We Are All Related

One-word answer: tribalism.

Are you trying to tell me I'm related to Rita Hayworth?

By marriage would be the best way....

If only ......

Um guys, I hate to break it to you but she's been dead since 1987.

But I would have been quite happy to be her toy-boy in the 1950's.

Miss Hayworth does not perspire--she glows.

--Orson Welles

The problem with your numbers is that while at 20 generations there may be 1million slots on your tree they will not be filled by 1million unique individuals. I think a full study would be interesting to see how inbred we are.

In late 16thC early 17thC (taking 20 - 25 years for a generation) most people didn't leave their village distant inbreeding 3rd/4th cousins was probably pretty common.

My wife is Scots as far back as she knows my grandparents were Irish and London / Kent but my Mum is doing our tree and going up my Dad's Mum's line there's a Scot four generations up from me (a lowlander - the Glasgow area, my wife's family are Bute and the same Glasgow & SW area) so I'd say going back 20 gens the chances are i am related to my wife!

Sounds like agreement with the OP to me.

We are all more closely related than we may realize.

There are probably really less than 6 points of separation between any two individuals if all of the genetics were finally traced.

Thousands of years ago the human race went through a bottleneck and almost went extinct,and most Mitochondrial DNA from all humans living today can be traced to around 30 or so fertile females that survived during that period.

Cause for the collapse is not really known,could have been climatic,volcanic winter,etc.,but the point is we are really all very closely related.

Peace,Brother!

1) I recently read Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible," in which he briefly mentions that humans have very probably been almost wiped out on several occasions.

2) Creationists are convinced that Earth was created 6,000 years ago and stick to this tenet like limpets, despite all the evidence that Earth is billions of years old.

Is it possible that human life was 'restarted' from the remnants 6,000 years ago after some cataclysmic event, leading Creationists to their wrong conclusion?

Yes it is!

Link:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040930122428.htm

So, basically, each and every species on earth, has a common ancestor with each and every other species - except for creationists of course

'Carbon Dating' by dulwichscience

I once saw a family tree of the Vanderbilt family. The family has managed to maintain its wealth through intermarriage - Vanderbilt-related family members marrying second and third cousins. Enough people marry into the family to prevent any genetic problems; intermarriage keeps the wealth from being dissipated.

OTOH, the Amish also marry other Amish within their small community, and this tends to keep the Amish free of some diseases, but susceptible to genetic diseases.

And if you go back a few generations further you will find a chimp or two and a duck-billed platypus as relatives.

...to say the least.

"...We all share genes with the most distant relatives..." - Richard Dawkins

"In my experience the closest to human beings are the Buddhists."

Atheists.

We already knew we're all related.

This guy will put a wrinkle in future DNA historians calculations,similar to Genghis Khan:

http://archive.boston.com/lifestyle/family/articles/2011/09/15/sperm_donor_has_75_kids_and_counting/

If you go back 33 generations were there 8 billion people on the planet? Surely if you go back far enough your family tree would be diamond shaped with you at one end and adam and eve on the other. *Note*Substitute whichever names you prefer for Adam and Eve.

This reply also to #23:

I did not say that there were 8 billion people 33 generations ago.

34 generations would double that number,and every generation would double the further back you went in time.

Common sense will tell anyone that that is not true if one considers the current population of the planet.

I was simply illustrating the point that it was impossible for everyone to have a unique ancestry,that everyone must be closely related,but very difficult to trace their ancestry back more than a few generations.

Perhaps my meaning was not clearly explained.

My bad.

Yeah, I didn't mean to come across as taking your point literally, I was merely pointing out that when people talk of the family tree expanding as they progress back through generations it is likely that at some point the ancestral pool will start to converge rather than diverge.

I agree that we are all closely related, we just don't seem to act like it. I was watching a Netflix movie the other night called Extinction and I thought we need something like that to happen to make us realise we are all humans.

