ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th September 2018, 10:30 AM   #121
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 40,921
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
No it doesn't necessarily.

Royal families tend to have family nets rather than family trees.

Of course, so does everyone in this situation, but the mesh is pretty fine in European Royal families.

That would mean that more of the ancestors (say by the fourth generation from Charlemagne) are direct descendants of Charlemagne than the average European.
Indeed, and thatís taken to the extreme in the case of the Hapsburg family; covered in Rutherfordís book (and particularly amusing when you see him talking about it live).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 12:37 PM   #122
Retrograde
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just downstream from the Big Tree
Posts: 643
Quote:
Many of those "extinct" lines left a number of descendants through out of wedlock births, adultery, or morganatic marriages. Those decedents were ineligible to inherit much of anything or rule, but if we are discussing genetic lineages, they are still there.

Not to mention descent through female lines, also, with rare exceptions, likely ineligible to inherit or rule. England's Tudor dynasty is still around and thriving, although with several name changes, for example.
Retrograde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:23 PM   #123
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
See, now that's what an argument from authority looks like.

'I'm right because authority X says so too'. It's probably also a strawman because I don't believe that Dr. Sykes said there's something like 'the original Briton gene'
I clearly stated Sykes' ideas were archaic. At least he got the ball rolling. Study of Brits genetics is surprisingly modern.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:24 PM   #124
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And whatever he said, it was about a decade ago, which is a long time in the very fast-moving area of genetic research.
Ninja-ed.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:28 PM   #125
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Can you give a reason for your skepticism?
Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.

Why? Because for every 'king', 'royal' or 'noble', there are several million 'ordinary' folk. By those odds, 1/>1m, your chances of being royal are actually low probability, not high.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:34 PM   #126
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
I google (Bryan Sykes "briton gene") and this thread is the first hit. I don't think Sykes can be held responsible.
From wiki:

Quote:
Bryan Clifford Sykes (born 9 September 1947) is a Fellow of Wolfson College, and Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford.[1][2]

Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone (Nature, 1989). Sykes has been involved in a number of high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, including that of Cheddar Man. However, the Cheddar Man findings have been disputed and it has been suggested that the results were the consequence of contamination with modern DNA.[3] His work also suggested a Florida accountant by the name of Tom Robinson was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, a claim that was subsequently disproved.[4][5][6][7]

Sykes is best known outside the community of geneticists for his bestselling books on the investigation of human history and prehistory through studies of mitochondrial DNA. He is also the founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm.

Sykes was a leading authority until he fell out big time with new leading authority [=establishment] Chris Stringer. Before that it was Thor Heyerdahl who claimed there was no way Homo sapiens ever mated with Homo neanderthalensis. His was the final word set in stone.


...until it was discovered that, actually, they did. Whoops.

Moral: all of this is 'best opinion' from what we know so far.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:41 PM   #127
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,779
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.

Why? Because for every 'king', 'royal' or 'noble', there are several million 'ordinary' folk. By those odds, 1/>1m, your chances of being royal are actually low probability, not high.
That isn't what they are saying.

High-status males with more offspring are likely to be later last common ancestors than other people simply by virtue of maths.

If Ghengis Khan sired 200 children and some of his higher-status male offspring also sired 200 children, then they are maybe 16 generations ahead of someone who only sired two children who survived to breed


But by your own figures, five centuries, one needs about one million ancestors, although there can be doubling up.

By ten centuries, you need a thousand billion ancestors, (and a smaller human population)

And you are still two centuries away from Charlemagne.

Every European alive in the Eighth Century either has no living descendants or is the ancestor of every living European.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:43 PM   #128
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why?



And?
Commonsense tells you. Just because as a male you have a near 50% chance of being an 'R' haplotype, it doesn't necessarily follow the guy sitting next to you is a near cousin even if he does have the same haplotype. R goes back about eight thousand years. A fourth or fifth cousin by definition only goes back four or five generations. It's crap logic.

