According to the Bible, we are all related, all in fact descended from the same two people, whom most Chritians, or at least most fundamentalists, assert lived anywhere from six thousand to ten thousand years ago.
Amazingly, according to recent findings of a study conducted by scientists, the statistical probability is, they are more likely correct, to a point, than has previously been imagined. In fact, they might be off by as much as anywhere from one thousand years, or even more.
In fact, according to this research, the one single ancestor of every human being now living-and therefore, by extension, of every single human being that will ever live from this point-may have lived as recently as the time of Christ, two thousand years ago.
Yeah, I know that’s a real head spinner, but note the caveat. The ancestor of all humans now living-not the ancestor of every human that ever lived.
So who was he-or she-and where did this person live? Well, according to the genreral consensus, more than likely this person hailed from somewhere in
Note, the projection as to the land of origin is probably based on a comparison of genetic samples compiled over a period of years. The time frame of this persons life-anywhere from 2000 to 5000 years ago-is basd on this as well, in combination with statistical analysis.
And it’s easy to see why, once you multiply your ancestry by the method of doubling it for every preceding generation. Figuring an average of four generations per century, you will find yourself coming to an unbelievably daunting number. You have, of course, two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, etc.
To illustrate, I took it back to the 1720’s, at which point my earliest known ancestor arrived by ship to this country from Ireland as a young stowaway lad of about twelve or so. This young boy, who was my ancestor, was only one of such that lived in this time. In fact, of all my ancestors I could conceivably trace back to this time, roughly three hundred years ago, Lawrence Kelley was only one of 4096 of my ancestors that lived then.
Even taking into account the potential for double or even triple ancestry due to cousin marriages, prevalent in earlier days, or even to marriages between spouses who were unknowingly at least distantly related, it is still reasonable to arrive at the rounded off figure of 4000 ancestors for myself, just in this time span-a mere 300 years. And remember, this would be the number of ancestors I would have not in total up to this time-but those that lived just in this general span of time. Take it to just the preceding generation, and suddenly I have an extra 9092 ancesotors, at least nine thousand once rounded off for the reasons I described.
Keep going to just one thousand years, and then two thousand, and it is esy to see how it is practically impossible for every person on earth to not be related, to at least a small extent, which would naturally mean, eventually, a common ancestor.
And this person may possibly have lived in the time of Christ? For some strange reason, despite the suppossition this ancestor probably lived in
But seriously, whoever the person was, chances are he was wealthy, powerful, and had many wives, and a prolific number of children which would be considered astronomical, maybe even irresponsible, in our day and time, regardless of the persons wealth. If so, a cataloquing of such known individuals, and the testing of the dna of their known descendents, might conceivably mean his-or her-identity could be one day known to us, if only with limited certainty.
8 comments:
It was Genghis Kahn, surely . . . ;-)
Could you post a link to some solid info about this?
I had eveything stored in Microsoft Word, then something caused the program to crash and I lost it all, though I was able to retrieve like five posts. But I think it was on either Witchvox (the news section) or ABC News.com.
I kind of thought of genghis Khan as well, I think he had a lot of wives, but he didn't live long enough ago. I think he was around less than a thousand years ago, and the person had to have lived at least two thousand years ago, between that and five thousand years.
It'll probably turn out to have been an obscure Mesopotamian pimp, then. ;-)
Actually, it seems like it would be strictly geographically impossible for anyone who lived two thousand years ago to be ancestral to everyone on the planet, given the fact that some people are still descended (say, Khoisan peoples in southern Africa or pure blood first nations' Australians or North Americans) from groups that were completely seperate for more than two thousand years. I could believe that, perhaps, somebody (actually quite a few people) who lived two thousand years ago was ancestral to the majority of Eurasians. But all? That seems impossible. I'd have to see documentation on the baby's daddy chain there . . .
I see your point. But if you do that little mathematical formula I mentioned, multiply your ancestors by two for every preceding generation, it doesn't take as long as you might think before you get to a point where you are descended actually from billions of people.
So in a sense it's not so much that we are descedned from any one person from the past, as it is that once you arrive at a certain given point in time,it becomes obvious we are descended from every single one of them, or every single one that had children that is, and whose lines were not extinquished.
I think the American Indian problem is what lead them to make the suppossition about a Eastern Asian origin for the person. Personally, I think that for it to have possibly been the ancestor of every single person on earth, it would have to have gone back at least five thousand years. But maybe not, it would depend to a degree on how long those tribes you mentioned have been isolated from all others.
When last the human species was localized is so very hotly debated . . . Crap, probably not since near the end of the last ice age!
I often wonder what's being naturally selected for and against these days . . . Just wait 'til genetic engineering is complicating this . . .
Bear in mind too that every single person who is descended from that one person would not necessarily have had to begun that line of descent at the same point in time. Some people may have started five thousand years ago, another group four thousand, three thousand, two thousand, one thousamd, and some peoples might have gotten included in the mix as little as a few hundred years ao.
For example, say I have an ancestor from whom I am descended that I can trace back as long as two thusand years ago in a straight line, an ancestor from whom you are no relation to whatsoever. Then, suppose you marry my little sister and you have children. Your children then would be descended from that same ancestor every bit as much as am I. If that makes any sense.
As for the isolated tribe, bear in mind that if they have been isolated for that long, then they are all definitely descended from the same person, so it might not take too long prior to their isolation to arrive at the point of the sahred connection. The minute one person is descended from the person, the entire present day tribe is as well, provided that one persons line was not extinquished. And that last is the one aspect that makes the matter unprovable.
It's easy to assume, for eample, that we are all descended from Sargon, or from Ramses the Great, just due to the mathematical odds-but that is dependant on whether or not their lines were not extinquished, and that is impossible to know with a certainty, at least in all cases.
I agree that it's not that hard for us all the have a common ancestor, and that, indeed, we must all have a handful of ancestors who are literally ancestral to every one of us.
I only question the time-scale. Their equations may have made it seem that that person was just a couple of thousand years ago, but that person(s) was almost certainly alive during or shortly after the last Ice Age. Well, unless people were barrelling across the Bearing Strait more often than realized. (Which is quite possible!) Or maybe more Vikings made it to Newfoundland than we ever suspected. :-)
Bear in mind the time frame ranges from two thousand to five thousand years ago. Also while we may have been all descended from this one person, it does not necessarily have to be through the same child, it could have been by way of multiple children, who could have eventually been spread-or their descendant could have been spread-over a very large area, over time. Add to this that a great lot of his or her children could themselves have had multiple children, and it becomes easier to comprehend.
I don't hold by the two thousand year theory myself, I think the five thousand year span is much more likely.
Post a Comment