Scientists at MIT have discovered that everyone on Earth is descended from a single man who lived around 3,500 years ago (1,415 BC). Using a computer model and estimated patterns of migration throughout history, our most recent common ancestor was located in a village in eastern Asia. His descendants emigrated into Europe, Asia, remote Americas spreading their genes so widely that everyone on earth is related to the line however distantly.
The Danes keeping up the good work, have the largest sperm bank in Arhus - donors earn �25 a time and many are students. It's then sent to Cyros near Copenhagen where it is frozen and shipped to 40 other countries including Kenya, Paraguay, Singapore, the US(their largest market).
And apparently the Norwegian line of kings was the result of plans hatched by Victorian relatives of Queen Maud to continue the line, so had her artificially inseminated by the Royal physician who happened to be English. The Norwegians are reeling in shock to denials by the Royal family.
Could that be Abraham, father of us all? The dates seem wrong as do the location of eastern Asia rather than Middle East.
The bulk of trade was carried out between families across Europe in the Dark to Middle Ages and possibly before and explains why the Black Death spread so rapidly, borne, not by infected fleas on rats or human fleas as suspected until now by studying bubonic plagues, but by an Ebola virus the deadliest and highly contagious virus on Earth identified 30 years ago in Africa. It erupted every now and then over 300 years killing millions. I suspect eventually the weather got too cold and blitzed the virus from Europe. Bubonic and human flea plagues also occured. That must have been a lot of deaths. [ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Originally posted by Helen Thomas: Scientists at MIT have discovered that everyone on Earth is descended from a single man who lived around 3,500 years ago (1,415 BC).
I'd like to see a reference for this. It's hard to believe that someone so recent could have contributed genes to every Australian aborigine, every African bushman, and every South American Indian.
I would prefer to change the name of this thread to "Fatherhood." The trend of treating nouns as verbs (and vice-versa) is not to be encouraged. (It's as silly as describing what we do as "computering.") [ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I would prefer to change the name of this thread to "Fatherhood." The trend of treating nouns as verbs (and vice-versa) is not to be encouraged. (It's as silly as describing what we do as "computering.")
I prefer fathering to fatherhood 'cos the latter includes immediate requisites like nurturing, sustaining, development etc. etc.
Fathering seems an adequate word if not wholly within context.Any other suggestions ?
He added: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forest of north and south America and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."
Although some groups of people may have lived in isolation from the rest of the world for hundreds of years, the researchers say no one alive today has been untouched by migration.
But mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman alive at that time. Nor is she the only common ancestor of all living humans. On the contrary, the most recent common ancestor of everyone alive today probably lived just a few thousand years ago.
On second thoughts perhaps the title should be Mothering ? [ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
If we all descended from one person, why are we so different? Biologically we may be the same; however, our physical appearances are very much different.I am not arguing the credibility of such claim. Instead, I am curious on how we evolved over time. [ October 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]
[JT]: I we all descended from one person, why are we so different?
The single common ancestor being discussed here wasn't by any means the only ancestor of all the people today - he/she was merely the most recent common ancestor. There were many other people alive at the same time as this person. The common ancestor's descendents presumably breeded with these other people, and they're part of the diverse gene pool we have now. It's just that after the most recent common ancestor, no one else had descendants who spread into every bloodline.
Call me backward or silly, but I am wondering if there's any possible relation between this assumption and to a number of floods and end-of-the-known-world style wars depicted in either Ramayana or Mahabharatha of Indian mythology? (Especially since latest archaeological studies points to possible evidence of a drowned city (Dwaraka, of Sri Krishna, and the man-made underwater structure connecting India and SriLanka (the bridge, made by Lord Rama with the help of a his monkey battalion?)
Originally posted by Ashok Mash: Call me backward or silly, but I am wondering if there's any possible relation between this assumption and to a number of floods and end-of-the-known-world style wars depicted in either Ramayana or Mahabharatha of Indian mythology? (Especially since latest archaeological studies points to possible evidence of a drowned city (Dwaraka, of Sri Krishna, and the man-made underwater structure connecting India and SriLanka (the bridge, made by Lord Rama with the help of a his monkey battalion?)
Archaeologists assume that humans were physiologically modern for about 140,000 years, and then suddenly, about ten thousand years ago, agriculture sprang up in several parts of Eurasia simultaneously.
If large human settlements first congregated along shorelines where people could dig for clams and shellfish, perhaps civilization developed more slowly, over a longer period of time, on coastlines that have long receded and are now under water. The fact that the Australian aborigines settled that continent 40,000 to 60,000 years ago suggests that early man was quite familiar and comfortable with the sea.
In fact, one book, _The_Descent_of_Woman_, speculates that the physical changes from ape to human appear to be adaptations to a watery environment. Maybe that's why proto-human fossils are so rare -- relatively few members of early human species ever wandered very far inland -- and those which did settle inland ceased evolving and became dead-end species.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study
from the telegraph news link.
And from the MIT research link narrows the sim down from the last 5000 years.
Joined: Jun 06, 2002
For example, if you had 2**32 (two to the thirty-second power) people in the world, then theoretically in only 32 generations you could have each person on earth descended in part from every one of those 2**32 people.
Well, the mixing was not so efficient, but it's likely that there existed a person within the last 3,500 years who exists somewhere in the HUGE family tree of each person living today.
And if you go back ten thousand years before that, you might find that every person alive back then either had his line eventually die out completely or else appears at least once in the huge family tree of every single person living today.
That doesn't mean that we all have roughly the same genes. If we had, say, five distinct races 35,000 years ago, we could each be descended from every single person alive back then (not counting those individuals whose line died out completely), yet still maintains distinct races based on the average number of times each person of a given race back then appears in our family tree today.
Each person of Race A 35,000 years ago might appear in the family tree of today's Race B people an average of 4 different places, while each person of race B from back then might appear thousands of times on the average in each current Race B person's family tree (as distant cousins marry distant cousins generation after generation).
By analogy, suppose you have three bars of metal -- one gold, one silver, and one copper. If you melt the three bars down in three separate vats, and put a tiny bit from each vat into the two other vats, mix thoroughly, and re-mold the blocks, then every piece of each bar is going to contain all three metals. Yet, one bar is is still going to be essentially made of gold, another of silver, and the other of copper.
A more interesting question would be: How far back would you have to go such that the average number of times each person appears in a modern person's family tree is largely independent of our current race or nationality. _That_ would be the ancestral population that transcends race and nationality. Would you have to go back 60,000 years? Or 100,000 years? [ October 19, 2004: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]