The last seminar I attended (and yes, we were told to 'say hello to the person sitting next to you' [corny icebreaker {even vicars are at it}]) there was Raj on one side and a Kim Tse Tong on the other. As much as we like each other, we would be most disbelieving to be told we were 'fourth cousins'.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:50 PM   #129
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Many of those "extinct" lines left a number of descendants through out of wedlock births, adultery, or morganatic marriages. Those decedents were ineligible to inherit much of anything or rule, but if we are discussing genetic lineages, they are still there.
Aha! False premise. Whilst the royals have concubines and mistresses all over the place, all it means is that a lot of working-class people have royal blood. It doesn't follow 'all Europeans are directly descended from Charlemagne, nor does follow in reverse that royals have equal amounts of 'common' blood. Court officials used to stand at the marital bed of a new king and queen to witness that she was a virgin and the marriage was consumed. Any hint of the baby being the valet's and she'd be executed.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:52 PM   #130
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I've traced my family back to Piltdown Man.
I admire your courage in owning up to one of the biggest frauds in history.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:53 PM   #131
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And even if there are currently no living descentants of those lineages (it happens), that doesn't apply to Charlemagne, because there are families who can trace their family tree back to him.

So by Rutherford's calculations, everyone with Western European ancestry alive today is directly related to Charlemagne. And to every other person alive in Europe at that time (provided their lineage hasn't completely died out).

And no, that does not mean a direct unbroken line of patrilineal descent.
But it does mean that every one of us has as much of Charlemagne's genes in us as some German count who can trace his family tree all the way back to the Carolingians.
Pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:56 PM   #132
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Indeed, and thatís taken to the extreme in the case of the Hapsburg family; covered in Rutherfordís book (and particularly amusing when you see him talking about it live).
If you knew anything about the Hapsburg dynasty, you would know they were anethema to the protestant reformists, so any interbreeding would have halted as of mid-1500's. People don't mate randomly, they are choosy.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:58 PM   #133
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,779
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Aha! False premise. Whilst the royals have concubines and mistresses all over the place, all it means is that a lot of working-class people have royal blood. It doesn't follow 'all Europeans are directly descended from Charlemagne, nor does follow in reverse that royals have equal amounts of 'common' blood. Court officials used to stand at the marital bed of a new king and queen to witness that she was a virgin and the marriage was consumed. Any hint of the baby being the valet's and she'd be executed.
You are missing the point spectacularly.

By your own sums, if we were to get to the time of Charlemagne (8th Century) then if there was no inbreeding, you'd have needed more than a trillion ancestors alive at that time.

There was some social mobility between minor nobility and peasants in both directions, as well as between other strata of society in medieval Europe, and certainly before the futile* system was fully established.

It doesn't need much along with some intermarriage between moderately isolated communities, for the genes to spread given that you have 13 centuries for it to occur.




*cf Seller and Yeatman
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:58 PM   #134
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
Not to mention descent through female lines, also, with rare exceptions, likely ineligible to inherit or rule. England's Tudor dynasty is still around and thriving, although with several name changes, for example.
Whilst 'commoners' did indeed not register marriages or births until relatively recently it does not follow in reverse that 'upper class' women had lots of babies with the servants, in sufficient quantity to claim, 'all of Europe can claim descent from her.'
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:03 PM   #135
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,779
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you knew anything about the Hapsburg dynasty, you would know they were anethema to the protestant reformists, so any interbreeding would have halted as of mid-1500's. People don't mate randomly, they are choosy.


The British Royal family is definitely not Roman Catholic but are related to the protestant royal family trees, and the Catholic ones since before the Reformation at least.

a bit of light relief

https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy201325
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:05 PM   #136
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
That isn't what they are saying.

High-status males with more offspring are likely to be later last common ancestors than other people simply by virtue of maths.

If Ghengis Khan sired 200 children and some of his higher-status male offspring also sired 200 children, then they are maybe 16 generations ahead of someone who only sired two children who survived to breed


But by your own figures, five centuries, one needs about one million ancestors, although there can be doubling up.

By ten centuries, you need a thousand billion ancestors, (and a smaller human population)

And you are still two centuries away from Charlemagne.