At one point several years ago, I raised the question of how many individual have lived on earth since recorded history began; there are actually people who research/study this kind of question.

The answer came back that 110 Billion have the walked the earth. That said, it is easy to imagine we are all related; the question remains as to why so much sibling rivalry continues to exist.

110 billion is not correct. There are more people on the earth currently than there were in all previous generations combined.

Perhaps a bit of a conundrum for the reincarnation believers... Where do the new souls come from, or do the old ones fission?

Souls are kept in the Guf, when the Guf is empty, that will be the beginning of a new existence...so the story goes....

A lighter look at souls....

https://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.htmlhttps://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html

Love it.

It is still easy to imagine we are all related; the question still remains as to why so much sibling rivalry continues to exist. Until we get that right and correct it, we won't have lasting peace in the earth.

how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

I came across this a few years ago and found it interesting.

Hence "Agenda 21. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Per Adams:

Bipedal carbon based lifeforms descended from an ape and they don't know any better.

Also, so amazingly primitive that they still think digital wristwatches are a pretty neat idea.

With the recent species jumping of some really interesting pathogens and adaptations of more common forms to drug resistance, I suspect the species population growth/decline curve will remain on track.

Just in the interests of accuracy:

"Humans and apes share common ancestors" is true.

"Humans are descended from an ape" is not true. Darwin's detractors made the same mistake.

Are you saying that the Book Of Adams is incorrect?

What about aliens?

Surely you remember this....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worldwide-dna-project-to-map-the-origins-of-humanity-486157.html

Most of the population growth has taken place in the last 200 years or so, with population est of 1 billion occurring in 1804, and population est at around 7.5 billion now, so that's only about 10 generations....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

What if those aliens are hermaphrodites, being able to clone themselves ?

I believe this is a flawed analysis to a valid conclusion. I believe the major flaw in the analysis is that it assumes no genetic mutation happened in the multiple generation regression analysis and that each generation has to be fixed unique pattern based solely on the genetic makeup of the previous generations. Neither of these assumptions is true. As the field of gene therapy has demonstrated, our DNA changes after birth depending mostly on environmental conditions but sometimes just by an uncorrected error in copying. I also question the conclusion that 33 generations back from one individual required 8 billion unique ancestors. Consider the effect on your analysis by a culture that promotes harems.

Nonetheless, forensic anthropologists and geneticists have identified multiple population bottleneck events in our past. These events certainly concentrated the commonality of our ancestors.

the resemblance is rather shocking.

Anybody who has watched "Who Do You Think You Are" knows that everybody is related to Barbara Walters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Go back 33 generations and all the individuals you calculate are not separate individuals. I hate to break the news, but incest may clarify the numbers.

The numbers are correct,however,if you will read and understand the original post,you will see that I did not claim that there were that many unique individual ancestors,but quite the contrary;I used the math to show that there can not possibly be a unique family tree for every individual in the human race,and that the family tree of all humans is an intertwined overlapping bramble bush thicket.

There can not possibly be 8G² unique ancestors for humans on this planet,for that far exceeds the number of humans that have ever existed.

It goes without saying that a lot of our ancestry is "incestry",because people were not very mobile and did not stray far from where they were born.

As I said,we are all more closely related than we realize.

Sorry I did not express my meaning more clearly.

No need for a 'sorry', you have expressed things well and raised an interesting issue.

Another curious point is that people have, to varying degree, Neanderthal DNA. Also, according to who you believe, all modern humans derive from no more than a handful of individuals.

Philip Larkin came somewhat close to the point.....

At one time (maybe many) incest may have been necessary to ensure survival of the species.

A friend who had researched his family tree at least back to the American Revolution noted that one of his problems was just that, due to one spouse dying early due to illness, accident or childbirth.

Not just incest - any form of repetitive inter-breeding within an isolated community (such as that on an island or in any remote location) constitutes an effective inbreeding of kins in a very few generations.

