ® 076 Oiliolla Caisfhiachach, King of Ireland, reigned 25 years ® 077 Eochaidh ® Foltleathan, King of Ireland, reigned 11 years ® 078 Aongus Tuirmheach Teamharch, reigned 30 years ® 079 Eana Aighneach, King of Ireland, reigned 28 years ® 080 Labhra Suire ® 081 Blathuchta ® 082 Easamhuin Eamhua ® 083 ® Roighnein Ruadh ® 084 Finlogha ® 085 Fian ® 086 Eodchaidh Feidhlioch, King of Ireland, reigned 12 years ® 087 Fineamhuas ® 088 Lughaidh Riadhdearg, King of Ireland ® 089 Criombthan Niadhnar, King of Ireland, reigned 16 years ® 090 Fearaidhach Fion Feachtnuigh ® 091 Fiaebadh Fionoluidh, King of Ireland, reigned 20 years ® 092 ® Tuathal Teachtmar, King of Ireland, reigned 50 years ® 093 Coun Ceadchatbach, King of Ireland, reigned 20 years ® 094 Arb Aonflier, King of Ireland, reigned 30 years ® 095 Cormae Usada, King of Ireland, reigned 40 years ® 096 Caibre Liffeachair, King of Ireland, reigned 27 years, 097 Fiachadh Sreabthuine, King of Ireland, reigned 30 years ® 098 Muireadhach Tireach, King of Ireland, reigned 30 years ® 099 Eochaidh Moigmeodhin, King of Ireland, reigned 7 years ® 100 Niall of the Nine Hostages, King of Ireland ® 101 Eogan 102 Murireadhach, King of Ireland ® 103 Earea ® 104 Feargus More, King of Argyle -0487 ® 105 Dongard, King of Argyle -0457 ® 106 Conran - 0535 ® 107 Aidan, King of Argyle -0604 ® 108 Eugene IV, King of Argyle -0622 ® 109 Donald IV, King of Argyle -0650 ® 110 Dongard ® 111 Eugene V, King of Argyle -0692 ® 112 Findan ® 113 Eugene VII, King of Argyle z Spondan -0721 ® 114 Effinus, King of Argyle z Fergina -0761 ® 115 Achaius, King of Argyle z Fergusia -0819 ® 116 Alpin, King of Argyle -0834 ® 117 Kenneth II, King of Scotland -0854 ® 118 Constantin II, King of Scotland -0874 ® 119 Donald VI, King of Scotland -0903 ® 120 Malcolm I, King of Scotland -0958 ® 121 Kenneth III, King of Scotland -0994 Vikings discover America 1000 ® 122 Malcolm II, King of Scotland -1033 ® 123 Beatrix z Thane Albanach ® 124 Duncan I, King of Scotland -1040 ® 125 Malcolm III Canmore, King of Scotland z (St) Margaret of England -1055-1093 ® 126 David I z Maud of Northumberland -1153 ® Dey (clear) ® 127 Prince Henry z Adama of Surrey -1152 ® 128 Earl David z Maud of Chester -1219 ® 129 Isobel z Robert Bruce III ® 130 Robert Bruce IV z Isobel of Gloucester ® 131 Robert Bruce V z Martha of Carriok ® 132 Robert I. Bruce z Mary of Burke 1306-1329 ® 133 Margary Bruce z Walter Stewart III ® 134 Robert II, King of Scotland z Euphemia of Ross (-1376) -1390 ® 135 Robert III, King of Scotland z Arabella Drummond [-1401] -1406 ® 136 James I, King of Scotland z Joan Beaufort 1424-1437 ® 137 James II, King of Scotland z Margaret of Gueldres [-1463] -1460 ® Cairns z Proudfoot z Rogers (clear)

If you can believe that, you can believe the Bible!

Sources
Allen, J. H.: Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright; 1902.
Brannon, Annie: A Genaeology of Howard and Dey Lines; Winchester, 1946.
Ezra, Scribes of: Genesis; Jerusalem, 0538-0100?
Glover, The Rev. F. R A., M.A.: England the Remnant of Judah; London, 1861.
Grimaldi, M.A., The Rev. A. B.: Forty-Seven Identifications of the British with Lost Israel; Messrs. S. W. Patridge & Co. and Mr W. H. Guest of Paternoster Row; London, 1885. “WE issue this Leaflet to serve the grand and valuable object of supplying a necessary link in proving the identity of the British Nation with the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. This we have abundantly proved in the Pamphlet, entitled "Forty-Seven Identifications of the British with Lost Israel," price 6d., to be had of Messrs. S. W. Partridge & Co., and Mr. W. H.. Guest, both of Paternoster Row. But we could not be identical with Israel unless Queen Victoria was in a line with David, it being written - "Ought ye not to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the Kingdom OVER ISRAEL to David FOR EVER; to him, and to his sons, by a covenant of salt?" (2 Chron. 13:5; 21:7). We have always been able to trace David's seed to Queen Tephi, of Ireland, who was the daughter of Zedekiah: but the difficulty has been to supply a chart of the line from Queen Tephi to King Fergus, of Scotland. This we now supply, through the valuable research of the Rev. A. B. GRIMALDI, M.A., and is in itself a matter vital to the very best interests of the British Empire.”
Keating: History of Ireland; Dublin, 1723.
Lavoisne: Genealogical and Historical Atlas; London, 1814.
Polano: The Talmud; London, 1877.
Royal Genealogies; London, 1732.
Stephens, Mr. J. C.: Genealogical Chart, shewing the Connection between the House of David and the Royal Family of Britain; Liverpool, 1877. This gives the descent from Abraham to Zedekiah in full, as found in Matthew. It then gives twelve generations only between Heremon, B.C. 580, and Victoria, A.D. 1819, thus, of course, omitting a great number of links. The Saxon kings traced themselves back to Odin, who was traced back to his descent from David, as may be seen in a very ancient MS. in the Herald's College, London; and in Turner, Sharon: History of the Anglo-Saxons; vol. i.

This one is likely just as specious. Here the odd odd hyphen is a backward arrow:

Anna Shepard, in my 11th generation, ¬ Anna Tyng ¬ Elizabeth Coytmore Q ¬ Rowland Coytmore ¬ Jane Williams ¬ Dorothy Griffith ¬ Jane Stradling ¬ Thomas Stradling ¬ Henry Stradling¬ Jane Beaufort ¬ Henry Beaufort ¬ John of Gaunt ¬ Edward III ¬ Edward II ¬ Edward I ¬ Henry III ¬ John ¬ Henry II ¬ Geoffrey d’Anjou ¬ Melisende ¬ Baldwin II ¬ Eustache II ¬ Eustache I ¬ Hughes II ¬ Jean I ¬ Hughes I ¬ Sigisbert VII ¬ Bera VI ¬ Arnaud ¬ Guillaume III ¬ Guillaume II ¬ Sigisbert VI ¬ Hilderic I ¬ Bera V ¬ Argila ¬ Bera IV ¬ Guillaume I ¬ Bera III ¬ Sigisbert V ¬ Sigisbert IV ¬ Dagobert II ¬ Sigisbert III ¬ Dagobert I ¬ Chlothar II ¬ Chilperic ¬ Chlothar I ¬ Clovis I ¬ Childeric Claudios ¬ Merovech Merovée the Younger ¬ Claudius Claudianus ¬ Valentina Justina ¬ Valentinian ¬ Licinianus ¬ Constantia ¬ Clovis Constantius ¬ Claudia Crispina ¬ Crispus Commodus ¬ Marcus Aurelius ¬ Domitia Lucilla ¬ Pompeia Plotina ¬ Arrius Calpernius Piso ¬ Mariamne III ¬ Mariamne II ¬ Mariamne I ¬ Ptolemy bar Menneus ¬ Arsinoë III ¬ Ptolemy XI ¬ Ptolemy XI ¬ Ptolemy VII ¬ Ptolemy V ¬ Ptolemy IV ¬ Ptolemy III ¬ Ptolemy II ¬ Ptolemy I ¬ Lagos the Rabbit ¬ Philip II ¬ Amyntas III ¬ Arrhidæus ¬ Amyntas II ¬ Alexander I ¬ Amyntas I ¬ Alcestus I ¬ Æropus I ¬ Philip I ¬ Argæus I ¬ Perdiccas ¬ Tyrimmas ¬ Cœros ¬ Caranus ¬ Aristodamidas ¬ Æous ¬ Thestrus ¬ Maron ¬ Ceisus ¬ Temenus ¬ Aristomachus ¬ Cleodaios ¬ Hyllus ¬ Hercules ¬ Zeus ¬ Cronos ¬ Ouranus ¬ Æther ¬ Erebus ¬ Chaos ¬ Chronos ¬ ?