Every European alive in the Eighth Century either has no living descendants or is the ancestor of every living European.
Actually, there is a lot of 'doubling up'. For example, the relatively homogenous population of Finland. A few hundred years ago, it was only about 300K. Today it is 5m and still regarded as quite homogenous, compared to other populations. In effect, they have all been marrying distant cousins, amongst themselves. All Europeans do not have the same genes as each other.

Thomas Burke is 99% Irish which means his forebears have hardly mixed at all.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:06 PM   #137
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Court officials used to stand at the marital bed of a new king and queen to witness that she was a virgin and the marriage was consumed. Any hint of the baby being the valet's and she'd be executed.
"She" might have been a virgin. "He" might not have been, and might have fathered any number of illegitimate children by then.

We Americans get that Thomas Jefferson and any other number of slave owners fathered children by their slaves - whether by rape or (unequal) consent, they clearly had children with slaves. We know that much of the African American population (at least that portion descended from slavery) has white ancestors in the mix, even if there is no documentation of it. Power breeds unequally, immoral, and without consent - but it still breeds.

Things were different with European nobility, but the concept still applies. The rich and powerful men sleep around with the less powerful women. Maybe they rape them and use their power to get away with it. Maybe they use the power imbalance to gain something like consent. Either way, the powerful men father illegitimate children with the less powerful women. That has always been the case.

Last edited by crescent; 12th September 2018 at 03:12 PM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:09 PM   #138
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
You are missing the point spectacularly.

By your own sums, if we were to get to the time of Charlemagne (8th Century) then if there was no inbreeding, you'd have needed more than a trillion ancestors alive at that time.

There was some social mobility between minor nobility and peasants in both directions, as well as between other strata of society in medieval Europe, and certainly before the futile* system was fully established.

It doesn't need much along with some intermarriage between moderately isolated communities, for the genes to spread given that you have 13 centuries for it to occur.




*cf Seller and Yeatman

I agree there was much interbreeding of social classes. However, the claim 'All Europeans are descended from Charlemange' is patronising garbage, best reserved for impressionable school kids.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:09 PM   #139
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,779
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Actually, there is a lot of 'doubling up'. For example, the relatively homogenous population of Finland. A few hundred years ago, it was only about 300K. Today it is 5m and still regarded as quite homogenous, compared to other populations. In effect, they have all been marrying distant cousins, amongst themselves. All Europeans do not have the same genes as each other.

Thomas Burke is 99% Irish which means his forebears have hardly mixed at all.
However, go back thirteen centuries, and you will find that there has been sufficient interbreeding that present Finns are still all would have Charlemagne as an ancestor (along with most other Europeans alive at that time who have any living descendants).
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:26 PM   #140
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
"She" might have been a virgin. "He" might not have been, and might have fathered any number of illegitimate children by then.

We Americans get that Thomas Jefferson and any other number of slave owners fathered children by their slaves - whether by rape or (unequal) consent, they clearly had children with slaves. We know that much of the African American population (at least that portion descended from slavery) has white ancestors in the mix, even if there is no documentation of it. Power breeds unequally, immoral, and without consent - but it still breeds.

Things were different with European nobility, but the concept still applies. The rich and powerful men sleep around with the less powerful women. Maybe they rape them and use their power to get away with it. Maybe they use the power imbalance to gain something like consent. Either way, the powerful men father illegitimate children with the less powerful women. That has always been the case.
Now we are getting somewhere. Extrapolating from that, you can readily see that not 'all Americans are descended from Charlemagne', even if its Europeans slept with African slaves brought over from C16. Some will be a descendant, many will not be. This is because populations don't tend to mate randomly.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:28 PM   #141
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,119
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
I stayed there.
Beat that!
Dad?!
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:30 PM   #142
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I agree there was much interbreeding of social classes. However, the claim 'All Europeans are descended from Charlemange' is patronising garbage, best reserved for impressionable school kids.

Hahahahahaha!

