Julia Thompson wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote
I must inherit the Earth and be its EVIL OVERLORD!!!
Can I be a minion? PLEASE?
I think it all depends on how you look in black leather. :-p
Jim
Would settle for a position as lackey Maru
___
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote
I must inherit the Earth and be its EVIL OVERLORD!!!
Can I be a minion? PLEASE?
I think it all depends on how you look in black leather. :-p
Jim
Would settle for a position as lackey Maru
I'm capable of looking
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Can I be a minion? PLEASE?
I think it all depends on how you look in black leather. :-pbr I'm
capable of looking pretty hot in black leather, actually.
Why Mrs. Thompson, I am *SHOCKED* at such a statement from a woman
of
On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Can I be a minion? PLEASE?
I think it all depends on how you look in black leather. :-p
I'm capable of looking pretty hot in black leather, actually.
Why Mrs.
On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
[I can't trace back to Charlemagne, AFAIK, but I know some relatives
who are doing research, and they are struck in 1500 or 1600. But now
I don't care for this, I want to trace me back to JESUS and claim
that I must inherit the Earth and be
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
Can I be a minion? PLEASE?
I think it all depends on how you look in black leather. :-p
I'm capable of looking pretty hot in black leather, actually.
Why Mrs. Thompson, I am *SHOCKED* at such a
Julia Thompson crawled under my throne:
[I can't trace back to Charlemagne, AFAIK, but I know some relatives
who are doing research, and they are struck in 1500 or 1600. But now
I don't care for this, I want to trace me back to JESUS and claim
that I must inherit the Earth and be its EVIL
At 07:21 PM Saturday 7/8/2006, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Julia Thompson crawled under my throne:
[I can't trace back to Charlemagne, AFAIK, but I know some relatives
who are doing research, and they are struck in 1500 or 1600. But now
I don't care for this, I want to trace me
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Bell wrote:
... and second, the
maths of evolutionary genetics is against you - while direct chromosomal
inheritance goes down exponentially by generation, family tree goes up
exponentially by generation (to within population limits).
On 7/5/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let me rephrase my claim. Everybody that lives now descends
from _every Eurasian person_ that lived in Year 800 and that has
at least _one_ living descendant.
We can trace my wife's ancestors back to Charlemagne, who died around
the
Nick Arnett wrote:
On 7/5/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let me rephrase my claim. Everybody that lives now descends
from _every Eurasian person_ that lived in Year 800 and that has
at least _one_ living descendant.
We can trace my wife's ancestors back to Charlemagne, who
Julia Thompson wrote:
The wikipedia had a project, wikitree, to collect all ancestors from
volunteers. I guess that if this was done, everybody could be linked
to everybody :-)
Do you have a link? That would be interesting
www.wikitree.org
Alberto Monteiro
Julia Thompson wrote:
The wikipedia had a project, wikitree, to collect all ancestors from
volunteers. I guess that if this was done, everybody could be linked
to everybody :-)
Do you have a link? That would be interesting
www.wikitree.org
Alberto Monteiro
Julia Thompson wrote:
The wikipedia had a project, wikitree, to collect all ancestors from
volunteers. I guess that if this was done, everybody could be linked
to everybody :-)
Do you have a link? That would be interesting
www.wikitree.org
Alberto Monteiro
Julia Thompson wrote:
The wikipedia had a project, wikitree, to collect all ancestors from
volunteers. I guess that if this was done, everybody could be linked
to everybody :-)
Do you have a link? That would be interesting
www.wikitree.org
Alberto Monteiro
Nick Arnett wrote:
So, let me rephrase my claim. Everybody that lives now descends
from _every Eurasian person_ that lived in Year 800 and that has
at least _one_ living descendant.
We can trace my wife's ancestors back to Charlemagne, who died around
the year 813. But as I have heard, a
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
So, let me rephrase my claim. Everybody that lives now descends
from _every Eurasian person_ that lived in Year 800 and that has
at least _one_ living descendant.
We can trace my wife's ancestors back to Charlemagne,
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
So, let me rephrase my claim. Everybody that lives now descends
from _every Eurasian person_ that lived in Year 800 and that has
at least _one_ living descendant.
We can trace my wife's ancestors back to Charlemagne, who died around
the year 813. But
William T Goodall wrote:
Ok, so let's do the math. Let's create a simulation model,
splitting a human population of 1 Giga into 100-member
tribes [easy enough for modern computers], spread these tribes
all over the globe, create a rule of cross-contamination
[two neighbouring tribes exchange
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
Ok, so let's do the math. Let's create a simulation model,
splitting a human population of 1 Giga into 100-member
tribes [easy enough for modern computers], spread these tribes
all over the globe, create a rule of cross-contamination
[two
On 06/07/2006, at 10:37 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Sorry, there is too reason to doubt their numbers. The above
model sounds too simple and homogeneous. Even if such a model
incorporates geography, it still doesn't do better than guesswork
when it comes to the cross-contamination probabilities.
Charlie Bell wrote:
...
All it takes is one region, somewhere in the world, with negligible
cross-contamination probabilities. If this exists, people in the
middle of it will not be descendants of Genghis Khan, Charlemagne,
or whoever.
One small region that's managed to stay TOTALLY
On 07/07/2006, at 12:55 AM, David Hobby wrote:
I'm not arguing against a figure of 10,000 years, that's a long time.
Alberto and others were pushing for a much lower figure, around 1000
years, for EVERYONE to share ancestry from some person who lived then.
Were they? I thought the common
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/07/2006, at 12:55 AM, David Hobby wrote:
I'm not arguing against a figure of 10,000 years, that's a long time.
Alberto and others were pushing for a much lower figure, around 1000
years, for EVERYONE to share ancestry from some person who lived then.
Were they? I
On 07/07/2006, at 2:20 AM, David Hobby wrote:
But it's genetic drift that CAUSES the inbreeding, isn't
it? (It's not the fall that kills, but the impact. : ) )
No. Inbreeding is a description of closed populations, such that
deleterious recessive alleles may become more frequent, and so
On 07/07/2006, at 2:20 AM, David Hobby wrote:
But then why the
big argument when I pointed out in the first place that it
probably wasn't ALL humanity that was descended from one
individual in the recent past?
Missed out on commenting on this first time round...
Don't say such a thing in
Charlie Bell wrote:
... and second, the
maths of evolutionary genetics is against you - while direct chromosomal
inheritance goes down exponentially by generation, family tree goes up
exponentially by generation (to within population limits). Or do you
really think you had 2,147,483.648
At 07:01 PM Thursday 7/6/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/07/2006, at 2:20 AM, David Hobby wrote:
But then why the
big argument when I pointed out in the first place that it
probably wasn't ALL humanity that was descended from one
individual in the recent past?
Missed out on commenting on
David Hobby wrote:
If so, one who wanted
to prove that everybody was descended from a Eurasian of 5000 years
ago would have to show that all of the native peoples of the Americas
had picked up some European blood in 20 to 25 generations. Even
tribes deep in the Amazon jungle...
Those
Julia Thompson wrote:
At the generation where you'd expect me to have 128 ancestors, I have
122. (There was a first-cousin marriage at one point, and a
second-cousin marriage at another. And on top of that, I know someone
whose closest degree of relation to me is third cousin -- but he's
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Roots of human family tree are shallow
Not 'til the full mitochondrial dna cladistic tree is created.
Since mitochondria
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
At the generation where you'd expect me to have 128 ancestors, I have
122. (There was a first-cousin marriage at one point, and a
second-cousin marriage at another. And on top of that, I know someone
whose closest degree of
At 08:23 PM Thursday 7/6/2006, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
If so, one who wanted
to prove that everybody was descended from a Eurasian of 5000 years
ago would have to show that all of the native peoples of the Americas
had picked up some European blood in 20
On 07/07/2006, at 4:20 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Not 'til the full mitochondrial dna cladistic tree is created.
Since mitochondria are only inherited though the female side of ones
lineage, how would that show that we are all descended from one male?
Maybe I'm a bit slow today, but I
On 05/07/2006, at 6:24 AM, David Hobby wrote:
So it sounds like we all agree on the broad outline.
If you have a tribe of N people and one invader, then
the invader's genes would start with a frequency of
1/N. Barring selection, the frequency would stay at
about that level. Over generations,
David Hobby wrote:
I'm with the Fool on this one. There are too many semi-isolated
groups.
Yes - and the key word here is *** semi ***
The Americas were already isolated enough, I bet, so that
there are a few completely full-blooded Indians around.
It depends on how you define a
The Fool wrote:
1st generation children would have about 23 chromosomes from lone
invader-parent.
We are not talking about genetics, we are talking about
genealogy.
An Actual Inverse Square-Law as opposed to Alberto's Sqaure-Law.
The Law is this: suppose a non-racist, non-classist
On 5 Jul 2006, at 12:13PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
I'm with the Fool on this one. There are too many semi-isolated
groups.
Yes - and the key word here is *** semi ***
The Americas were already isolated enough, I bet, so that
there are a few completely full-blooded
The Fool wrote:
Didn't native americans cross the land bridge circa 14,000
years ago, and remained relatively unconnected to other
human populations until circa 1492?
The key word is relatively. There is no true isolation.
I'm not buying it. There was no common ancestor as of 2000 ya
or
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
Didn't native americans cross the land bridge circa 14,000
years ago, and remained relatively unconnected to other
human populations until circa 1492?
The key word is relatively. There is no true isolation.
I'm not buying
The Fool wrote:
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
Didn't native americans cross the land bridge circa 14,000 years
ago, and remained relatively unconnected to other human
populations until circa 1492?
The key word is relatively. There is no true isolation.
I'm not
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool wrote:
Didn't native americans cross the land bridge circa 14,000 years
ago, and remained relatively unconnected to other human
populations until circa 1492?
The key word is
On 05/07/2006, at 2:29 AM, The Fool wrote:
1st generation children would have about 23 chromosomes from lone
invader-parent.
2nd gen would have on average 11-12 chromosomes.
3rd gen would have on average 6 chromosomes.
4th gen would have on average 3 chromosomes.
5th gen would have on average
The Fool wrote:
Genetically, I think it was that chinese people are about 8% decended from
Khan. At least that is what the last thing I read about it said.
No, it's stronger than that: 8% of some oriental folk [not chinese, probably
mongolian but also other places] descend from Gengis Khan in
The Fool wrote:
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I think your math is off. Otherwise there would be a much more even
distribution of alleles.
No, there doesn't have to be much gene flow at all for
everyone to have a recent common ancestor. This is the
gist of Alberto's argument that
delurking
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_sc/brotherhood_of_man
Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago, somewhere in
East Asia — Taiwan, Malaysia and Siberia all are likely locations. He —
or she — did nothing more remarkable than be born, live, have children
and
From: Ticia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
delurking
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_sc/brotherhood_of_man
Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago, somewhere in
East Asia Taiwan, Malaysia and Siberia all are likely locations. He
or she did nothing more remarkable
On 04/07/2006, at 12:56 AM, The Fool wrote:
Didn't native americans cross the land bridge circa 14,000 years
ago, and
remained relatively unconnected to other human populations until
circa 1492?
Apart from Vikings in Newfoundland and Greenland in the 8th/9th
century...
Charlie
Apart from Vikings in Newfoundland and Greenland in the 8th/9th
century...
There was a scholarly discussion about this on one of my history
groups just last week. One of the conclusions they came to is that
there is no strong evidence to suggest either interbreeding with the
Inuit or not.
In a message dated 7/3/2006 3:51:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a mathematical certainty that that person existed, said Steve
Olson, whose 2002 book Mapping Human History traces the history of the
species since its origins in Africa more than 100,000 years
50 matches
Mail list logo
