RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Andy_Keogh on Saturday 11 February 12 17:38 GMT (UK)
-
* Moderator comment: topic split from http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,578371.10.html *
Had a wee look at the website from Adam. It should have started from 7700BC - going by the Jewish calendar.
More accurately Adam was born about 60,000 years ago but Eve about 140,000 years ago. Genetically, or personally, they never dated or exchanged an apple!
In fact I can show how, genetically, EVERYONE is related prior to about 1150AD - regardless of ethnicity.
I can prove mathematically that all Europeans are related from about 1240AD -1400AD - So you DO have Royal blood.
If anyone is interested - ASK!
-
OK Andy, I'm interested, please take this as 'asking'. (Sorry Iain if this is hijacking your thread)
We have a family legend about descent from Robert the Bruce, on the wrong side of the blanket of course. It's totally unproveable but I've always believed that in a small corner of Scotland where families were based, and intermarrying, for generations, and with him acknowledging so many illegitimate children, probably over the centuries everyone has some sort of link to him, however tenuous.
Would love to learn some factual background for my theory!
-
I'm interested 'asking' for details as well Andy...apologies Iain ;)
Joy
-
Thank you for the info. and the offer, Andy.
When I think about a lot of people whom I'd rather not be related to, - do I really want to know? I've got enough problems with my existing lot.
-
Ignoring genetics, mathematically, if you go back much more than a dozen or so generations you'll find that you're related to almost anybody. The genetic problem which has always puzzled me is that if a child inherits only his mothers genes, that child must be female!
-
I'm interested 'asking' for details as well Andy...apologies Iain ;)
Joy
The answer is quite simple..... every time you go back a generation, you double the number of people who were responsible for your existence. Once you have gone back more than about 10 generations, the number gets to be quite huge. Bigger, in fact, than the entire population of Europe at the time. So, there had to be quite a lot of inter-breeding going on.
-
It's actually considerably more than 10 generations. Since the population in Europe c.1400 was very approximately 50 million, you have to go back over about 25 generations to reach that number.
More accurately Adam was born about 60,000 years ago but Eve about 140,000 years ago. Genetically, or personally, they never dated or exchanged an apple!
I'm much more confused how the genetic Adam and Eve weren't living at the same time. I know nothing about this, but how did the first woman precede the first man by 80,000 years?
In any case, what does that have to do with the amount of interbreeding in Europe?
-
As far as I'm aware, 25 is more than 10, and I did say "more than about 10" :)
10 generations only requires 2048 individuals, but 10 generations is only about 250 to 300 years. 25 generations is about 625 years, which takes us nicely back to around the year 1400, which is nicely inside the periods mentioned by Andy_Keogh.
-
I just thought it worth pointing out that in this context there is a big difference between 10 generations and 25. Hence my use of the word "considerably". Sorry.
In any case, Andy could you please explain "how, genetically, EVERYONE is related prior to about 1150AD - regardless of ethnicity." I'm rather confused about that.
-
I think the issue under discussion is rather more complicated than simple maths. When you go back even 150 years, then the prospect of travel (especially in the UK) becomes very tenuous. My grandmother travelled from rural Suffolk to the west of London on the back of a horse-drawn cart, and the journey took two days. I now live in the Fens, and until proper roads began to appear at the end of the 19th century, whole villages were cut off to for many months of the year, except for journeys by boat. Prior to the 17th century, the city of Ely was virtually cut off to all but boat traffic, except in high summer.
Because of the problems associated with travel, most folk who worked on the land or derived an income connected with it, stayed in their local areas, so the inevitable inbreeding was on a more local level. In some places the inbreeding became so intense that the genetic effects became detectable in the population. Until recently (when the practice was banned), doctors in one county in England used the abbreviation "N.F.N." in patients' notes, which was short for "Normal For Norfolk".
Obviously, some people had to travel to transport goods across countries and continents, (and the travel of men across large distances in the pursuit of war) and some inter-mixing of genes resulted from it, but I think the idea of Europe being a huge melting pot of genes becomes less likely, the further you travel back in time. There will have been some mixing of genes between ethnic and racial groups during that time, but not on the same scale as 'local'.