Excuse me one moment while I choose

1) the combination of a) an actual understanding of the underlying statistics involved here, b) an actual understanding how genetic analysis can effectively prove descendency, and c) the entire weight of (very serious) academic understanding and literature in this area

over

2) Your entirely reflexive, plucked-from-thin-air, argued-from-incredulity, wholly-unsupported, intellectually-deficient opinion that it's "patronising garbage, best reserved for impressionable schoolkids".


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (But do carry on with this embarrassing cavalcade of bat poo if that's what floats your boat!)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:32 PM   #143
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Now we are getting somewhere. Extrapolating from that, you can readily see that not 'all Americans are descended from Charlemagne', even if its Europeans slept with African slaves brought over from C16. Some will be a descendant, many will not be. This is because populations don't tend to mate randomly.
There was a show that traced people's ancestry. I don't remember the name. In one episode they traced the ancestry of an African-American actress - to Charlemagne. She didn't know she had white ancestors in the mix, and was surprised that the genealogists found it (a Civil War era man of French descent in New Orleans who was descended from minor nobility).

It happens.

ETA: I have no idea how my post supports your conclusion. You'll have to be more clear.

Last edited by crescent; 12th September 2018 at 03:35 PM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:36 PM   #144
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
However, go back thirteen centuries, and you will find that there has been sufficient interbreeding that present Finns are still all would have Charlemagne as an ancestor (along with most other Europeans alive at that time who have any living descendants).
According to geni.com:

Quote:
Charlemagne is your 40th great grandfather.
if its information is correct. However, I can see that not all Europeans mated randomly. There are ethnic groups within ethnic groups, who consider themselves relatively pure. For example, Sephardic Jews (who, OK, have Spanish and North African) and the Ashkenazis (who are ipso facto of German descent), or Tartars, Cossacks, Irish travellers, for example.

Just because Charlemagne is supposedly my ancestor, it doesn't mean it is true of 'everybody'. Maybe several million, but not 'all'. In any case, after forty generations he probably doesn't even comprise a nano-millimetre of an eyelash of my constitution.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:40 PM   #145
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
There was a show that traced people's ancestry. I don't remember the name. In one episode they traced the ancestry of an African-American actress - to Charlemagne. She didn't know she had white ancestors in the mix, and was surprised that the genealogists found it (a Civil War era man of French descent in New Orleans who was descended from minor nobility).

It happens.

ETA: I have no idea how my post supports your conclusion. You'll have to be more clear.
It is true that African-Americans will have significant amounts of European DNA because of slave masters sleeping with slaves. But it doesn't necessarily work the other way round. It's possible that 'all Americans have (relatively modern) sub-Saharan African DNA', but surely that would be a generalisation, based on nothing but a clever brain wave.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:42 PM   #146
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
According to geni.com:



if its information is correct. However, I can see that not all Europeans mated randomly. There are ethnic groups within ethnic groups, who consider themselves relatively pure. For example, Sephardic Jews (who, OK, have Spanish and North African) and the Ashkenazis (who are ipso facto of German descent), or Tartars, Cossacks, Irish travellers, for example.

Just because Charlemagne is supposedly my ancestor, it doesn't mean it is true of 'everybody'. Maybe several million, but not 'all'. In any case, after forty generations he probably doesn't even comprise a nano-millimetre of an eyelash of my constitution.


Hahahahahahaha!

(Oh, and what proportion of "your constitution" do you think that, for example, a 10th-generation ancestor comprises? One might, perhaps, feel smugly proud of having a famous 10th-gen ancestor - someone from maybe the late 1700s, so not ALL that long ago - but do you know what 0.5^10 actually is.....?)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:43 PM   #147
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In any case, after forty generations he probably doesn't even comprise a nano-millimetre of an eyelash of my constitution.
Which could be true of many of those "pure" groups. There may not be enough of Charles Magness to have any appreciable actual impact on their genotype. But he's still there, buried in the mix with his little <0.00000001% contribution to the family tree.

