GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2006-01 > 1137383639


From: "Rob" <>
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 03:53:59 -0000
References: <1137338990.456458.231910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <mo4ms15t5bs77ev0ds8bhs690882gdmb15@4ax.com>


Bonjour Denis,

What artefacts of 3000 years ago conclusively prove that colour of skin, eye
shapes were already defined? I can think of none off the top of my head.
Remember 3000 years ago we are talking the end of the Bronze age beginning
of the Iron Age (in the UK). Likewise what do you mean by separated
cultures? There is sufficient evidence thanks to archaeology to show that
there was inter marriages taking place from as early as the Neolithic period
some 5000-6000 years ago. For example 3 bodies were excavated 3 years ago
in England and a sample of tooth was analysed and it was discovered that the
woman was in fact of Asian descent yet one child was English ( I use the
term loosely because England as we know it today didn't exist) Likewise in
London a female was excavated and found to be of Syrian descent yet she had
it is presumed married a rich Roman Trader which is why and how she ended up
in England. Before anyone screams out how they could say she was rich, this
as been postulated because of the fine textiles and grave goods that had
survived with her body in the lead coffin.

Finally you say we don't need that kind of Pseudo science here, the model is
obviously wrong yet you make no argument to back this decision up. Whilst I
don't agree with the arguments put forward, because they haven't taken into
account the possibilities of inter humanoid births, for example homo sapien
sapien and Neanderthals. Yes there is evidence to suggest this.

A reason for not accepting the theory that as been presented is Cheddar man
discovered in 1903. DNA was extracted from the skeleton and this was
compared with a class of boys in or around Cheddar. The teacher also had
DNA taken. Upon examination there was ( apparently) enough markers to
suggest that the teacher was a descendent of this early man who if memory
serves me right dated to the Mesolithic period or some 9000 years ago. That
said I am sceptical of these results as they were carried out for a TV show.
See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/31/cheddar.man/

So before we knock the theories lets present the evidence which will shut
people like this up

Rob


"Denis Beauregard" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 15 Jan 2006 07:29:50 -0800, wrote in
> soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
>>(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
>>
>>Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
>>(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
>>known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
>>the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
>>(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
>>simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
>>lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
>
> Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
> see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
> color of skin or shape of eyes. Since these features survived because
> of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
> think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
> weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
> can you explain the common ancestors are so late.
>
> Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.
>
> We don't need that kind of pseudo-science... The model is obviously
> wrong.
>
>
> Denis
>
> --
> 0 Denis Beauregard -
> /\/ Les Franais d'Amrique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
> |\ French in North America before 1716 -
> www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
> / | Mes associations de gnalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gn. can.-fr.)
> oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gn. de La
> Jemmerais)


This thread: