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 13th September 2018, 02:06 AM   #161
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,486
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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!)
You forgot to add “it’s just common sense”.

I’m enjoying the laughs as well.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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, 02:46 AM   #162
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
.........All Europeans do not have the same genes as each other.........
I'll give you a clue, Vixen. Other than identical twins, no-one has the same genes as each other.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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, 02:51 AM   #163
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,177
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.
You aren't making sense. All Europeans are also descendants of most ordinary folk living at the same time as Charlemagne.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 03:17 AM   #164
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,754
And again, being descendent from someone genetically is not the same as being able to trace your ancestry in such a specific way that you could be considered 'a noble'.

So don't worry Vixen, admitting that you only have an argument from incredulity won't affect your super special status
Porpoise of Life 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, 04:07 AM   #165
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Possibly not, based on precedent. So, what is 0.5^10?
Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 04:15 AM   #166
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
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?
I am just chatting. Class is something that obsesses the British mind. Hence, the tv programme in which a guy bragged he was related to royalty. (Edward I.)

I was just wondering if others thought this was anything even worth mentioning.

I have an interest in sociology and have been puzzling what drives this fetish for royalty and nobility. We are a class-ridden society here in the UK, so it's not a big surprise. People love programmes such as 'Keeping Up Appearances'* and 'To the Manor Born' (neither of which I have watched, beyond ten minutes) so it obviously means something to the average Brit**.

Depose the monarchy? It's a sixteenth century anachronism, but then I quite like the medieval ages, so I'm OK with it.

*Popular even in Finland.

**I had a mother-in-law who was exactly like Hyacinth Bucket.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 13th September 2018 at 04:16 AM.
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 13th September 2018, 04:23 AM   #167
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And again, being descendent from someone genetically is not the same as being able to trace your ancestry in such a specific way that you could be considered 'a noble'.

So don't worry Vixen, admitting that you only have an argument from incredulity won't affect your super special status
Va-voom! Let's shake hands...er...cousin...?
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 04:40 AM   #168
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,362
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Commonsense tells you.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Common sense. Oh, you're hilarious. 'Common sense' is used to justify all sorts of crap, pseudoscience and woo. You need to do better than that.

Quote:
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.
No, it isn't. Not based on what you just said.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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, 01:42 PM   #169
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,659
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)

See, this now appears to me like an ongoing attempt at obfuscation and bluster.

What is 0.5^10, Vixen? Simple question.
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 14th September 2018, 06:44 AM   #170
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,763
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.

Spectacular example of "thinking in polarities" exhibited here. Despite the accepted fact that every person has a huge number of ancestors if you go back many generations, somehow it must remain the case that some people are descended from royalty while most are descended from commoners. Thinking in polarities blinds Vixen to the obvious conclusion that everyone is descended from both.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 14th September 2018, 06:57 AM   #171
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
See, this now appears to me like an ongoing attempt at obfuscation and bluster.

What is 0.5^10, Vixen? Simple question.
Oh please. Look it up on google, if you can't do in your head, on the spot.

What does this have to do with anything any way?
__________________
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 14th September 2018, 06:58 AM   #172
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Spectacular example of "thinking in polarities" exhibited here. Despite the accepted fact that every person has a huge number of ancestors if you go back many generations, somehow it must remain the case that some people are descended from royalty while most are descended from commoners. Thinking in polarities blinds Vixen to the obvious conclusion that everyone is descended from both.
No ****, Sherlock?
__________________
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 14th September 2018, 07:01 AM   #173
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,362
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)
And yet you couldn't answer the question.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 14th September 2018, 07:01 AM   #174
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No ****, Sherlock?

Q.E.D.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 14th September 2018, 07:03 AM   #175
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,362
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No ****, Sherlock?
Is that more of your 'common' sense?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 14th September 2018, 01:36 PM   #176
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,659
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh please. Look it up on google, if you can't do in your head, on the spot.

What does this have to do with anything any way?


So no, you don't know.

What it has to do with anything, Vixen, is that it's just one simple manifestation of the statistical understanding required to be able to figure all of this out properly. If you did that calculation, you'd realise that even only 10 generations removed, any one of those 10th-gen ancestors only contributes to less than 1/1000 of your own genome. So even for someone who, say, brags that he/she is a descendant of someone famous/powerful from the 18th Century, the reality (genetically speaking) is that less than 1/1000 of that person was contributed by said famous/powerful ancestor.

