We're All Closely Related

[size_of_light]

We hear that all US Presidents are related, and cousins of royalty and other historically significant figures etc.

Here's what has always perplexed me, and I haven't been able to find an adequate explanation for it on the net via genealogy websites etc.

OK. We have 2 parents. 4 grandparents. 8 great grandparents etc.

Let's use 25 years as the standard measure of a 'generation' (this number varies in genealogy circles from 20 - 40 or so, but with trivial variations in the outcome).

So 75 years = 8 great grandparents = 8 direct ancestors. Forget about cousins and all that shit for now, and lets focus only on who you are directly descended from.

2-4--8-16-32-64-128-256-512 etc. etc., the numbers swell exponentially with each generation, meaning that if you go back 30 generations, or 750 years, you have 1 billion, 73 million, 741 thousand, 824 direct ancestors.

In 1250 AD (approx 750 years ago) the world population was estimated to be around 400 million.

Please explain this anomaly to me, or point me to information that does so, because a) the figures don't make sense, and b) the point about influential people having the same bloodline appears to be a red herring because everyone of us is related in the same way and could be demonstrated to be so.

Thanks.

[jayelowell]

2-4--8-16-32-64-128-256-512 etc. etc., the numbers swell exponentially .The number is on the left, horizontal addition result is on the right. Notice how the 1,2,4,8,7,5 number pattern repeats indefinitely. 1 = 1
2 = 2
4 = 4
8 = 8
16 = 7
32 = 5
64 = 1
128 = 2
256 = 4
512 = 8
1,024 = 7
2,048 = 5
4,096 = 1
8,192 = 2
16,384 = 4
32,768 = 8
65,536 = 7
131,072 = 5
262,144 = 1
524,288 = 2
1,048,576 = 4
2,097,152 = 8
4,194,304 = 7
8,388,608 = 5
16,777,216 = 1
33,554,432 = 2
67,108,864 = 4
134,217,728 = 8
268,435,456 = 7
536,870,912 = 5
1,073,741,824 = 1
2,147,483,648 = 2
4,294,967,296 = 4
8,589,934,592 = 8

[size_of_light]

This is numerology, jaye?

I don't understand the significance of the point you're making, or see how it accounts for the anomaly of having more direct ancestors than the total world population of 750 years ago.

[darketernal]

Your math assumes there is no inbreding at all in your background, and only fresh genetic material from a different line produced offspring each time.

[drael]

Nope ur right, we are all directly related to some extent from very limited population migrations of our human ancestors. Our population exploded at first, with trade, exploration and increased civilisation establishing fast - in otherwords human history = boom.

Its quite biblical/mytholgical if u think about it.

Fits in with us being gene-engineered/created by aliens/seeded, rather than evolution.

Not entirely sure about bloodline concept. Personally i think it would be more like gene trait selection, from the general populace, or any families with disposition. If u buy the psychic/magick/repitle/jesus whatever thing, that is...

----- anything beyond rich people tend to conspire to maintain wealth, and oneness and non-duality is a universal truth...

well to me .....far as im concerned thats all i know for sure and its self-evident, and anything thats not self-evident demands serious proof...or a fancy for fun stories...which by the way, im not being ironic, i mean that, fun stories are at least as good as real truth seeing as we never have it (apart from above, and not taking said stories too seriously!)

[size_of_light]

Your math assumes there is no inbreding at all in your background, and only fresh genetic material from a different line produced offspring each time.

I've thought about this, and if true for me, it's true for everyone, and to an extraordinary degree, which then makes the idea of preserving specific bloodlines through interbreeding very hazy.

Go back about 1000 years and even with rampant interbreeding, the conclusion I get is that we're all directly descended from the same people.

[jayelowell]

basically if you follow this fractal pattern all the way back... you will find that we are all related... it's really simple.

[darketernal]

I've thought about this, and if true for me, it's true for everyone, and to an extraordinary degree, which then makes the idea of preserving specific bloodlines through interbreeding very hazy.

