The One Drop Rule

[ChristinaB]

Under the one drop rule, we are all African Americans, we are all hispanics, we are all whatever group you want to apply the one drop rule to.

You would have to be from a tremendously isolated group to not qualify under the one drop rule.

In Europe that would be Iceland - but even there, they are all African descendants and hispanic.

All Asians and all Africans have European ancestors too.

In the Western hemisphere you would have to be pure blood Amerindian, but probably all "pure blood" Amerindians are not really pure blood - they just don't realize it (this includes both continents).

And we are all descendants of royalty, no exceptions. You may not be able to trace your heritage, but it is definitely so.

And I am not talking about ancestors from thousands of years ago. Except the most culturally isolated areas, everyone is descended from common ancestors of about 600 to 800 years ago.

[lucas9000]

i read this book that said geneticists have found that all humans alive today come from a group of about 100,000 people in one region of africa. wish i had the book in front of me to drop some proper science, but i'm at work.

[tek]

Then why can't I play basketball or dance well /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[pubz r 4 nubz!]

You had me until the 600-800 years bullshit.

[sammysusar]

"You had me until the 600-800 years bullshit. "

Thats probably what we call in the industry a "typo" (hopefully)

[rickthekeg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You had me until the 600-800 years bullshit. "

[/ QUOTE ] Thats probably what we call in the industry a "typo" (hopefully)

[/ QUOTE ]

She said, "And I am not talking about ancestors from thousands of years ago." So I assume she actually means 600-800 years, which is indeed bs.

[daryn]

who cares though?

what if it WAS 600-800, not 6000-8000 years? we obviously all came from africa. is there a point here? like most of your posts, no.

[jakethebake]

I can't belive this many people have responded to that troll. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[brassnuts]

It begain in Afrika-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka...

I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about something like the 3 second rule.

[nothumb]

WRONG FORUM BITCH!

NT

[astroglide]

are you referencing that amiga demo?

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
are you referencing that amiga demo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he is referring to the golden rule of serving food.

3 seconds on the floor is the max time you have before scooping it up and eating it or serving it.

I have, on ocassion, been wrong though.

[astroglide]

i was responding to brassnuts

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
we obviously all came from africa.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is this so obvious?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
bs

[/ QUOTE ]

[brassnuts]

I'm not sure what the amiga demo is. If you were asking about the "It begain afrika-ka-ka...." quote, that was from the beginning of a Chemical Bros album, I think Come with Us, but I'm not sure. The 3-second rule was explained by Shajen.

[astroglide]

http://www.jimshep.co.uk/weblog/archives/000039.html

i didn't know about the chemical brothers thing

[ChristinaB]

I guess some of you guys aren't very good at math.

Here's a little math problem for you:
1) Calculate how many generations there are in a century.
2) Calculate how many ancestors you had who were alive 100 years before you were born.
3) Consider that each of those 100 year anceestors have a similar number of ancestors 100 years before their births.
4) Do this back for 8 centuries.

You remember the doubling example. 1 cent on day 1, 2 cents on day 2, 4 cents on day 3, 8 cents on day 4, 16 cents on day 5, and so on for 30 days.

Now what about cousins marrying cousins? Yes, there will be a lot of duplication. But the one drop rule only requires a single link to an ancestor. If your ancestor were Irish (a nice contained island) you may be descended from each Irish person who was alive 800 years ago (unless they were childless) by 100,000 different lines of descent.

Now lets say one of your great great grandparents was Italian. Thats only a few generations deep. But that Italian ancestor has hundreds of years of ancestors from Italy and is descended from them through many lines.

So while you may only be a small fraction Italian ( one sixteenth in the example), you still have an overwhelming coverage of descent from all Italians who were alive 800 years ago.

Instead of 100,000 lines of descent though, you may only have 8,000 lines from each Italian.

It only takes the occasional immigrant from another part of Europe in the middle ages to spread their ancestry to everyone in their new homeland.

Crunch the numbers, consider the possibilities. Only if a place is completely cut off (like the 2 hemispheres were) can the spread be stopped. A single European/Chinese union with kids 800 years ago would make everyone today have Chinese ancestors. Just a drop, mind you, but it is still there.