And when you understand that, it makes it (perhaps....) easier to understand how when one goes back 30 or 40 generations, the genetic dilution becomes truly immense. And when the dilution effect is overlayed onto the network effect of the coupling permutations of societies, it's easy to arrive at the rational - and entirely correct - conclusion that, for example, everyone with European ancestry is directly related to every European who a) was alive in (say) 850AD, and b) has a descendency line reaching to the present day. Someone such as Charlemagne clearly meets both those criteria (as, of course, do millions of other Europeans alive at the same time....). And therefore every European alive today (i.e. with European ancestry) is a direct descendent of Charlemagne. (As indeed they are also a direct descendent of every other one of those millions of Europeans alive in 850AD who have a descendency line reaching to the present day).
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 14th September 2018, 01:38 PM   #177
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,659
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No ****, Sherlock?

Read Myriad's post again. Very carefully.
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 14th September 2018, 01:59 PM   #178
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Time to take a deep breath, Vixen, then admit you've got this one completely wrong. For a person with a supposed career in numbers, you don't seem to have grasped some really simple number concepts here.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 14th September 2018, 05:24 PM   #179
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So no, you don't know.

What it has to do with anything, Vixen, is that it's just one simple manifestation of the statistical understanding required to be able to figure all of this out properly. If you did that calculation, you'd realise that even only 10 generations removed, any one of those 10th-gen ancestors only contributes to less than 1/1000 of your own genome. So even for someone who, say, brags that he/she is a descendant of someone famous/powerful from the 18th Century, the reality (genetically speaking) is that less than 1/1000 of that person was contributed by said famous/powerful ancestor.

And when you understand that, it makes it (perhaps....) easier to understand how when one goes back 30 or 40 generations, the genetic dilution becomes truly immense. And when the dilution effect is overlayed onto the network effect of the coupling permutations of societies, it's easy to arrive at the rational - and entirely correct - conclusion that, for example, everyone with European ancestry is directly related to every European who a) was alive in (say) 850AD, and b) has a descendency line reaching to the present day. Someone such as Charlemagne clearly meets both those criteria (as, of course, do millions of other Europeans alive at the same time....). And therefore every European alive today (i.e. with European ancestry) is a direct descendent of Charlemagne. (As indeed they are also a direct descendent of every other one of those millions of Europeans alive in 850AD who have a descendency line reaching to the present day).
Oh dear. I really could not care less about a supposed connection to Charlemagne (what is YOUR connection to him, anyway, other than a tree-hugging patronising, "we are all humans related to all other humans"). I have never been the slightest interested in French or German history, so only you are upset by it (and Rutherford seems to be upset about Christopher Lee's professed descent).

OK, so you managed to calculate that one has circa 1,000 grandparents from
ten generations ago. However, I have identified literally dozens of direct grandparents from ten and beyond generations ago, not just one. These would be XXXX which you would never have heard of and would have no interest in. Remember, they all married into each other's families, so this went on for generations, not just one. Meaningless to you, and unsurprising, given the geography and history, but for me, yes, there is pride. For example, I was reading a book this evening by an eminent historian, Michael Roberts, who sadly, is deceased - otherwise I would want to write to him praising his dry ascerbic wit and sharp insights - titled, The Early Vasas - A history of Sweden, 1523 - 1611, Cambridge University Press, 1968 wherein he says of XXXX:

"But in 1565 began a series of brilliant naval victories by a great Admiral, XXXX'... p. 217

Roberts was 'Professor of Modern History, The Queens University , Belfast'. So that is discerning praise indeed.


Do you think people really are so thick they don't understand how progeny works, and they need patronising smiley gits like Brian Cox giving us condescending soundbites, like a Blue Peter presenter, as if only their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 14th September 2018 at 06:00 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 14th September 2018, 06:38 PM   #180
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,659
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. I really could not care less about a supposed connection to Charlemagne (what is YOUR connection to him, anyway, other than a tree-hugging patronising, "we are all humans related to all other humans"). I have never been the slightest interested in French or German history, so only you are upset by it (and Rutherford seems to be upset about Christopher Lee's professed descent).

Uhhhh say what now? Did you actually read my post properly? What on Earth has "French and German history" got to do with the actual point of my post? And where the heck did you get the notion that I'm "upset by it"?!


Quote:
OK, so you managed to calculate that one has circa 1,000 grandparents from ten generations ago.

Not a difficult calculation. But one which seems to have eluded you.....



Quote:
However, I have identified literally dozens of direct grandparents from ten and beyond generations ago, not just one.

Yes. Well you would have had thousands of "direct grandparents" from that number of generations back (why are you using "grandparents"??)


