wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Fathering Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Fathering" Watch "Fathering" New topic
Author

Fathering

Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
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.


Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
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 ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
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 ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
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 ?

We are all related to man who lived in Asia in 1,415BC

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.

Mapping Human History

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 ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
On the Common Ancestors of All Living Humans

This links to the research papers.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
At any time t we could define A(t) to be the set of people alive at time t, each of whom was an ancestor of someone alive today.

I wonder wonder what time t would have given the minimum value for A(t). That is, in which era was the set of living ancestors to today's humanity the smallest. And I wonder how small that set was.
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
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 ]

-- <br />4 8 15 16 23 42
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[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.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
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?)


[ flickr ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
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.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
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 think you missed one zero.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
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.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
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 ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Another common ancestor
Puff the Magic Genome More fishy tails. A species of Puffer fish genome's emergent properties gave rise to human genome.
[ October 20, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Fathering