Live data from Hacker News

1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

blogs.discovermagazine.com

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#21
post #15

The ideal lifestyle if life was perfect would be that of Genghis Khan. There'd be no use for religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc. All of philosophy stems from "I can't have everything that I want, so...". But if you can have everything you want: endless supply of women.. then life is all grand. You conquer, You win, You build, you get endless orgasms. No need to master your emotions and deal with unfairness.

Sure, it's ideal if you avoid all the pillaging, burning, raping, death and so on and so forth. Do get your point, but I think it's a little ... erm, disturbing.

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#22
post #17
post #16

Side question brought on by the headline: Is there such a thing as an "indirect descendant?" Seems like all descendants are direct.

Yep, there are "indirect descendants". If X is a direct descendant of Y's sister (or other sibling), then X is an indirect descendant of Y. Doesn't make much sense, and it's hardly ever used, but there you go. Another reason to say "direct descendant" instead of just "descendant" is that it makes it clear that there's a blood relation.

The point being that after a while, everyone is related from a mixed lineage, but male-only or female-only lines may die off, either a man having only daughters or a woman having only sons, or having no children at all.

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#23
post #5

Also, I remember someone doing "math" on how many women Genghis Khan had to sleep with everyday his life to reach the number he did (it was like 2,000 women wasn't it?) compared to his lifetime... I remember the number being pretty ridiculous.

Well, if it was only 2000 women, and he was doing it during his entirely 21 year reign, then he was only sleeping with a new woman on average a little bit less than every 4 days.

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#25
post #11
post #3

This is not as surprising as it might seem, and in fact is more of a statistical trick than anything else— according to Wiki, the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today is believed to have lived only 2~5,000 years ago. Of course Genghis Khan was unusually prolific, and the direct patrilineal aspect is what makes it special, but you don't have to go far back in time to find an ancestor you share with on…

Sorry that statistic seems completely impossible -- how would a man alive just before the roman republic became an ancestor to the Gauls (whom the Romans wouldn't discover for quite some time) let alone the American Indians?

All people alive today, not all people ever. The article cited[1] quotes indigenous populations in North and South America dropping by 97% and 93% before 1570— in the centuries since, it has become statistically improbable that any Native Americans descendants exist who don't share a European ancestor with you.

Now it comes from a computer model, so there could be errors or exceptions— I'm thinking extant uncontacted peoples, here. The model accounted for this possibility, as the paper notes: ...in order for a remote island to affect the MRCA date, it must have been colonized prior to the lineage of the mainland MRCA reaching the source population and it must have remained genetically isolated until very re- cently in order for there to be surviving people with no modern mainland ancestry.

Remember that uncontacted peoples are uncontacted by us; the ones we know of have regular if infrequent contact with other tribes, so if contacted tribes share the MRCA it's quite probable that uncontacted ones do as well. Could there be a cache of 50-100 human beings somewhere on this planet who happen to share an MRCA with us who is older than the one shared by all other living persons, maybe 10,000 years? Sure. But they would be the only ones out of 7 billion.

[1] http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#26
post #17
post #16

Side question brought on by the headline: Is there such a thing as an "indirect descendant?" Seems like all descendants are direct.

Yep, there are "indirect descendants". If X is a direct descendant of Y's sister (or other sibling), then X is an indirect descendant of Y. Doesn't make much sense, and it's hardly ever used, but there you go. Another reason to say "direct descendant" instead of just "descendant" is that it makes it clear that there's a blood relation.

And it makes a big diference— as I mention below, our most recent common ancestor is probably only 2~5,000 years old. However, genetic testing puts the age of our most recent patrilineal ancestor ("Y-chromosomal Adam", the one man every man alive now can say was his father's father's father's father's...) at more than 60,000, possibly 140,000 years old, and our most recent matrilineal ancestor ("mitochondrial Eve", the one woman etc.) is ~200,000 years old.

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#27
post #13
post #2

I wonder what the degree of relatedness (assuming inbreeding) these descendants actually have with Genghis Khan. We know that family trees break down into direct acyclic graphs over the longer term. Note that the title assumes just patrilinear descent, so any man that may have had only daughters will not pass on the Y chromosome, though he will still have a non-patrilinear lineage (carried by both sons and daughters)…

The obvious one is a difference in branching factor. Women can have ten children, and I would expect many more men than women die childless (not only because more than half of all newborns are male)

I remember reading a long article/blog entry once, and it claimed that we living humans are descended from 80% of all the women who ever lived but only 40% of all the men.

Haven't been able to find it again, though.

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#28
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious one is a difference in branching factor. Women can have ten children, and I would expect many more men than women die childless (not only because more than half of all newborns are male)

I remember reading a long article/blog entry once, and it claimed that we living humans are descended from 80% of all the women who ever lived but only 40% of all the men. Haven't been able to find it again, though.

Hrm, this may help you / someone else get closer. This also relates to the 2,000 - 5,000 year subject: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.62....

from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=all+living+hum...

Re: 1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan

#29
Douglas Adams had something to say about this.

"Mr L Prosser was, as they say, only human. In other words he was a carbon-based life form descended from an ape. More specifically he was forty, fat and shabby and worked for the local council. Curiously enough, though he didn't know it, he was also a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though intervening generations and racial mixing had so juggled his genes that he had no discernible Mongoloid characteristics, and the only vestiges left in Mr L Prosser of his mighty ancestry were a pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats.

"...Mr Prosser's mouth opened and closed a couple of times while his mind was for a moment filled with inexplicable but terribly attractive visions of Arthur Dent's house being consumed with fire and Arthur himself running screaming from the blazing ruin with at least three hefty spears protruding from his back. Mr Prosser was often bothered with visions like these and they made him feel very nervous. He stuttered for a moment and then pulled himself together.

"...He saw the bulldozer driver's union representative approaching and let his head sink back and closed his eyes. He was trying to marshal his arguments for proving that he did not now constitute a mental health hazard himself. He was far from certain about this - his mind seemed to be full of noise, horses, smoke, and the stench of blood. This always happened when he felt miserable and put upon, and he had never been able to explain it to himself. In a high dimension of which we know nothing the mighty Khan bellowed with rage, but Mr Prosser only trembled slightly and whimpered. He began to fell little pricks of water behind the eyelids. Bureaucratic cock-ups, angry men lying in the mud, indecipherable strangers handing out inexplicable humiliations and an unidentified army of horsemen laughing at him in his head - what a day."

(Hitchhikers chapter 1)

Post reply on HN