Don't Forget. We Are All Related. I Can Prove it Mathematically. Try to Follow.

I believe it was geneticists who revealed approximately 5 years ago that everybody is at least 32nd cousins.

And furthermore, I could be wrong on this, but I THINK I also remember reading that, for example, if you are a white person, and you go out walking down the street and see a black person and another white person, that it is possible you could be more closely related to the black person than you are to the white person. And, if I am actually correct on this, then that scenario would also work with other race combinations as well.

a reply to: Kandinsky

We're similar to cattle in terms of capacity for being startled, herded or stampeded

or "owned"

highexistence.com...

Are we truly free in our “free societies,” or are we enslaved resources being used for profit against our knowledge? Or is this just more Illuminati conspiracy rhetoric?
If this didn’t ring of some truth (in my mind) then I don’t think it would affect me so much. Of course our government(s) manipulate us on a daily basis, throughout our lives, but is more than that? I think we all need to do a little research, or at least serious questioning, on how concerned our community leaders truly are about our well-being.
Because if this is truly the case, what (if anything) can be done to fix it? Or does it even need to be fixed? Seems like most sheople are quite content being livestock…

a reply to: Watchfull

I guess you didn't read my OP?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Imhotepic

Well I'm very white, I don't understand how I could ever be related to a black guy. Not that I would have a problem with it but my skin pigment doesn't reflect ever being black. Something doesn't add up here.

The only logical explanation I've ever come up with is that we were placed here by the 'Gods' from different planets on different continents.

Well bush jr And obama are 10th cousins

The world is very small, I recently mistyped an emailadress at work and had a french relative answer me (she had the same, very unique, but old german name) turns out we might have met at a family come-together when we were children.

-At an airport in Egypt (Marsa Alam, very small) I met a couple I know from diving in Sinai, years ago. Even stranger that they noticed me, although my face memory is very bad...

Quite a bit of misconceptions in this thread. There is no formula to calculate the amount of humans that have been alive. You need complete information of human history of the last 200k years. Otherwise you have to rely on the scientific estimates based on fossilization (a very rare process).

It's pretty well known now that homo sapiens never dipped below 10,000 reproducing individuals and when that happened it was around 70,000 years ago (believed to be caused by Toba super volcano eruption), not 12,000 years ago. When folks talk about mitochondrial eve, it is not a single individual, it a group of thousands. Stuff like great flood, adam & eve, etc where the population gets reduced to less than 10 people is simply not viable to repopulate the species.

your math flaw is based on 1 child per family. not a higher average figure representing average family size over known history. that greatly increases total number of people. also multiple bloodlines, you assume there was only one.

I think that the distribution is different than would be predicted by equations. This is because throughout most of history(except current times) the wealthier had more children who reproduced. From what I've seen in a study about Britain is that the smart/rich/driven literally pushed the most of the weak and lower IQ individuals into extinction over the past 1000 years. People also tend to marry within race/culture for a variety of reasons.

Hypothesis 1: Within ethnicity people are even closer cousins than would be predicted even before accounting for interfamily reproduction.

Hypothesis 2: colonized lands like North and South america would have less cousin distance than the old world population. Or it should. But white(non-hispanic) north americans are still shockingly white, 98.6% european. Thus blacks and hispanics are much more related to the rest of the world than White americans.

I call bs !
I have around 60 cousins , 4 grandparents .

And I can't even play a banjo 👍

Dang !

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Imhotepic

Well I'm very white, I don't understand how I could ever be related to a black guy. Not that I would have a problem with it but my skin pigment doesn't reflect ever being black. Something doesn't add up here.

The only logical explanation I've ever come up with is that we were placed here by the 'Gods' from different planets on different continents.

Oh, nonsense. The so-called "races" can appear within 20,000 years. As Blacks moved north to cooler climates their skin lightened. It doesn't take that long. Of course you are more closely related to your own ethnic group, but that does NOT mean you're NOT related to everyone else. All you need is one Marco Polo to travel to distant Asia and disseminate his genes and a few generations later everyone in that area has some of his genes, and since he is related to you, you're related to them. Color is a superficial trait related to climate. Try comparing your blood types instead of your skin color.

On different sub species of hominim: It doesn't matter. On "taking into consideration" cousin marriage, family size, incest, etc.: It doesn't matter. If ANYTHING, these issues tend to increase the amount of relationship rather than decrease it. Geneticists have determined that no one on this planet is further apart than 50th cousin: No one. These other issues do not affect that in the least.

originally posted by: Imhotepic
a reply to: Watchfull

I guess you didn't read my OP?

On the contrary, my post was merely pointing out the incredible number of ancestors we all have.

It is clear to see that the 107 billion is wildly inaccurate, however your calculation needs to factor in the 7 billion current population, as it is currently from the perspective of the one, not the many.

Recent findings have intelligent humans 250,000 years ago.

Let's suppose there were a mere 1000 back then, and they had one child per couple every 25 years.

That would be a more accurate figure.

You have to figure in maximum sustainable population. The exponential growth gets held back by things like lack of technology to house, feed, cure disease, wars, famine, human sacrifice, natural disasters etc. The population can string along for long periods at low levels never exponentially exploding.

a reply to: opethPA

Lol, I love how it's always theory.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Yet people state it as fact. ..

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Lol, I love how it's always theory

Yet people state it as fact. ..

You needed 2 responses for that? In science, a theory is based on fact, so.....

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Lol, I love how it's always theory

Yet people state it as fact. ..

You needed 2 responses for that? In science, a theory is based on fact, so.....

You're gonna get hammered by them for using the word fact lol.

I also prefer the word evidence over the word fact, even though they are the same thing, essentially.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Lol, I love how it's always theory

Yet people state it as fact. ..

You needed 2 responses for that? In science, a theory is based on fact, so.....

You're gonna get hammered by them for using the word fact lol.

I also prefer the word evidence over the word fact, even though they are the same thing, essentially.

The problem is that when you don't use the word, folks instantly assume this means that it is completely unverified and as good as a random guess (the "it's just a theory" BS). Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a scientific theory, so it is impossible to say that it is completely proven. The reason is because there are numerous hypotheses that are currently being worked on within the framework of the theory. This is true for all scientific theories. A scientific theory can never be 100% proven, BUT when you look at something like evolution as the process by which MES is based, it is absolutely proven and factual. There is no denying the frequency of allele changes in populations, but there are some ancestry lines that do not have much fossil evidence or any at all (and it doesn't help that fossilization is so rare).

a reply to: Barcs

To be honest? I don't really think it matters what words are used. They'll interpret them to mean "it's just a theory" either way.

The only reason I said evidence over the word fact, I'd because we can show evidence. And some people won't accept that evidence as a fact. They'll jump through hoops, deny it, ignore it and cry about it. They'll never actually try to prove the evidence wrong though.

I do get what you're saying though.

originally posted by: Imhotepic
I just realized I forgot to account for early tribal incest and incest at any point for that matter. My numbers are way too high.

I Believe even without the math, but I must say that is amazing.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Haha, so true. Many folks seem to think that "scientific fact" means "100% absolute truth". They seem to mix up how they interpret the bible, with how scientists look at the data. Either way, we can't win because word meaning will constantly get twisted and misrepresented.