Brannon notes at that point: “I have no idea who the parents of Chronos were.” [Big Grin]

Ooop! I think I forgot a milkman in there somewhere ...?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can get back to the 1640's on my father's side of the family tree in terms of fraternal line. Back to the 1780's on the maternal side. On my mother's side I can get back to the 1620's on the maternal side, and 1912 on her fraternal side. Then again in terms of her fraternal side, the family was wiped off the earth in 1939 leaving a distant cousin in Austria and South Africa.

I have multiple quibbles as to the above study. Cheif amoung them that statistical pprobabilities aside, it kinda ignores how geneticlly isolated groups were established, and doesn't answer how the common statistical ancestor of all current populations does not predate the isolated gentic ancestor that would have had to exist before there could be a statistical common ancestor.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that was the wrong line -- because, when I searched Charlemagne, I didn't get him! Here's the right line:

Dagobert I
Clovis II
Theuderic III
Bertha
Charibert, Count of Leon
Bertrade Leon
Charlemagne (Holy Roman Emperor)
King Louis I (of France)
Adelaide
Earl Robert I
Hugh the Great
Hugh Capet
Robert II
Robert I
Hildegarde
William, The IX Duke of Aquitaine
William X
Eleanor of Aquitaine
King John Lackland
King Henry III
King Edward I
King Edward II
King Edward Plantagenet III
blah-blah-blah

Anyway, it looks as if everybody was trying to keep it in the family.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RS:

It has been suggested demographically that it would be statistically 'impossible' for everybody with western-european blood not to be descended from Charlemagne. I don't remember who said that or wrote it.

Who is the 1620 line. You may be related to Everard (!).

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who's "Dogbert I"?
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I think it was Alex Shoumatoff: The Mountain of Names: A History of the Human Family (New York: Kodansha International, 1995). but I'm sure I read it long before that -- in the early 80s?

Here's an interesting reference from the NYT in 1985, a decade earlier.

NAMES AND GENEALOGY
Published: August 25, 1985
To the Editor:

In John Pfeiffer's review of Alex Shoumatoff's ''Mountain of Names'' (July 28), he mentions the proclivity of professional genealogists to refer to the ''putative genitor'' instead of the father in cases where caution is indicated.

In the Jewish tradition, a person is normally known for ritual purposes by a patronymic -''Joseph ben Jacob,'' or Joseph, son of Jacob.

So Joseph is referred to when he is called to read from the Torah and when he is being married.

But there is an occasion when greater caution is called for - when Joseph appears to be mortally ill. In the prayer to save his life he is called by his matronymic - ''Joseph ben Rivka,'' Joseph, son of Rebecca. The putative genitor has been replaced by the certain genetrix.

Perhaps this is why the State of Israel and Judaism generally recognize as a Jew a person whose mother is Jewish, whatever the religion of his ''putative genitor'' may be.

ARTHUR J. MORGAN

New York

Here's a Shoumanoff reference from a ListServe:

This idea that all of have royal ancestry is explored in Alex Shoumatoff's book, _The Mountain of Names: A History of the Human Family_ (Simon & Schuster, 1985). Chapter 9, "The Kinship of Mankind," is the most relevant chapter.

Shoumatoff explores the virtual certainty that all of us are descended from not only Charlamagne, but also Muhammad and almost any other prominent person from that time in history who had fertile descendants (using the same mathematical logic that Bob Shuster already cited). He also points out that all of us are at least 50th cousins to each other, the result of the fact that throughout human history about 80 percent of marriages have been with second cousins (keep in mind that throughout most of history you found your spouse within walking distance -- how big a pool was really available to draw from under such circumstances?).

Every once in awhile people would move out of these closed genetic pools to have children with someone from a completely different closed genetic pool (European with African, Asian with Middle Eastern, etc.) At that point everything gets tied together even more tightly.

This also means that all of us are actually related to ourselves in various ways. I, for instance, can document that I am my own third cousin once-removed, fourth cousin once-removed, fifth cousin once-removed, fifth cousin twice-removed, and sixth cousin once-removed.

A few years ago, I also figured out that my wife and I are fourth cousins twice-removed. The only way that makes me different than most of the rest of you is that my Mennonite ancestors kept up the
inter-marrying a little longer than did most Americans.

