BS: News to me...

Subject: BS: News to me...
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 04:42 PM

Here.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 04:53 PM

I see...sure, makes sense. This is different from the studies that indicate that we came close to being wiped out as a species about 35,000 years ago, and that sometime about 3-4 million years ago was a hominid "Eve" who WAS the ancestor of everyone.

Statistics are fascinating, but they don't change anything, just our appreciation of our history.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: mack/misophist
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 06:19 PM

This is a non story. Simple arithmatic shows that you don't have to go back all that many generations before the number of your ancestors exceeds the world population.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 06:35 PM

I used that theory in Junior High School to establish that

We Don't Exist

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:51 PM

The simple way to understand this is to say that

"the other antecendents who MIGHT HAVE BEEN living today thru their descendents" aren't, just because THEIR children (and subsequent descendents) died...

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:58 PM

All of my ancestors died out a long time ago, leaving no descendants.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:58 PM

"Had you entered any village on Earth in around 3,000 B.C., the first person you would have met would probably be your ancestor"

Not logical, as I have already explained, and certainly not even scientific.

For one example - People who died during The Black Plague removed from the subsequent remaining expanding gene pool, most of those who were more susceptible - this alone refutes the whole thesis.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 10:05 PM

A more definative study on this subject can be found here.http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v33/n3s/full/ng1113.html

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 10:09 PM

I don't think it does, Robin.

A

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 11:04 PM

Does this mean I'm related to Doug R?

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 11:06 PM

It's a lonely world, Rap, innit.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jul 06 - 11:08 PM

It's all a problem of semantics....

Those who were highly susceptible to Black Plague (and other diseases) had very limited (if any) descendents... thus 'all living people can trace their ancestors back to a common point' is a tautology'...

Tautologies are not very useful in Science
'Why is the sky blue - because it is'...

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: number 6
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 12:18 AM

Natural blondes will die out in about 200 years ... too few people now carry the gene for blondes to last beyond the next two centuries.

just some useless info to keep one thinking for about a minute and a half.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: JennyO
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 01:44 AM

...or a couple of hours if you're a blonde ;-)

Jenny (out the door putting my coat on)

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Bert
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 03:11 AM

Hmmm, A Steve Olson looking into Human history. He wouldn't by any chance be related to BRUCE OLSON would he????

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Ernest
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 03:51 AM

The greeting card industry will love that theory....

On second thought: did they sponsor the scientists????

Regards
Ernest

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 04:12 AM

Of course we have a common ancestor- not necessarily H. sapiens- but he's certainly wrong about 7000 years ago. That's so recent as to be virtually historic, and would mean that, for example, Australian and American aboriginals populated those continents since then. There's a huge mass of evidence that American aboriginals were in place 25000 years ago, and 20-40000 years is probable for Australia.

Mitochondrial comparisons place our most recent bottleneck at about 150000 years ago. Of course, this depends on certain assumptions about rates of mutation, but is likely to be the right sort of order of magnitude. These guys have just got their sums wrong, their model is too simple. When you come up with a result that defies common sense and existing evidence, it's your job to check against reality.

I think we evolutionary materialists should celebrate Mitochondrial Eve just as Christians celebrate Christmas. Problem is, I don't know when Mitochondrial Day is.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 05:46 AM

Wouldn't Mitochondrial Eve be December 31st?

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 06:42 AM

Australia will prove to be the most interesting study of all human DNA, since the landbridge theory and migration of DNA in humans from Africa to Australia is not yet proven beyond question. Clearly we are in the infancy of subject study, and there is still more work to be done on the subject before we all shout Eureka.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 07:08 AM

One of the most interesting outcomes of the Human Genome Project and other current scientific research is that there is no meaningful genetic or biological basis for the concept of 'race'. Any two human beings are 99.9% identical genetically. It is now well-accepted among medical scientists, anthropologists and other students of humanity that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are social, cultural and political constructs, rather than matters of scientific 'fact'. In 1997, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) recommended that the United States government no longer use the term 'race' on census forms or other official data collection documents, because the term has 'no scientific justification in human biology'. The AAA noted that

ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of 'race'.[52]

genetics and race

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 07:16 AM

I was always raised to understand I was a member of the human race, all else was a question of nationality, nice to have that confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 03:18 PM

"Does this mean I'm related to Doug R? "

And George Bush, And the Queen of England, and Adolph Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and ...

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:00 AM

yup..

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:39 PM

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.math.html

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:00 AM

I have known of Mitochondrial Eve for a long time now and truly do believe that the term race no longer has a basis in science. I have been trying to argue this for some time. Thanks for the affirmation.

I think Mitochondrial Eve should be celebrated on May Eve since you could definitely consider her to be the Goddess of Earth. Seems quite fitting to me. So now we've come full circle and can begin recognize and honour the Goddess who was stamped out by paternal
monotheistism.

Something tells me we might have alot less conflict in the world when all of humanity recognizes that we have a common mother and that we are, indeed, brothers and sisters.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:55 AM

Don't make too much of her! She was nowt special, it's just a simple fact of population that at some point in the past there must have been one single ancestor of each sex - that doesn't mean that they lived at the same time either, in fact it's a fair bet that they lived many thousands of years and many miles apart. It's just that the genetic line that leads to you must converge back into the bush of evolution somewhere. She would be as surprised about being Goddess of Earth as Brian was about being the Messiah.

Mitochondrial Eve "exists" because the DNA in the mitochondria (sort of fuel cells) in our cytoplasm comes (perhaps almost) exclusively from the egg- think of the disparity in size between the ovum and the sperm. So it is passed down exclusively in the female line. Hence by looking at the variation in modern mitochondrial DNA, and making certain assumptions (based on observation) about mutation rate, the time required to produce that variation can be estimated.

It would be theoretically possible to do the same for Genetic Adam, if we could find a bit of DNA that travels exclusively in the male line. Sadly, there's only a little stub on the Y chromosome, and AFAIK geneticists think it's not enough for long- term studies. It has been used to track population movements though.

But on the other hand, the fact of her existence- the fact that we, as humans, are of one stock- is worth celebration.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:49 AM

So everybody is inbred. Answers a lot of questions.

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM

Whatever the supposition - it is a supposition based on statistics.

So hands-up those who understand statstics?
Hands-up those who trust statistics?
Hands-up those who can spot a misuse of statistics?
hands up those who put hands up on all three.

Gone quiet innit?

Subject: RE: BS: News to me...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:56 AM

The theorem is based on assumptions and statistics. Neither produces true certainty.