We are family
- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://theconversation.com/are-you-a-viking-yes-but-so-is-everyone-else-14144
Quote:Computer models predict that, despite geographical boundaries, every individual in the world today is descended from every successfully reproducing individual in the world just a few thousand years ago, when humanity had already reached every corner of the world. Maybe the answer to our would-be Vikings should be, “Yes, we all are Vikings… and Romans, Huns and Slavs, and we are also all Africans, Asians and Native Americans.”In fact, as little as four thousand years ago. Within Europe, it's one to two thousand years ago.
This is a FAQ about the paper in question, which is quite interesting in itself:
Members really should visit our blog more regularly.http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/05/one-big-family.htmlhttp://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/05/socialists-speak-same-language.htmlhttp://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/04/sunday-sermon-no-jewish-israel.htmlhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/03/we-are-indeed-all-jock-tamsons-bairns.htmlhttp://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/search?q=dnaMembers really should make our blogs their first port of call when they go on the internet to look for news.
There's also this from the Pathfinders column in this month's Socialist Standard:
Quote:Bones of ContentionA fuss has apparently broken out over where to rebury the newly disinterred remains of Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, who has been failing to push up daisies under a crypt and then a concrete car park in Leicester for 500 years until his recent sensational rediscovery. Plans to stick the semi-fossilised ex-sponger in Leicester Cathedral are being challenged by his avowed relatives who prefer York Minster. But what relatives would these be after 500 years, given that Richard had no children and was not famous for even liking them? A BBC Radio 4 programme on mathematics (More or Less, 10 May) has estimated that if Richard’s near kin produced 2 children each, and this output continued at a steady rate, there would be a million relatives by now. However if they had bred at the average rate for the period, at 2.3 children, this number would jump to 17 million. The programme went on to cite a respected 1970s study which suggested that everyone in the UK not from foreign extraction was probably descended from Edward III, Richard’s own ancestor. So what gives these ‘relatives’ the right to start arguing the toss over where to bury the bones, the programme wanted to know? Well quite. But then, what gives any of these royals or privileged poseurs the right to anything based on inheritance? Any given set of genes has a half-life of one generation, so genetically speaking, their connection to their distant forebears is at homeopathic levels anyway. You, dear reader, are probably just as ‘royal’ as they are. But that’s capitalism for you, fetishising utter silliness in the service of the elitist rich.If this is true and that most of us on this island off the North West coast of the European mainland will be descendants of Richard III or at least of Edward III, then perhaps a referendum should be held to decide where his bones should be reburied: York or Leicester?
There are now many companies which offer to tell you about your ancestors from a DNA test. You send off a sample of your DNA and £100–£200 and in return you receive a report. The results of these tests may find a connection with a well-known historical figure. They might tell you whether you are descended from groups such as Vikings or Zulus, where your ancient relatives came from or when they migrated.Adverts for these tests give the impression that your results are unique and that the tests will tell you about your specific personal history. But the very same history that you receive could equally be given to thousands of other people. Conversely, the results from your DNA tests could be matched with all sorts of different stories to the one you are given.It is well known that horoscopes use vague statements which convince recipients into thinking they have some relevance to themselves. Genetic ancestry tests do a similar thing, and many exaggerate far beyond the available evidence about human origins. You cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey. For the most part these tests cannot tell you the things they claim to – they are little more than genetic astrology.A company might tell you that you are related to the Queen of Sheba or Napoleon. The short response to this is, yes, you probably are! The same could be said for many people alive today in connection with many people from the past without having to do any genetic test at all. We are all related, it’s a matter of degree. Not only is our common ancestor estimated to have lived 3,500 years ago, but reasonable estimates show that every individual alive around 5,000 years ago was either a common ancestor of everyone alive today, or of no one alive today.So at that point in the past we all have exactly the same set of ancestors.
Latest silly story on this theme:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/14/dna-tests-estimate-that-prince-william-is-0-3-to-0-8-percent-indian/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.