[tyfromm]

You aint no cousin of mine.

[apd138]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess some of you guys aren't very good at math.

Here's a little math problem for you:
1) Calculate how many generations there are in a century.
2) Calculate how many ancestors you had who were alive 100 years before you were born.
3) Consider that each of those 100 year anceestors have a similar number of ancestors 100 years before their births.
4) Do this back for 8 centuries.

You remember the doubling example. 1 cent on day 1, 2 cents on day 2, 4 cents on day 3, 8 cents on day 4, 16 cents on day 5, and so on for 30 days.

Now what about cousins marrying cousins? Yes, there will be a lot of duplication. But the one drop rule only requires a single link to an ancestor. If your ancestor were Irish (a nice contained island) you may be descended from each Irish person who was alive 800 years ago (unless they were childless) by 100,000 different lines of descent.

Now lets say one of your great great grandparents was Italian. Thats only a few generations deep. But that Italian ancestor has hundreds of years of ancestors from Italy and is descended from them through many lines.

So while you may only be a small fraction Italian ( one sixteenth in the example), you still have an overwhelming coverage of descent from all Italians who were alive 800 years ago.

Instead of 100,000 lines of descent though, you may only have 8,000 lines from each Italian.

It only takes the occasional immigrant from another part of Europe in the middle ages to spread their ancestry to everyone in their new homeland.

Crunch the numbers, consider the possibilities. Only if a place is completely cut off (like the 2 hemispheres were) can the spread be stopped. A single European/Chinese union with kids 800 years ago would make everyone today have Chinese ancestors. Just a drop, mind you, but it is still there.

[/ QUOTE ] Using Europe as an example is taking a best case scenario for your theory, Why not choose one of those remote places you allude to? Or how about doing some of the math yourself as were obviously not interested enough.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]

And we are all descendants of royalty, no exceptions. You may not be able to trace your heritage, but it is definitely so.

And I am not talking about ancestors from thousands of years ago. Except the most culturally isolated areas, everyone is descended from common ancestors of about 600 to 800 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont know what 3rd grade "we r the world...and EVERYONES special" type book or magazine u got this info out of...but tis so far from the truth its not even funny!! This was one of my majors...and ive done a ton of research on it plus read alot of stuff...dont believe everything u read in NON accredited works or childrens books....

I can trace my ancestors back to around the 10th century....there r FEW that can do this...so there is NOWAY for anyone ever EVER EVER EVER to be able to prove ur point and to even suggest such a thing is ludacis!

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And we are all descendants of royalty, no exceptions. You may not be able to trace your heritage, but it is definitely so.

And I am not talking about ancestors from thousands of years ago. Except the most culturally isolated areas, everyone is descended from common ancestors of about 600 to 800 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont know what 3rd grade "we r the world...EVERYONES special" type book or magazine u got this info out of...but tis so far from the truth its not even funny!! This was one of my majors...and ive done a ton of research on it plus read alot of stuff...dont believe everything u read in NON accredited works or childrens books....

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. Do you even realize how many unique ancestors you have 30 generations back?

On the royalty issue, it only takes one bastard child to spread the genes of an entire line of Kings into the peasantry gene pool. It happens all the time (although you'd never be able to track it on a chart).

No one could possibly chart a family tree with more than a tiny fraction of their ancestors that far back. Just because you can't chart it, doesn't mean you aren't decended from many unique people this far back, and that means people of all classes and locations.

You should ask your college for a tuition refund.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess some of you guys aren't very good at math.

Here's a little math problem for you:
1) Calculate how many generations there are in a century.
2) Calculate how many ancestors you had who were alive 100 years before you were born.
3) Consider that each of those 100 year anceestors have a similar number of ancestors 100 years before their births.
4) Do this back for 8 centuries.

You remember the doubling example. 1 cent on day 1, 2 cents on day 2, 4 cents on day 3, 8 cents on day 4, 16 cents on day 5, and so on for 30 days.

Now what about cousins marrying cousins? Yes, there will be a lot of duplication. But the one drop rule only requires a single link to an ancestor. If your ancestor were Irish (a nice contained island) you may be descended from each Irish person who was alive 800 years ago (unless they were childless) by 100,000 different lines of descent.