Last edited by crescent; 12th September 2018 at 03:46 PM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:46 PM   #148
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is true that African-Americans will have significant amounts of European DNA because of slave masters sleeping with slaves. But it doesn't necessarily work the other way round. It's possible that 'all Americans have (relatively modern) sub-Saharan African DNA', but surely that would be a generalisation, based on nothing but a clever brain wave.
Sure - but we are comparing a period of some hundreds (American slavery onward) of years to a period of more than a thousand (Charlemagne onward).

Come back to America in 1200 years and see who else is in the family tree of my descendants.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:47 PM   #149
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Retrograde View Post
Not to mention descent through female lines, also, with rare exceptions, likely ineligible to inherit or rule. England's Tudor dynasty is still around and thriving, although with several name changes, for example.
But only a few Eastenders, such as Danny Dyer, or bog-standard musicians, such as, Ministry of Sound founder, Berkmann, can actually prove their lineage to the Tudors, Stuarts and Plantagenets.

I knew someone who was descended from Anne Boleyn, or so she said.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:49 PM   #150
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Which could be true of many of those "pure" groups. There may not be enough of Charles Magness to have any appreciable actual impact on their genotype. But he's still there, buried in the mix with his little 0.00000001% contribution to the family tree.


Exactly.

In fact, there's PRECISELY the same proportion of King Edward II's genetic code present in (say) Danny Dyer, as there is in (say) Prince William (assuming the same number of generational leaps in each case).

But then, you and I both understand the statistical exercise at play here................
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:53 PM   #151
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hahahahahahaha!

(Oh, and what proportion of "your constitution" do you think that, for example, a 10th-generation ancestor comprises? One might, perhaps, feel smugly proud of having a famous 10th-gen ancestor - someone from maybe the late 1700s, so not ALL that long ago - but do you know what 0.5^10 actually is.....?)
I can't see why having Thomas Cromwell as an eighth grandfather shouldn't give Danny Dyer something to feel proud about.

He's not smug. He is just surprised and a bit chuffed, given his 'rough cockney' image.

By the way, it wouldn't be linear, it'd be more of a curve, so you need to express it as a logarithm.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 12th September 2018 at 03:54 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:55 PM   #152
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I can't see why having Thomas Cromwell as an eighth grandfather shouldn't give Danny Dyer something to feel proud about.

He's not smug. He is just surprised and a bit chuffed, given his 'rough cockney' image.

By the way, it wouldn't be linear, it'd be more of a curve, so you need to express it as a logarithm.

I wasn't referring to Danny Dyer

ETA: your edited last sentence makes.......... ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Logarithms have nothing at all to do with that calculation. The contribution of one's x-th ancestor to one's genome is 0.5^x. The generation-by-generation regression does indeed follow a logarithmic scale, but that's entirely irrelevant to the straight calculation for any given generationally-removed ancestor. Wow.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 12th September 2018 at 04:00 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 04:00 PM   #153
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I wasn't referring to Danny Dyer

ETA: your edited last sentence makes.......... ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Logarithms have nothing at all to do with that calculation. The contribution of one's x-th ancestor to your genome is 0.5^x. The generation-by-generation regression does indeed follow a logarithmic scale, but that's entirely irrelevant to the straight calculation for any given generationally-removed ancestor. Wow.
You have once again assumed people mate randomly. (Hint: there will be cousins of cousins within that mix.)

So cough it out - good old British envy - just who were you referring to? Hmmm?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 12th September 2018 at 04:02 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 04:03 PM   #154
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You have once again assumed people mate randomly.


No. No I haven't. It's you who have mistakenly assumed that this must be a precondition of things. I seriously suggest that you obtain some of the (voluminous, by multiple different authors around the world) articles on this subject, in order to better educate yourself on why you're wrong. The British Library will have it all.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 04:05 PM   #155
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So cough it out - good old British envy - just who were you referring to? Hmmm?


Do you know what 0.5^10 is? Can you do that calculation?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 04:16 PM   #156
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Do you know what 0.5^10 is? Can you do that calculation?
Er, would a certificate from the Institute of Statisticians do?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 04:21 PM   #157
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,506
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, would a certificate from the Institute of Statisticians do?


