ancestor in the past several thousand years.
Posted on 07/01/2006 4:12:22 PM PDT by blam
Thanks for the link. What a curious people, and I agree, unless somehow they've gotten ahold of some Sentinelese DNA, the ancestor theory is undeterminable.
I think I mentioned Toba, twice.
So, in short, I think a 99% statement can easily be made, but a 100% statement is a dicier proposition. Ultimately it all depends on precisely how far back and for how long the most isolated populations (Andaman, Papua, Amazon) completely insulated themselves genetically, and how much, if any, input they've had in recent decades, and to what degree that has diffused. Yeah, maybe I'm being picky, but oh well. If one wants to make a 100% statement then it needs to cover 100%.
In any case, I personally think it'd be a more interesting exercise to calculate the last common ancestor of all humans alive as of the year 1492, or as of the year 1768, or even as of the year 1903.
Yes, but the last common ancestor might have gotten around.
Somebody in his family did, anyway.
What the heck is "atheist science"?
It annoys the atheists
Only because it's used so fallaciously and in a way that misrepresents the actual nature of the scientific findings in service to someone's agenda. You know, the same reason Michael Moore annoys people.
well... considering that the American indians migrated to the America's about 25,000 years ago... and were completely cut off from the rest of the world till 1492... how can they all have a common ansestor who lived in Russia only a few thousand years ago?
That doesn't even make sense.
You make a good point. And I have a feeling that the actual research paper probably admitted those caveats, they just weren't as "juicy" as the way the reporter wanted to present it.
It is a useful finding, though, as it indicates that the world population (on the whole, excluding any ultra-isolated pockets somewhere such as on Tasmania until around 1800) is a lot more interrelated than most people might presume, due to how fast ancestries spread as a result of even small amounts of migration and individual "explorers".
I have the same concerns about Fertility treatments... otherwise infertile couples are now able to reproduce.. thus passing on their infertility to the next generation... it wouldn't take too long until the entire human race is naturally infertile and dependent on science to conceive... scary stuff.
How come nobody ever mentions Mrs. Noah? Noah didn't get them boys by his own self.
No. His great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-granfather. Give or take about 232 greats.
Because the descendants of the 1492 folks got to "share ancestors" when they met up in 1492 and beyond. As a result of occasional interbreeding in the 500 years since then, there are few, if any, 100% purebred "Native Americans" left, most if not all have at least a drop of European ancestry in their genes, and as a result have all the same zillions of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents as any/all Europeans who have ever had kids with a Native American, ALONG WITH all their original Native American ancestors. ...and don't forget the Vikings who allegedly paid a visit to North America before 1492, and probably got friendly with the natives.
It's an ancestral version of the STD warning: When you sleep with someone, you sleep with everyone they've ever slept with, and everyone *they've* ever slept with, etc. etc. etc. "Ancestor sharing" grows at an exponential rate across time.
As mentioned in other posts, there probably are some isolated pockets of people who really don't "intercross" with the world population until you go back a LOT farther, but for most people in most places, there's been a hell of a lot of mixing of lineages.
The Bible goes through a lot of trouble to try to show that Jesus was the offspring of King David through Joseph, but...
Putting it another way: you have two parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents (etc). Go back far enough and pick ANY individual human, and there's a decent chance that he appears in the family tree of ALL current humans. This does not imply that at that point in the past there was only one human
I found that out by doing genealogy.
Not true. The Vikings came to North America long before 1492, and possibly the Irish. Some have conjectured that the Polynesians also migrated to South America. There has even been speculation that the Phonecians made it over here.
You might consider sourcing things that you post.
At this point, you appear to be the Clown Prince of Historical facts from this point.
Show me the money!
That's what happens when you simply 'calculate' the LCA without considering all the isolated populations during that last few (10s) thousand years. The Y chrom. Adam and mtDNA Eve as calculated are better 'best guesses'.
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.