GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116600126
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
References: <200505191423.j4JEN9Kl017791@lists5.rootsweb.com> <18.104.22.168.2.20050520021657.027de008@pop-server> <428DE37D.email@example.com>
"If you compute the number of
> ancestors of yourself back to William's time you will have a number
> larger than the world population at that time. You then are related to
> everyone alive 1000 years ago and are also related to
I beg to disagree. Humans have a finite number of genes (as far as we now
understand). Therefore, you cannot inherit genes from every ancestor, only
the same finite number of ancestors. DNA may help you determine from which
category of ancestors you have inheritance and, within limits, from which
individual ancestors you may have inheritance, but cannot tell you all of
the individual ancestors you have inheritance. Paper trails, on the other
hand, can tell you which individuals. In my opinion, DNA is being
overread, over emphasized and given traits that we cannot and should not
attribute. Comments? EGT
> Cole wrote:
>> "We are all related to Charlemagne"
>> As I understand it this is an axiom.
> Well, yes, and we are also related to Osama bin Laden too,
> and Vlad the Impaler .... and to every chimp alive! It's
> just a matter of degree
>> If you compute the number of
>> ancestors of yourself back to William's time you will have a number
>> larger than the world population at that time. You then are related to
>> everyone alive 1000 years ago and are also related to
> "Related to" is not what you mean men to say, which is "descended
> from". And it's most certainly not true. The argument you give
> is of course completely false and silly. Just because our
> ancestor tree becomes at some point larger than the population
> of the Earth at the time, noes not mean everyone alive then is our
> ancestor. This is because a single person will occupy many,
> perhaps thousands or even millions, of places in the astronomical
> number of positions in the tree say 40 generations ago.
> The key concept is "locality of descent" .... people were
> mostly very local in their marriage habits, except the royals.
> Even ten generations back most people in a small area would all
> share the same ancestors, and each would occupy many places
> in the ancestor trees. The diffusion between towns was much
>>I would think this would still hold for his grandson
>> William although our relation to him is 1/4 that of Charlemagne's.
> William was Charlemagne's 9th great grandson.
> Doug McDonald
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: