My relatives would sometimes talk about how we were related to some deposed king or some princess who ran away to avoid being married. I thought it's likely there's enough princesses and undocumented deposed kings out there that everyone should have a great-great-grandaunt who was a legitimate princess in their lineage. This article supports that theory.
Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
61–70 of 142 posts
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The point in the article is that at many generations ago, we are heavily inbred, it is not that we are all related. I'm not following your point - maybe it's just a linguistic thing. To me, inbreeding implies relation, at least blood-relation, even when there was no other relation, e.g. conquering armies raping and pillaging. No argument with your math.
There might have been multiple separated inbreeding groups. Yes these groups are related among themselves but not inter-group.
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you change your example of Asian shortness from Chinese to Korean when rewriting this comment? Did you look up statistics for Chinese basketball players and decide there were too many of them playing at an elite level to support your narrative? If so... you do realize that Koreans and Chinese are different ethnicities but the same race, right? And that all of them play basketball?
> Did you look up statistics for Chinese basketball players and realize there were too many of them to support your narrative? No. I realize that there are many tall Asians, as well as that there are many tall Asians who play basketball. These two facts are not relevant to my argument. I changed the example from Chinese to Korean (not that it matters because the argument works the same with either), because China is…
Claims about inherent racial strengths and weaknesses always break down once the actual genetic diversity within the population of a "race" is taken into account, because what we consider to be "race" is broad and mostly defined by cultural and political factors, rather than genetics.
By definition, professional athletes are genetic exceptions. So it would make no sense to compare the average member of any population to the elites in the NBA and make claims about race in general. Particularly with something as trivial and variant as height.
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#64Haven't recent discoveries undermined this theory?
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you about the "noble" lies. You wrote something else that I have never seen before and that seems quite interesting: > When DNA recombines at conception, it only snips and stitches in a fairly limited number of places. It doesn't 'mix' finely like paint. I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces…
> I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces of DNA I never understood this position from the logical point of view. Say that you were put in front of two pictures that are entirely covered except for a small visible part each. The two visible parts of the pictures are different. Would you ever assume the par…
Some very small genes have very large visible expression. Some large chunks of DNA have very little.
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#66My relatives would sometimes talk about how we were related to some deposed king or some princess who ran away to avoid being married. I thought it's likely there's enough princesses and undocumented deposed kings out there that everyone should have a great-great-grandaunt who was a legitimate princess in their lineage. This article supports that theory.
Even more interesting IMO is that the same argument holds not just for royalty but also for religious figures whose descendants have special divinely-sanctioned status in various different religions. For example, it's quite likely that we're all descendants of the original high priest Aaron, whose descendants and no-one else are allowed by God to perform certain actions (caveat: the ancient texts are ambiguous about…
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play with the river analogy: and then imagine that it flows next to a dye factory, and every now and then a droplet of dye finds its way to the stream, creating a colorful streak. That's to account for random mutations. And then what would an analogy look for prokaryotes - bacteria, archaea? If my understanding of biology is correct, it would be like an infinitely tall, densely tiered waterfall. There's some forwa…
To continue playing with our river analogy: consider a man fishing beside the river, who catches a large salmon. The man is ecstatic, for he is poor, and his family is hungry. Just as he draws his knife to gut it, the fish speaks! It says "Please do not kill me. Throw me back into the river, for I am the Fish King, and I will grant you 3 wishes. You can have whatever your heart desires." Astonished, the man agrees, a…
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#68This was also a conclusion in a thoughty2 youtube video I watched: This Is Why Inbreeding Is So Dangerous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmv-z851BOE I'm pretty this is why people all over the world like to keep track of their ancestry. People who don't will be more closely inbred.
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces of DNA I never understood this position from the logical point of view. Say that you were put in front of two pictures that are entirely covered except for a small visible part each. The two visible parts of the pictures are different. Would you ever assume the par…
It's because DNA is not a one-to-one encoding from code to visible expression. Some very small genes have very large visible expression . Some large chunks of DNA have very little.
Let me change your italics:
Some very small genes have very large visible expression
So small parts of the DNA code for changes that we can visually appreciate. This doesn't mean that the rest of the DNA contains no variations, but just that we cannot see them. But it would be wrong to assume that the only parts that are actually different are those which encode for visible characteristics.
Re: Humans are more closely related than we commonly think
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
There might have been multiple separated inbreeding groups. Yes these groups are related among themselves but not inter-group.
The article is saying that every person bears some relation to each other, even among distant groups. No further back than 3500 years ago existed a person who was a common ancestor to every currently living human being.