Kin selection usually leads to accelerated spread of bizarre traits (via matching alleles of recessive gene pairs) in any isolated population: big ears, deafness, albinism - you name it - whereby formerly considered 'mutants' become the 'standard'.

The best genetic service you can offer your future offsprings, is to marry as far as different from yourself, and as often as different spouse for each newborn

Quite some time back, various 'friends' did not aprove of my girlfriend at the time. Miscegenation seems to me an act of altruism, not on my part - just to enlighten those who consider such things otherwise. Loving another person has damn all to do with race or colour.

Unsustainable.

Yes. If we are Christians, every one is related to Adam and Eve. If we are Hindus, there are Seven Rishis, that were the ancestors to one or the other. I don't know about other religious beliefs.

For the second part, how one cannot be superior to the other, acquired characters are inherited. Isn't it ? One's own siblings differ from each other. Superiority is a development that has very little to do with, inherited talents

Define superior.

Do you mean superior in physical ability,mental capacity,income?

Sure there are people that fall outside of the bell curve,but even geniuses have a narrow field of advantage.

Pull all of the wiring from the distributor in you automobile,and ask a Harvard math student to place them all in their proper place without a chart.

Ask a mechanic to recite Pi to the 10th place.

We all have certain talents and abilities,but that does not make us "superior" or better than anyone else.

Admittedly,motivation,as well as culture and environment,goes a long way to develop a particular skill set

There may be many Einsteins on this planet that have not had the proper conditions to fully blossom to their full potential,being locked in to a family tradition or situation over which they have no control.

Every seed does not sprout or prosper.

When I look at 3rd world countries, or when I see a slum or low income housing project,I wonder how many great minds are going to waste.

If we could connect our brains together as one and stop our bickering and arguing it would be a more productive and peaceful world,however,history shows that we will probably never get along with each other unless united towards a common threat.

Global warming should do it,but it has not yet had much effect,and will not until it is too late.

Wars have united man against man,and have spurred new technologies to kill one another more efficiently.

It is good point put forward in a very easy to understand way....

People a plenty but real human being is rare and getting rarer day by day..

That seems to be very simple minded math.

You can't answer question like that with math! What about the various races? The question likely goes back to evolution or creation.

I for one trust that both are at play with all things. First there is creation of a few 'species' and from there evolution occurs naturally due to the environment wherein these species develop further.

However how can Rita Hayward be related to a Mongol or a Chinese person? Or the Mongol to Rita? Besides yellow there are many other colors of humanity. E.g. what about blacks? I am pretty sure that we are not all related. The thing is we don't know. 'Scientist' come up with theories that may or may not be true. Especially lately I have a very low trust in what scientists say, including this theory of the OP that is oh so simple. Mistrust to science includes NASA and specifically scientist that study and predict the climate. (Guys like Al Gore? and the UN?)

Religion is not the answer either. Or, wait, may be religions are proof that we are not all related as all religions have their own theory.

Of course adaptation is always an element of any species' survival.It has been proven many times when geographical borders restrict a gene pool.There are birds one one side of a mountain range that are genetically identical to birds on the other side,but have distinct coloration and feeding,and nesting habits.Originally,some of the birds were cut off from the gene pool by the terrain,but if you constructed a family tree you would find that they all have common ancestors,and are all very closely related,regardless of their plumage.

Same with humans,regardless of skin coloration,body form,or cultural habits.

Pacific Islanders sprouted from a small gene pool,likewise with the Koreans,Japanese, and all other races.

Of course,there was inbreeding initially.

All humans,except for original Africans, have traces of Neanderthal genes within them,and every human's DNA traces back to Africa at some point.

I suggest you study the DNA history of the human race before stating unequivocally an unproven conjecture. Show the proof of your claims.

Here is a good starting point:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XthftBqQZowhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XthftBqQZow.