Now lets say one of your great great grandparents was Italian. Thats only a few generations deep. But that Italian ancestor has hundreds of years of ancestors from Italy and is descended from them through many lines.

So while you may only be a small fraction Italian ( one sixteenth in the example), you still have an overwhelming coverage of descent from all Italians who were alive 800 years ago.

Instead of 100,000 lines of descent though, you may only have 8,000 lines from each Italian.

It only takes the occasional immigrant from another part of Europe in the middle ages to spread their ancestry to everyone in their new homeland.

Crunch the numbers, consider the possibilities. Only if a place is completely cut off (like the 2 hemispheres were) can the spread be stopped. A single European/Chinese union with kids 800 years ago would make everyone today have Chinese ancestors. Just a drop, mind you, but it is still there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ur post has to be one of the DUMBEST ive ever seen....reading it i FEEL dumber...unless ur some super nerd math wizz with 934023904329040932409239042903 peoples faimly trees in front of u i dont WANNA HEAR it...everytime u speak u look more retarded....sure we MIGHT all come from the same general ancestors 2903490239042309409234 yrs ago....but theres noway 600 yrs ago EVERYONE had an acestor of royalty...if anything sypillus took care of this fact for hundreds of yrs

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]

No one could possibly chart a family tree with more than a tiny fraction of their ancestors that far back. Just because you can't chart it, doesn't mean you aren't decended from many unique people this far back, and that means people of all classes and locations.

You should ask you college for a tuition refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK #1 - just because there were a few bastard children doesnt mean were ALL royalty...ur in LA LA LAND
#2 I have a degree in Bio/Genetics and a 2nd degree in psychology...PLUS a minor in law...and am working on a PhD..so think before u speak

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
934023904329040932409239042903 peoples faimly trees in front of u i dont WANNA HEAR it..

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the point. there are no family trees that show full detail. When people trace to a well known person they do it thru one (or a few) little strand, but most of their tree is blank. You are not only descended from William the Conquerer, but you are descended from him through thousands of separate lines, but you may have only traced a few.

My guess is you are proud to have traced your family tree to someone important. But, so what. Everyone else here has the same ancestors (excluding ancestors from recent centuries).

Sorry that your a major area of interest for study turned out to be a waste. A simple logical analysis would show how obviously we are all traceable to the same people 800 years ago. You choose to not see.

[BadBoyBenny]

This concept would work better if there wasn't such a stigma on intercultural and interracial marriages in the past.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
OK #1 - just because there were a few bastard children doesnt mean were ALL royalty...ur in LA LA LAND

[/ QUOTE ]

Descended from royalty yes, being descended from royalty is not the same as being royalty, you doofus.

If you don't believe the numbers, just look up how many descendants Queen Victoria has, and she is quite recent.

Sorry that your degrees turned out to be so worthless, don't they teach reality at that school you went to?

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
This concept would work better if there wasn't such a stigma on intercultural and interracial marriages in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people have no clue who their great grandparents were. When you marry, you don'r really know what you are getting in terms of your spouse's ancestors. Stigmas don't work against the unknown.

[BadBoyBenny]

This has nothing to do with what I just posted

[peachy]

o its soooo worthless that im gonna me makin 6 figures ::Pats u:: ull wake up and realize it all one day

Did i ever say what the PhD is in?? no...i DONT think so...

An no, im not OVERLY concerned about mah linage...i could care less who its traced to and what thier standing was...thats not the point here...the point is u made an a retarded comment...and im not gonna keep going back and forth with u on an issue u obviously know NOTHING about

[peachy]

Dont even try BENNY...she talks out ur bum

[ChristinaB]

Queen Victoria's descendants (http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/QV_Descendants_Statistics.htm)

Queen Victoria has almost 1000 descendants, and she is only 4 generations above the current Queen.

Most of those descendants don't have titles. I doubt anyone did or could keep track as well of all the descendants of earlier monarchs.

Just imagine if each of these descendants have a similar number in the next 150 years.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
...and im not gonna keep going back and forth with u on an issue u obviously know NOTHING about

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts demonstrate that you know even less. Which is sad if you actually earned a degree in this stuff. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[peachy]

yes...i UNDERSTAND they have alot of decendents...like i said i can trace mine back almost 1000 YEARS...what ur not getting is that 93240923490 actually royality decents from the past 700ish YEARS does not cover the population of the world - 90234092390432094902940290490249029304903290420949 023409

its ok...keep tryinnnnnn...itll come to u one day

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
yes...i UNDERSTAND they have alot of decendents...like i said i can trace mine back almost 1000 YEARS...what ur not getting is that 93240923490 actually royality decents from the past 700ish YEARS does not cover the population of the world - 90234092390432094902940290490249029304903290420949 023409



[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't crunched the numbers. The population of Europe is tiny compared to your potential ancestors. Until you crunch the numbers you will never understand this.

There is not a single person of European ancestry who is not a direct descendant of Charlemagne. Plain and simple.

[peachy]

Charlemagne was born in around 740 if i recall CORRECTLY, so stick with what YOU said in ur post of around the last 700ISH years...not OVER 1200 years ago....and ur tellin me i need to rethink school?

And even then no....not EVERYONE in the world is a direct decendent of him

[ChristinaB]

OK, so Queen Vic has 1000 descendants. What if we go a bit further back, say 400 years.

Descendants of the Mayflower (http://www.mayflower.org/)
<font color="green"> "Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls. It is the goal of The Mayflower Society to join together people who share this heritage and to carry on the memory of our Pilgrim ancestors."</font>

There are tens of millions of descendants from this group, and that is only 400 years back. Each additional generation has the potential to double the number, and that will quickly run into the trillions (more than earth's population). It is only the duplication (cousins marrying) that keeps the number down to the actual population pool.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple logical analysis would show how obviously we are all traceable to the same people 800 years ago. You choose to not see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No exceptions?

[peachy]

the decendents of the mayflower arent ROYALTY hunny...keep a tryin

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
And even then no....not EVERYONE in the world is a direct decendent of him

[/ QUOTE ]

I said Europe.. although with intermarriage, most people of the world are his descendants (because there are so few "100% pure" Amerindians around for example).

We are all descended from William the Conquerer too, and later monarchs, like Edward III. (Of course the same applies to the contemporary monarachs of Spain, Germany, France, etc.)

[Lazymeatball]

Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
the decendents of the mayflower arent ROYALTY hunny...keep a tryin

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your problem. You have this thing about royalty. Well, the passengers on the Mayflower WERE descended from royalty (you can look it up). You don't have to be royalty to be descended from royalty, indeed 99+% of all descendants of royalty are not royalty themselves.

Sorry to be the one to reveal to you that tracing yourself to a King 10 centuries ago means you are a normal person, since we all share your ancestor. (peachy is no longer "special" /images/graemlins/frown.gif)

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another person who hasn't crunched the numbers. Continue in your ignorance.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And even then no....not EVERYONE in the world is a direct decendent of him

[/ QUOTE ]

I said Europe.. although with intermarriage, most people of the world are his descendants (because there are so few "100% pure" Amerindians around for example).

We are all descended from William the Conquerer too, and later monarchs, like Edward III. (Of course the same applies to the contemporary monarachs of Spain, Germany, France, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

even u just said there r SO FEW 100%...which means there R SOME...which proves my points and contradicts what u said...so yeah thx have a nice life

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAH lazy this is one of mah fav movies ever!!

[peachy]

listen...u didnt burst a bubble...i dont go around announcing my hertiage to everyone i meet....u said we were all decendents of royality from 600 to 800 years ago...this is plain and simple NOT TRUE of EVERYONE in the WORLD. Move on to another continent give europe a rest

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]

even u just said there r SO FEW 100%...which means there R SOME...which proves my points and contradicts what u said...so yeah thx have a nice life

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread my first post, I mentioned there that we don't really know if any 100% pure Amerindians exist or not. I guess you chose to misunderstand what I wrote for your own purposes. Among people with European ancestry though, there is no question that all are descendants.