Possibly not, based on precedent. So, what is 0.5^10?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 06:18 PM   #158
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,919
Vixen,

I have to ask, what's your desired end-state here? You've brought stuff like this up before in relationship to other royal families, some installed in modern monarchies and some now deposed. Should any of this have some impact in how Europe (as an American, the winners of the luck sperm club have no impact on our governance, as flawed as that arrangement may be right now) govern themselves? Do you think some families should be deposed and other granted the "crown" however that is defined? I understand people having an interest in where they come from but you interest in royalty seems beyond that. Should the current royals in the UK be deposed and replaced based on this research? If so, why?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 07:01 PM   #159
Retrograde
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just downstream from the Big Tree
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde
Not to mention descent through female lines, also, with rare exceptions, likely ineligible to inherit or rule. England's Tudor dynasty is still around and thriving, although with several name changes, for example.
Whilst 'commoners' did indeed not register marriages or births until relatively recently it does not follow in reverse that 'upper class' women had lots of babies with the servants, in sufficient quantity to claim, 'all of Europe can claim descent from her.'
I don't see how your reply relates to what I originally posted. Males are more likely to be a founder of a population than females because they're capable of producing more offspring an less risk to themselves.


I mentioned the Tudors as an example of how genealogies tend to focus on male lines while ignoring descent through female lines. Popular history likes to imply they ended with Elizabeth I, and neglects the offspring of Henry VIII's sisters. However, there's an elderly woman living in London named Elizabeth Windsor (although, like Madonna and Beyonce, she only uses one name) who can trace her ancestry back to Henry VII via his daughter Margaret and her granddaughter Mary, Queen of Scots. Since Ms Windsor's great-grandmother - also in this line of descent- had a raft of children who lived to produce offspring of their own there are hundreds if not thousands Tudor descendants running around today. While not Charlemagne-levels of progeny, it's rather impressive considering that women commonly don't produce more than one offspring a year, and then only for a limited number of years. Add in another 500 years, and a male who sired over a dozen documented children by half a dozen women, and who knows how many undocumented ones -and was an expansionist conqueror based in central Europe - Charlemagne as the ancestor of modern Europeans* is plausible.


*I'm defining European as someone whose ancestors lived in what is commonly known as Europe, excluding present-day Russia.


The Tudors are also an interesting example because there seems to be a fair amount of uncertainty about how many children Henry VII's grandmother on the Tudor side had. Now this is a woman who was the daughter of a king of France and a widow of a king of England so you'd suppose that her life would be comparatively well-documented. Her one son by her first husband is: her offspring by her second husband/consort/boyfriend/whatever aren't - I've seen sources claiming from 2 to 6 of them.
Retrograde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2018, 01:34 AM   #160
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
However, I can see that not all Europeans mated randomly. There are ethnic groups within ethnic groups, who consider themselves relatively pure. For example, Sephardic Jews (who, OK, have Spanish and North African) and the Ashkenazis (who are ipso facto of German descent), or Tartars, Cossacks, Irish travellers, for example.
You just argued yourself out of your position.
And the others were not isolated by any means.
That they "consider themselves relatiely pure" is irrelevant, as any number of genetic tests have shown in people who thought they were (for example) entirely British.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Just because Charlemagne is supposedly my ancestor, it doesn't mean it is true of 'everybody'. Maybe several million, but not 'all'. In any case, after forty generations he probably doesn't even comprise a nano-millimetre of an eyelash of my constitution.
You just don't want it to be the case so that your revelation is special.
Sorry, but you're just like everyone else, bar the part that you can trace the lineage.
Most of the rest of us are the descendants of some bastard or other from Charlemagne on...

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
But only a few Eastenders, such as Danny Dyer, or bog-standard musicians, such as, Ministry of Sound founder, Berkmann, can actually prove their lineage to the Tudors, Stuarts and Plantagenets.
And again, as in the other thread, this has sod all to do with proving lineage.
It is basic genetics and statistics.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.