-
But it only takes one couple from 2 otherwise isolated populations to establish a relationship, so 1 pretty welsh girl transported as a slave to Rome tempts a randy italian into fatherhood and the Italian and Welsh populations become related.
-
Not sure how far I can help here, but here are some points to ponder:
Cousin marriages are quite common; second and further-separated cousin marriages may well never have been detected as many people had little idea of their family trees until the rise of genealogy in recent years. Somewhere (but I canot source this info) I have gathered that the average degree of consanguinity in a marriage in France is 4th cousins. In some communities of course there is much more in the way of consanguineous marriage; the European Royal families are a case in point. Again unsourced but I remeember that the Spanish Royal Family are particularly affected and that King Juan Carlos has therefore many fewer great-great-grandparents than the arithmetic would suggest.
"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" are not totaly agreed by researchers yet. I've explored this a bit with sixth-form classes rather than with genealogists. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited purely in the female line because mitochondria are passed on in the egg cell. There is no recombination of mtDNA so in principle it passes on from mother to child unaltered. Mutations are conserved in the line of descent: the analogy I have used in teaching is to consider medieval manuscripts, where copying errors would be perpetuated by future copyists, so the line of copying (= line of descent) of any manuscript can be traced. Now the rate of mutation seems to be pretty constant so it provides a sort-of clock which can trace the date at which two lines of mitochondrial descent diverged.
The Y chromosome is passed in the male line only, and much the same logic applies. However men have varied very much more than women in their reproductive success, it seems that most men over the very long run have left no descendants at all; while others have left lost: Genghiz Khan is one of the successes.
This website - not sure when it was last updated and the infor checked against latest data - gives some idea: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
Graham
-
* Moderator comment: topic split from http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,578371.10.html *
Had a wee look at the website from Adam. It should have started from 7700BC - going by the Jewish calendar.
More accurately Adam was born about 60,000 years ago but Eve about 140,000 years ago. Genetically, or personally, they never dated or exchanged an apple!
In fact I can show how, genetically, EVERYONE is related prior to about 1150AD - regardless of ethnicity.
I can prove mathematically that all Europeans are related from about 1240AD -1400AD - So you DO have Royal blood.
If anyone is interested - ASK!
ASK! what?
what do you want us to ask?
I'm extremely interested but don't get the question
FA
-
Andy-Keogh, the original poster, has not been on Rootschat since 14th Feb. Is this date significant? - perhaps he has been too busy stirring the gene pool! :o
;D
-
re: many people had little idea of their family trees until the rise of genealogy in recent years.
I was under the impression that in the past people in general had a much better idea of their family trees than they do now. In Wales you needed 3 generations to identify yourself, and the Welsh naming system (the abs and the aps) often recorded 10 or more generations. The bible and the Heralds also show a concern with family trees.
-
Andy-Keogh, the original poster, has not been on Rootschat since 14th Feb. Is this date significant? - perhaps he has been too busy stirring the gene pool! :o
;D
Or he has been honing up on his trolling skills. ;D
Eve may have lived 80,025 years to see Adam reach 25 years of age and they produced a few children then Eve popped it. :P :P
I have found a few cousins marry each other so my tree has gone inwards a few times. But yes the further you go back in general the generations multiply ie 16 2xgreat grandparents, 32 3xgreat grandparents, 64 4xgreat grandparents and so on. By about the 14th century it probably numbers half a million.
-
I've never seen reason to believe the "everyone is related to everyone else" meme that gets trotted out every once in a while.
Considering the degree of pedigree collapse I've seen in my ancestry I have no reason to believe there would have been any less even further back.
And coupled to that, let's be frank, there's never been that much mixing between the 'classes' in this country - and even further back there would have been even less.
Is the British public at large descended from some branch of its royalty? A lot may be but I doubt anything near most are.
-
Bashlad - descent is not the same as related, you only need one couple from 2 separated populations to establish relationship, I think that is where the everyone is related to everyone comes from.
Anyway, unless you believe that we evolved the way we are more than once then everyone is descended from the original mutant.
-
And coupled to that, let's be frank, there's never been that much mixing between the 'classes' in this country - and even further back there would have been even less.
I think you couldn't be more wrong ! There's been many a maid servant who has been quietly dismissed with a nice little 'nest egg' after being made pregnant by a member of the family that employed them. It was swept under the carpet. And, if you read Bill Bryson's latest book 'At Home' you will find that there were no proper bedrooms in houses a few hundred years ago, everybody (including the servants) slept in the same room to keep warm.
-
Also you have to consider ie your 412 7xgreat grandparents for example and their brothers and sisters which could mount up to a few thousand in total for that generation. Then that itself doubles as you go back. I think we probably all link in somewhere as there was not enough people to go round when you go back in time say 20 generations or more.
They estimate you have about 1000, 000, 000 28 time great grandparents. So say about from 700 to 100 years ago you reach 28 generations. Back then there was not enough people for everyone to have that number of 28 times great grandparents. Unless you want to get down the record office and find out ;D ;D
-
I've received a fair amount of requests on my comment so here we go - I don't know yet if there is a maximum length for posts so I may have to spread this out.
6,805,700,000
Estimated Current World Population 2010
How Many Ancestors Do We Have?
The usual estimate is based upon a simple progression
SELF
2 PARENTS
4 GRANDPARENTS
8 GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
16 GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
32 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
64 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
128 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
256 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENT
512 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
1024 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
Predictably, this is called the “Pyramid Model”
However – we have a problem!
Let’s continue a wee bit:
Gen. 12: 2048 – abt. 360 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 13: 4096 – abt. 390 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 14: 8192 – abt. 420 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 15: 16384 – abt. 450 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 16: 32768 – abt. 480 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 17: 65536 – abt. 510 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 18: 131072 – abt. 540 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 19: 262144 – abt. 570 years ago (+/- 70)
Gen. 20: 524288 – abt. 600 years ago (+/- 70)
See where we’re going yet?
6,805,700,000
Estimated World Population 2010
Generation 30 using the Pyramid
WE SHOULD HAVE
536,870,912 ancestors about 900 years ago!
4 Generations later about 1020 years ago
8,589,934,592
40 generations back at 30 years per generation about 1200 years ago
2,199,023,255,552
40 generations back at 30 years per generation, about 1200 years ago
2,199,023,255,552
THAT’S 2.2 TRILLION
Official estimate of total World population (ever to have lived)
About 106,000,000,000
JUST OVER 100 BILLION
We can’t have more ancestors than available people who have EVER lived.
I Think I've attached a graphic showing population data - so I'll continue.
So, depending on the years defining a “generation” at about 1200AD, using 30 years per generation, your “ancestors” surpass available people.
At 20 years per generation you are related to everyone before about 1500AD !
HOW CAN THIS BE?
IT CAN’T !!!!!
The Pyramid Theory assumes that no relations EVER married
This is impossible because the number of ancestors can never be more than the total population at a given time
Relations did marry, perhaps not in an Egyptian, Roman or Royal way, but subtly
The actual model we have to use is a “Diamond Model”
SELF
2 PARENTS
4 GRANDPARENTS
8 GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
16 GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
32 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
64 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
128 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
256 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENT
512 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
1024 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
x G-G-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
x G-G-G-G-G-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
x G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
x-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
This can be displayed in a lateral branch of my own “Tree” from quite recently (second attachment)
But much more radically in the family tree of King Charles II of Spain (it's famous and you can look that up yourselves)
His Christmas and birthday lists must have been a nightmare!
Perhaps fortunately, a limited gene pool caused him to be too mad to worry!
If first cousins marry, any children lose 2 shared Great-grandparents, 4 shared Great-Great-Grandparents Etc.
If second cousins marry, any children will lose 2 shared Great-Great-Great-grandparents, 4 shared Great-Great-Great-Great Grandparents Etc.
This is called Pedigree Collapse
Charles’ great-great-great or (add-great-great, depending along which lineage one counts) Grandmother, was two of Charles' 16 great-great-great-grandmothers, six of his 32 great-great-great-great-grandmothers, and six of his 64 great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers.
In fact out of a possible 64 individuals Charles had 12 individual 4x great-grandparents
Only TWO in the “Direct” paternal line out of a possible 32!!!!!
Humans, as we would recognize them today, appeared about 50,000 years ago. But some Human DNA may be in existence from as early as 250,000 years ago.
Mitochondrial Eve about 140,000 years ago
Y-chromosomal Adam about 60,000 years ago
Don't know how to add another file so we'll break off here and start on a new thread
-
Part 2
Graphic 3 is now, hopefully attached
Recent developments in DNA sourcing show that all living European females can be directly linked to 10 or, perhaps, 12 individual women about 150,000 years ago. These weren’t the only European females but are the only ones for whom DNA “Lives On”
Worldwide, only 36 “Clan Mothers” have been identified
Every woman living is related, way back, to one of these 36
Of course, every man is too
Unfortunately male DNA can’t be traced back in the same way so “Clan Fathers” may never be found
All factors mean that we have a lot fewer ancestors than most people assume. In a fairly closed community, probably about 6.8% of the total population today. Under 500,000 individuals for the whole of Britain.
Although we have far fewer ancestors than most people think, perhaps as few as 500,000 or so. Just imagine any ONE of them falling down a well, succumbing to any of the many plagues, being killed in a war or tribal battle, getting trampled by a woolly mammoth or even if a former great-great-grandmother had a “Headache” precluding the birth of a great-grandparent
YOU COULDN’T BE READING THIS!
Indeed! The fact that you ARE here is: HARDLY HUMANLY POSSIBLE!
-
Interesting about how many people have ever lived. I read it was around 100'000'000'000. For example if I met someone from Poland we could share a common ancestor about 1000 years back.
-
At 20 years per generation you are related to everyone before about 1500AD !
Not necessarily. As already discussed) many communities (like those in the UK Fens) were cut off much of the time, so 'local' inbreeding was more rife than the 'norm' in these places. Would I be related to everyone in Africa before 1500AD ? Nahh, sorry, I don't buy it !
And of course, we've left out one little morsel which upsets the apple cart a little - those whose fathers aren't who they think they are ! Some think that as many as 60% of children born both now and in years gone by may not have the genetic father that they think they have. Now that's taking interbreeding to a whole new level ! ;D
-
"Related to" is not the same as "Descended from", all it needs is for one relation of one of your ancestors to have had a relationship with one relation of one native of Africa and voila! you are related to everyone in Africa.
It is like the "5 handshakes" thing where everyone is that close to meeting everyone in the world (and I didn't believe that until I used my Family tree software to prove it in my case).
Also, the 60% is on the high side - I have seen 10% quoted though - which took the edge off much of my research, because after 10 generations there is a fair chance you are not tracing your true family, though by Andy_Keogh's argument it is probably an ancestor anyway!
-
I have not seen any proof yet.
All that has been shown is a theory based on as the population reference bureau admits a "guesstimate used to disprove a factoid.
Not very convincing as proof.
It is a mathematical projection that has no comparison to real life.
In a similar way to the pundits for DNA have advanced theories from tiny samples which they extrapolate. This extrapolation is then put forward as a theory.
The theory may be changed or amended to fit the facts as they emerge.
But to get back to the question of how many people have ever lived on earth; Carl Huab guessed that figure to prove that a factoid that had been floating around for years was wrong.
The factoid stated that in numeric terms three-quarters of all people who ever lived on earth were alive today.
Now to prove the factoid was wrong he did not have to show how many people ever lived on earth but only had to show that more than one quarter of the present world population had lived in previous times.
Cheers
Guy
-
1500 AD is only 512 years ago so there can be no way we are all related to everyone from exactly before that date.
-
If I have a 'clan mother', does that mean I need to buy a kilt ? ;D
-
Andy, the information you've given is really interesting and certainly gives food for thought, and thank you for taking the trouble to post it all.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the comments you have posted both before and since are equally interesting and I'm bookmarking this thread so I can come back to it again and again and try and get my head round it all!
Whether one agrees or not, I think thanks are due to Andy for such a detailed explanation of his assertion in the earlier thread
-
I'd like to echo Maggie's thoughts. It has been most interesting reading this thread. Thanks to all involved.
My own genealogy has shown me how common related people procreating was. I have found evidence of it on both maternal and paternal sides and from early times until quite recently. Most recently my maternal great grandparents were second cousins, (and one of them was the the result of first cousins marrying) and much further back I've found entanglement through Scottish lines, (that go back, waaaay back if I choose to believe the online trees ::) )
Mo (who only has one head, amazingly ;) )