---
Kevin Enns-Rempel, Archivist
Center for Mennonite Brethren Studies
Fresno Pacific University
Fresno, CA

This can also pose a problem, you understand, when you discover that you are your cousin several times over -- but, on principle, can't stand your relatives [Big Grin] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard

I have little doubt or concern that I am related to Paul. However, being related to you scares the you know what out of me.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can be scared in front of me, RS! It's OK to break down into hysterical slobbering sobs ... right on national TV these days [Big Grin] .

I liked the source that said Britain could be identical with Israel. Talk about a rationalization for the British mandate!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of the problem here may be that Cytania picked up this story from a news service interview rather than from an article in a scientific journal.

A journal should demand, before permitting the authors to claim that all humans are closely related, that they have performed genetic testing on every distinguishable group of humans. That is almost certainly not the case.

But the authors may be claiming no more than that most humans seem to be surprisingly close cousins. That is probably true; I should not be surprised to learn that I had close cousins among Chinese or Zulus or even obscure tribes in the Amazon, although contact with the Americas has probably been less.

But the assertion that Australia and New Guinea are only fifty miles apart is somewhat misleading in this context. The islands in between are occupied by people who despise the inhabitants of New Guinea because of differences in habits, for example eating frogs and lizards which are considered revolting by them. Moreover they were until very recently cannibals; they did not intermarry with their neighbors but ate them. This sort of cultural difference may be a more effective barrier to creating families than a mere fifty miles of water.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
hobsen wroteThis sort of cultural difference may be a more effective barrier to creating families than a mere fifty miles of water.
True, but it only takes one person "infiltrating the ranks" and procreating to make an entire area eventually share their ancestry. When you only need one, it makes it unlikely that even the most closed societies could stay "pure" for very long.

Personally, I think it's a fascinating preliminary hypothesis. It doesn't give us conclusions so much as it improves our questions and methods. The research INSPIRED by this kind of thing will be the truly educational stuff.

I'm interested in seeing a supercomputer program that can take my DNA and tell me that I must have had a common 24th to 30th grandfather with another person living in Egypt, and a common 4th to 12th grandmother to a person living in Iraq. It will be an amazing advance when we can genetically describe how we, the living, are interrelated because of genetic markers. And DNA is so complex that it will inevitably give a huge amount of information on the subject.

[ July 05, 2006, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Factors which tend to favor it theory:

The Great Rinse Cycle of the Mediteranean

The Direct Pollination methods of the Goths, Huns, Macedonians, Mongols etc.

The Slave Trade

Factors which minimize the theory:

Geography

Plagues

Xenophobia

Slavery (how many reproductive opportunities did eunuchs, mine slaves, and even plantations slaves have?)

Visible differences of tribes and populations (How many blonde Chinese have you seen? How many different racial groups are there in India, which, following this model, should be the mixing bowl of genetics?)

Sometimes culture trumps math models. Ask the Blue People of Kentucky.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slavery? see Orson Scott Card's third Alvin Maker book.
Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Never read it and it is fiction.

Three other interlinked factors which make this theory less likely is the treatment of violators of virgins/wives in general, the ME segregation of women from time immemorial it seems (see OT Esther), and child mortality. There were women accessible for sex (most of the genetic mixing would come from men), but consider the stratum of society the women came from and their access to healthcare, child mortality etc.

This disproves nothing, but is another bit of tide the theory needs to swim against.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fly, do you really think that slavery kept slave owners from raping and inseminating their property?

hobsen, you might be surprised by the amount of cultural and economic exchange there has been in the past few millenia between the different inhabitants of the region. At the very least, there has been significant language 'migration' between the two continents - kinda tricky to achieve if the limit to social interaction involves asking the subjects preference of rare, medium or well-done.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps he was talking about male slaves?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, yes, that's obvious - I was pointing out just this flaw in his thinking and how that would not stop DNA from being mixed... besides, slavery over generational time frames has never been a closed system, and the study refers to millenial time periods, so...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you took a closer look, you'll notice that slavery covered pro and con. So on the one hand, I'm thinking of the Mongols (Huns, Goths, Greeks) dragging a string of Chinese (Roman, Persian) girls behind them as they finish looting but additionally, male slavery wasn't really for procreational purposes, and male seed spreads quicker. Female slaves didn't have the best OB-GYN care, so child mortality was higher (all those genes lost).

I'm torn, but it doesn't really matter because this is mathamatical m@sturb@tion...all theory, no proof.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1