Quote:
These would be XXXX which you would never have heard of and would have no interest in. Remember, they all married into each other's families, so this went on for generations, not just one. Meaningless to you, and unsurprising, given the geography and history,


Again, my post had nothing to do with the "meaningless" nature (or otherwise) of any given person's ancestors. It had a lot more to do with the fact that when one has, say, 10,000 direct ancestors to choose from (as indeed one would when going back 14-15 generations), there always exists a significant likelihood that one will discover that a few of those 10,000 were notable figures of some sort.



Quote:
but for me, yes, there is pride.

That's marvellous. What of the other 9,997 of your direct ancestors from that era?



Quote:
For example, I was reading a book this evening by an eminent historian, Michael Roberts, who sadly, is deceased - otherwise I would want to write to him praising his dry ascerbic wit and sharp insights - titled, The Early Vasas - A history of Sweden, 1523 - 1611, Cambridge University Press, 1968 wherein he says of XXXX:

"But in 1565 began a series of brilliant naval victories by a great Admiral, XXXX'... p. 217

Roberts was 'Professor of Modern History, The Queens University , Belfast'. So that is discerning praise indeed.


But yet you strangely choose to belittle or disregard the academic standing of all those eminent geneticists and statisticians who support the conclusion that you "argue" against (seemingly on the basis of nothing more than your own personal hunch).



Quote:
Do you think people really are so thick they don't understand how progeny works, and they need patronising smiley gits like Brian Cox giving us condescending soundbites, like a Blue Peter presenter, as if only their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!


Oh I think it's abundantly clear from this thread alone that some people "really are so thick that they don't understand how progeny works", especially when dealing with the exponentially increasing numbers of direct ancestors one has when going back multiple generations, and how this must necessarily lead to convergence of ancestors.
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 16th September 2018, 05:43 PM   #181
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Almost: she gave birth suspiciously shortly after he got her back from that rival Khan.
And the 2 Khans undoubtedly had a common ancestor. Plus, the descendants of cuckoo in Genghis Khan's nest probably had descendants who married into the line of descendants of Genghis Khan, meaning the cuckoo's descendants may well be direct descendants of Genghis Khan.

I'm not sure what that proves.

Here is something kind of off-topic but you may well know: How is it that 2 major conquerors of China ended up becoming Chinese? Mongols and Manchus were just subsumed into the Chinese population, it seems.
Minoosh 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 17th September 2018, 04:15 PM   #182
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Uhhhh say what now? Did you actually read my post properly? What on Earth has "French and German history" got to do with the actual point of my post? And where the heck did you get the notion that I'm "upset by it"?!





Not a difficult calculation. But one which seems to have eluded you.....






Yes. Well you would have had thousands of "direct grandparents" from that number of generations back (why are you using "grandparents"??)






Again, my post had nothing to do with the "meaningless" nature (or otherwise) of any given person's ancestors. It had a lot more to do with the fact that when one has, say, 10,000 direct ancestors to choose from (as indeed one would when going back 14-15 generations), there always exists a significant likelihood that one will discover that a few of those 10,000 were notable figures of some sort.






That's marvellous. What of the other 9,997 of your direct ancestors from that era?







But yet you strangely choose to belittle or disregard the academic standing of all those eminent geneticists and statisticians who support the conclusion that you "argue" against (seemingly on the basis of nothing more than your own personal hunch).







Oh I think it's abundantly clear from this thread alone that some people "really are so thick that they don't understand how progeny works", especially when dealing with the exponentially increasing numbers of direct ancestors one has when going back multiple generations, and how this must necessarily lead to convergence of ancestors.

Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?
__________________
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 17th September 2018, 11:41 PM   #183
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
......... their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!
How is it then that everyone else has grasped this, and you haven't? Keep going with that sequence. Keep going until there are more ancestors than there are people in Europe at the time. I really don't understand how anyone struggles with such a simple concept.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 17th September 2018, 11:43 PM   #184
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?
Classic! Avoid the point entirely, and make a spurious comment about something that isn't even in the quote.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 18th September 2018, 04:32 AM   #185
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
How is it then that everyone else has grasped this, and you haven't? Keep going with that sequence. Keep going until there are more ancestors than there are people in Europe at the time. I really don't understand how anyone struggles with such a simple concept.
But royalty wouldn't lower itself to have children with the hoi polloi!
That seems to be the limit of Vixens argument.
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
Old 18th September 2018, 04:36 AM   #186
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,362
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?
Wow that is a pretty fantastic dodge.

Why do you even post here if you're not going to address people's points and just post nonsense instead?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 18th September 2018, 05:00 AM   #187
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,754
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
But royalty wouldn't lower itself to have children with the hoi polloi!
That seems to be the limit of Vixens argument.
And she seems to miss that even if kings and queens would exclusively marry other royalty, it only takes one cousin, nephew, bastard or whatever marrying lower nobility (or a commoner) or one rape of a miller's daughter for tens of thousands of commoners to be able to trace their ancestry to an earlier king in the line, after only a few generations.