"If you cannot explain it simply,you do not understand it well enough"

---Albert Einstein

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_383803 If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_383803 If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_383803

Pardon the paste "stutter" at the end.

I must have been channeling Mel Tillis

Genetically speaking, speciation occurs with a population-split of a species (e.g migration of a sub-community) to an isolated location for enough generations, until a reproduction-barrier builds up (case in point: horse and donkey: mule is barren).

So, basically, any species is a sub-population of another, related species.

A wild guess ? from elephant to tapir to pig (or vice versa), or from okapi to giraffe

"We are all alike,on the inside." ---Mark Twain

There are many variables that are not fully understood,such as influences inside the womb,caused by external conditions.

Scientists have cloned cats,which is an identical DNA sequence,but the fur coloration patterns are never the same as the donor's.

Why?Is it some random collision of the DNA with a cosmic ray?Benevolent viruses?

solar activity? barometric pressure variation?Weather conditions?The list goes on and on.

Spontaneous variations occur in DNA,some times traceable,sometime not.

DNA is portable,and snippets can be carried from one species to another by viruses.

This has been seen to occur between tigers and monkeys,when kept in close proximity.The monkeys became more tiger-like,and the tigers became more monkey like.

People that are married for many years begin to resemble each other.

I am sure it occurs elsewhere on a grander scale than we can imagine.

There is actually very little DNA difference between a human and a tree.

In a greater sense,all Earthlings are related.(Except for politicians,of course,they live in an entirely different universe)

The Sumerian Texts have a plausible explanation that based on their age explains our origins in detail. How did they know how to do this 5000 years ago?

"

The origins of human beings according to ancient Sumerian texts

Sumer, or the ‘land of civilized kings’, flourished in Mesopotamia, now modern-day Iraq, around 4500 BC. Sumerians created an advanced civilization with its own system of elaborate language and writing, architecture and arts, astronomy and mathematics. Their religious system was a complex one comprised of hundreds of gods. According to the ancient texts, each Sumerian city was guarded by its own god; and while humans and gods used to live together, the humans were servants to the gods.

The Sumerian creation myth can be found on a tablet in Nippur, an ancient Mesopotamian city founded in approximately 5000 BC.

The creation of Earth ( Enuma Elish ) according to the Sumerian tablets begins like this:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,

Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...

Sumerian mythology claims that, in the beginning, human-like gods ruled over Earth. When they came to the Earth, there was much work to be done and these gods toiled the soil, digging to make it habitable and mining its minerals.

The texts mention that at some point the gods mutinied against their labour.

When the gods like men
Bore the work and suffered the toll
The toil of the gods was great,
The work was heavy, the distress was much.

Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods.

You have slaughtered a god together
With his personality
I have removed your heavy work
I have imposed your toil on man.
…
In the clay, god and man Shall be bound,

To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound.

This first man was created in Eden, a Sumerian word which means ‘flat terrain’. In the Epic of Gilgamesh , Eden is mentioned as the garden of the gods and is located somewhere in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.Initially human beings were unable to reproduce on their own, but were later modified with the help of Enki and Ninki. Thus, Adapa was created as a fully functional and independent human being. This ‘modification’ was done without the approval of Enki’s brother, Enlil, and a conflict between the gods began. Enlil became the adversary of man, and the Sumerian tablet mentions that men served gods and went through much hardship and suffering.

Adapa, with the help of Enki, ascended to Anu where he failed to answer a question about ‘the bread and water of life’. Opinions vary on the similarities between this creation story and the biblical story of Adam and Eve in Eden.

Featured image: Sumerian chaos monster and sun god. ( Wikipedia)

Note: Ancient Sumerian translations were taken from William Bramley’s book, The Gods of Eden .

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/origins-human-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065

I have read similar and viewed and read Zachariah Sitchen material also last count about 200 people can now read the texts and pick up the information in them. However there are slight variations but the story in the texts appears to be very similar to each other and the Hebrew testament.