Why is it so important for you to have some claim to a 1000 year old ancestor? So what if he is also an ancestor of the rest of us? You didn't really think you were special, did you?

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
listen...u didnt burst a bubble...i dont go around announcing my hertiage to everyone i meet....u said we were all decendents of royality from 600 to 800 years ago...this is plain and simple NOT TRUE of EVERYONE in the WORLD. Move on to another continent give europe a rest

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to forget that there are royal ancestors in other continents too. They have/had kings/emperors in Asia, Africa, America. I hope you aren't one of those racists that don't think non-European royalty counts.

Boy, you are dense!

[peachy]

ur the one missing the point...i know there was royalty in other places and i DIDNT have some built up image of my ancestory i could care less how many people share the same linage...so learn to read what i wrote and get back to me...and u DID say that everyone was related to royalty from 800 yrs ago....

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Another person who hasn't crunched the numbers. Continue in your ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I have a PhD in mathematics, and me and my buddy Steven Hawking were talking about string theory the other day, and reading 2+2. Out of nowhere, he tells me, "That girl has taken more dicks in her butt than there are particles in the universe."

I said, "Geez, that seems improbable Steve, are you sure?"

Then he called me ignorant and did a mathematical proof of it, and it was awesome. But I won't post it here. I'll let you all remain ignorant.

NT

[bugstud]

I would imagine that indigenous new guineans, aborignes, inuit and what few african and native american tribes are left would dispute your 600-800 years claim.

most the other stuff you cite is more or less accepted, but your assertion here seems off base to me.

[M.B.E.]

Christina's statement, "Except the most culturally isolated areas, everyone is descended from common ancestors of about 600 to 800 years ago", is not crazy at all, although the figure might be a little too low. Population geneticists have been modelling this in the last couple of years, and have concluded that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans alive today (including isolated groups) most likely lived about 76 generations ago, or 2,300 years before present.

Here are some links:

Article in Nature magazine (http://www.csit.fsu.edu/~beerli/bsc5932/Rohde-et-al.pdf) (pdf)

The Loom: Bloodless Bloodlines and other Genealogical Paradoxes (http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/020118.html)

The Loom: More on Common Ancestors (http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/026506.html)

On the common Ancestors of All Living Humans (http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) (pdf)

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
i read this book that said geneticists have found that all humans alive today come from a group of about 100,000 people in one region of africa. wish i had the book in front of me to drop some proper science, but i'm at work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it is estimated that all humans are descended from a population of about 20,000 hominids:

Rannala B, Yang Z (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164: 1645-1656.

Article in the journal Genetics (http://www.rannala.org/papers/Genetics2003B.pdf) (pdf)

This may be why there are so many genetic diseases in humans, as compared to other mammal groups like mice and rats that did not have an equivalent "population bottleneck":

http://www.bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/hominidgenomes.htm

The research was announced a couple of weeks ago.

[peachy]

I never said that we werent from the beginning of time...but sayin we all r from as little as 800 yrs ago is nuts. And saying that we r all related to royalty from 800 yrs ago is further nuts because now you have just narrowed down the possible linage by a fraction of the whole population of that time. It just isnt possible at this present time, maybe in another 1000 years

[Grivan]

Well lets see 4 genereations in 100 years, each person has 2 direct ancestors, so 100 years back they have 14 direct ancestors, and 800 years back they have approximatly 1.5 billion direct ancestors by this direct method (ignores duplication so is high). Now realizing that the population of Europe in 1200 was significantly less then 100 million, I don't think Christina's argument is really that much of a stretch.

[peachy]

ur assuming everyone "got it on"...therefore ur math is a lil wrong...like i said...im not sayin were not all related somehow from way back when...im disputing the fact that EVERYONE is linked to royalty within the past 800 years

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
And saying that we r all related to royalty from 800 yrs ago is further nuts because now you have just narrowed down the possible linage by a fraction of the whole population of that time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Peachy, give us your estimate. Approximately what percentage of humans alive today are directly descended from royalty who lived within the last 800 years?

[Grivan]

Im not assuming everyone got it on Im assuming everyone who had a kid got it on. Notice how I started at 1 person and assumed everyone had 2 parents. People that never had kids never even come into play.