And after enough generations, even without assuming some weird randomised mating system, the entirety of a population will be descents of every single individual from an earlier generation that still has living descendants.
Porpoise of Life 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 18th September 2018, 07:16 AM   #188
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,430
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And she seems to miss that even if kings and queens would exclusively marry other royalty, it only takes one cousin, nephew, bastard or whatever
Not to mention sister or younger brother.

There's also the existence of the concept of morganatic marriage, which demonstrates that marriage with commoners was not unknown in Continental Europe (leaving aside the fact that marriage is not a requirement for procreation). In the UK, there's never been any legal restriction on royalty marrying commoners, and it's happened many times over the centuries.
__________________
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 25th September 2018, 06:10 PM   #189
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines. Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty). They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.

Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony. I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)


I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 25th September 2018 at 06:12 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 25th September 2018, 06:15 PM   #190
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow that is a pretty fantastic dodge.

Why do you even post here if you're not going to address people's points and just post nonsense instead?
You mean, London John has no answer.
__________________
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 25th September 2018, 11:23 PM   #191
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,264
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines. Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty). They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.

Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony. I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)


I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.
You have a relationship to the children, but not to the mother of said children?
How does that work?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 25th September 2018, 11:46 PM   #192
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,177
EDIT: Porpoise of Life just made clear that I'd missed something obvious, so I'll just delete that poorly thought out post...
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 26th September 2018 at 12:51 AM.
Roboramma 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 26th September 2018, 12:02 AM   #193
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,754
It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.
Porpoise of Life 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 26th September 2018, 05:41 AM   #194
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,659
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.


It's amusing, isn't it, to observe someone who doesn't know what they're talking about pronouncing with certitude - based on, it would appear, nothing more than the combination of a (bogus) argument from incredulity and a profound lack of understanding of statistics and genetics
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 26th September 2018, 05:55 AM   #195
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I........
Nothing after that point is worth reading. You don't understand the principles, have no grasp of maths or statistics, and eschew logical argument. Blather away with your family stories. They just demonstrate your lack of understanding.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 26th September 2018, 08:07 AM   #196
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,510
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines.
True and not surprising
Quote:
Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty).
Not surprising - but think through the consequences. How many of these illegitimate children had children and how many of these there are good records for their great grandchildren

Quote:
They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.
Not sure where this is going, but still...
Quote:
Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony.
You are starting to confuse documented lineage with actual kinship here
Quote:
I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)
And here is where you fall over. On many levels

You are in effect claiming that you and her husband share a common ancestor. That is almost certainly true.

However I *really* doubt that you can trace all your ancestors to the 16th Century - and even if the spouses of the mothers were documented, in that time, there is probably some bastardy.

Quote:


I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.
The two highlighted parts are wrong.

The first because of the second. You don't know all your ancestors to the 16th Century. If you did, you'd probably have to be even more inbred than the Hasburgs.

Or these

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's amusing, isn't it, to observe someone who doesn't know what they're talking about pronouncing with certitude - based on, it would appear, nothing more than the combination of a (bogus) argument from incredulity and a profound lack of understanding of statistics and genetics
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Nothing after that point is worth reading. You don't understand the principles, have no grasp of maths or statistics, and eschew logical argument. Blather away with your family stories. They just demonstrate your lack of understanding.
__________________
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 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 4th October 2018, 03:51 PM   #197
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
You have a relationship to the children, but not to the mother of said children?
How does that work?
Through King John III, hello? Their father.
__________________
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 17th October 2018, 05:14 PM   #198
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Danny Dyer descendant of William the Conqueror is hired by BBC history department.

Quote:
The ancestry show Who Do You Think You Are? revealed last year that Dyer was a descendant of William the Conqueror and Thomas Cromwell.

In his new show the actor will explore 800 years of history by living in the style of some of his forebears. He will be seen eating sheep’s tongue as the Vikings did, donning a ruff for an Elizabethan banquet and learning how to hunt.


He said: “I’m still in shock at the fact that I’m related to such important people. I’ve had a ball getting to know them. It was a nutty experience.”
__________________
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 23rd October 2018, 04:39 AM   #199
apollo16uvc
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 39
I dont really care, how much does lineage matter? Its what you do, not where you came from.
apollo16uvc 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 23rd October 2018, 08:47 AM   #200
Woolgatherer
Graduate Poster
 
Woolgatherer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,711
I'm a descendant of Christian Viking Gamel or so I've been told.
Woolgatherer 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 03:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.