Go back about 1000 years and even with rampant interbreeding, the conclusion I get is that we're all directly descended from the same people.

No, people in similar regions and ethnic groups are more closely related because there is a limited gene pool in any given region thus a great deal more inbreeding than you might realize.

Royal lines inbreed with other royal lines to limit the amount of stray genetic material in those families, although many fathered children outside those lines, they did not remain legitimate in those families for the most part, if we are talking about royal blood.

I'm not arguing that all of humanity is not related genetically though, only pointing out that inbreeding has happened on a much more massive scale than most realize and your math proves this.

[size_of_light]

No, people in similar regions and ethnic groups are more closely related because there is a limited gene pool in any given region thus a great deal more inbreeding than you might realize.

Royal lines inbreed with other royal lines to limit the amount of stray genetic material in those families, although many fathered children outside those lines, they did not remain legitimate in those families for the most part, if we are talking about royal blood.

I'm not arguing that all of humanity is not related genetically though, only pointing out that inbreeding has happened on a much more massive scale than most realize and your math proves this.

I've thought about this some more, based on all of the posts so far, and have come up with the following preliminary conclusions (please feel free to invalidate them):

1. In order for the number of our direct ancestors to be lower than or equal to the number of the world population 750 years ago (1250 AD), interbreeding on a massive scale must have taken place.

2. The only form of interbreeding that had any impact on reducing this anomalous ratio was incestuous parental-child procreation.

3. Incestuous parental-child procreation accounts for a significant number of your ancestors, and is a percentage determinable within a high/low range, based purely on simple mathematical multiples of 1-2-3 (that I will attempt to fumble out for myself unless a math enthusiast does the elementary equations themselves).

4. These simple high/low range figures for parental-child incestuous procreation down through history are easily calculable and should be as commonly known as any other basic established facts, but are not.

5. The possible reasons why this basic mathematical data/information has been suppressed is important and worth examining.

[mastery]

I've thought about this some more, based on all of the posts so far, and have come up with the following preliminary conclusions (please feel free to invalidate them):

1. In order for the number of our direct ancestors to be lower than or equal to the number of the world population 750 years ago (1250 AD), interbreeding on a massive scale must have taken place.

2. The only form of interbreeding that had any impact on reducing this anomalous ratio was incestuous parental-child procreation.
...


OK, I'll step in and invalidate your thoughts then.

The inbreeding that has occurred has mostly been between distant cousins, rather than between parents and children, which has been a societal TABOO for as long as history records, and probably far longer than that.

If many of your fifth or so cousins married (and they certainly did), various parts deep in your "tree" are merged. This slight amount of inbreeding is entirely sufficient to explain the apparent mystery here. Fifth cousin marriage is not forbidden, not taboo, and is not the least detrimental to the genetic health.

No society has ever bothered to keep fifth cousins from marrying, since it just doesn't matter. Many arab populations even have as much as 50% first-cousin marriages, with little ill effect.

You could be in such a weakly "inbred" marriage yourself without even knowing it! In fact, if you and your mate come from the same locality, you probably are at the very least fifth to tenth cousins. It's OK. You can still keep having sex.

Also, please consider that people were very tied to the soil in older times. Few people traveled any distance at all. While you may like to "prove" all of humanity are related with your arithmetic explosion, perhaps from politically correct wishes to have us all part of a Human Brotherhood, this in effect proves nothing.

Mating patterns aren't even randomized across the globe today, and the amount of interbreeding between geographically separate populations was far less before modern transportation systems. This is why we still have different races of human beings, and don't all look like Tiger Woods (the so-called "black" golfer who is in reality of mixed white/yellow/black heritage).

[fullfathomfive]

My 25th Great Grandfather is also HM George I's 17th Great Grandfather, Lady Diana's 24th Great Grandfather, PM Churchill's 23rd Great Grandfather and George Washington's 19th Great Grandfather.

And there's probably a good chance that a lot of posters on this forum are similarly related.