×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Research Suggests One To Three Men Fathered Most Western Europeans

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the you-are-the-father dept.

Science 253

Taco Cowboy writes "'While the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in Africa took 12 thousand years to spread, those in Europe started from around 3rd millennium.' The speed of spread of the European haplogroups was totally astounding, to say the least. 'There was no R1b found in Europe before a Bell Beaker site from the 3rd millennium BC and today many Europeans (most in western Europe) belong to this haplogroup. 'We used coalescent simulations to investigate the range of demographic models most likely to produce the phylogenetic structures observed in Africa and Europe, assessing the starting and ending genetic effective population sizes, duration of the expansion, and time when expansion ended. The best-fitting models in Africa and Europe are very different. In Africa, the expansion took about 12 thousand years, ending very recently; it started from approximately 40 men and numbers expanded approximately 50-fold. In Europe, the expansion was much more rapid, taking only a few generations and occurring as soon as the major R1b lineage entered Europe; it started from just one to three men, whose numbers expanded more than a thousandfold.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

253 comments

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567865)

It wasn't a greasy nigger

Re: Good, for you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567913)

Your great great ancestors were niggers That makes you a nigger, nigger. You can't escape this fact you fucking duffuss.

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568023)

black butthole tickles my pickle

Those Fuckers! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567883)

Busy busy busy.

Proof! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567893)

This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

Re:Proof! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567937)

God's chosen people are Europeans - I always thought so.

Re:Proof! (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#45567971)

So did most Europeans. It's one of the reasons that European history is such an unmitigated meatgrinder from about the moment the Roman Empire started to lose it, right up until the US and USSR got serious about stocking up on nukes. (or, um, I mean, the humanitarian ideals of the UN and EU ushered in a new era of peaceful cooperation. I, um, must have made typo there. Or maybe my keyboard firmware is misanthropic.)

Re:Proof! (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#45568273)

So did most Europeans.

So did most humans. Throughout history, nearly all tribes and nations have felt themselves superior to their neighbors. There was nothing particularly "European" about tribalism and war. In fact, tribalism isn't even a specifically human trait. You can see the same behavior in a pride of lions, a troop of chimpanzees, or even between anthills. It is a predictable emergent behavior of social Darwinism.

Re:Proof! (5, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#45568689)

So did most Europeans. It's one of the reasons that European history is such an unmitigated meatgrinder

Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" (which also thoroughly discusses the demons of our nature) argues that the idea that a belief in God's favor caused the violence is false. Tribalism and lack of empathy (the evolution of empathy, especially empathy for people outside of your closest circle, is fascinating and non-obvious) were the cause of the unmitigated meatgrinder, and it wasn't just Europe, it was everywhere. In fact, recorded European history is mild compared to the pre-history archaeology shows us came before it.

I could try to summarize the arguments, but I wouldn't do them justice. I highly recommend the book.

Re:Proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568749)

a belief in God's favor... Tribalism and lack of empathy

If god favors my group, then the other groups are not favored and are therefore inferior and unworthy of my concern. His reasoning why a belief in god's favor does not cause violence is the reason why it causes violence.

Re:Proof! (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568859)

Of course that only applies for monotheistic religions. In polytheism, it's easy: Our god favours us, and the other tribe's god favours them.

Re:Proof! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567973)

You jest, but you're actually closer than you think. Japheth was the son of Noah that moved north into Europe. Shem moved east. Ham moved south. All of them left roots in areas at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

Also, if you had read the Bible's account of the flood, you'd know that there won't be another flood. God concluded a "rainbow covenant" with Noah and his family, promising that he would never bring that kind of destruction on the earth again. All future destruction the Bible speaks of will be of people only. The flora and fauna will be left intact.

Re:Proof! (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#45568037)

That always struck me as a bit of an empty promise. God said he'd never destroy the world by flood - but he still has fire, massive tectonic activity, meteor impact, quantum vacuum collapse, wandering microsingularity, atmopheric poisoning, extreme heat...

Re:Proof! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568123)

And when has one of those things completely depopulated the earth of humans down to about 7 or so? If you're going to criticize the bible, at least criticize one of the billions of problems it actually has instead of inventing a problem where there isn't one.

Re:Proof! (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568193)

And when has one of those things completely depopulated the earth of humans down to about 7 or so?

He didn't say it happened. He only said that God's promise doesn't cover it.

Re:Proof! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568243)

That always struck me as a bit of an empty promise. God said he'd never destroy the world by flood - but he still has fire, massive tectonic activity, meteor impact, quantum vacuum collapse, wandering microsingularity, atmopheric poisoning, extreme heat...

He still has flood, too. I mean, sure, he promised... but if he does flood the earth again, are you going to be the one to complain? No. Because you'll be dead. And in hell, because you were thinking of criticizing God, and that's a big no-no.

Re:Proof! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568659)

If so he's been trying to destroy us for a long time and still hasn't quite got it right. Semipotent wanker.

Re:Proof! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568101)

The flora and fauna will be left intact.

You mean whats left after we are done with them right?

Re:Proof! (3, Interesting)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 5 months ago | (#45568263)

Except that this gene is primarily found in Western Europeans [wikipedia.org] and is non-existent in Asians and other races on the planet. The flood that supposedly took out everyone on the planet would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is absolutely not the case here.

Re:Proof! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#45568405)

What. You think Noah looked throughout all of the ark? That was a pretty big boat. Cubits and cubits of horseshit, zebra shit, rotifera dung etc.

I'll bet there were more than a few extra humans hiding away in that thing. And would they have stuck around once the ground dried up? Of course not. They would have high tailed it away from the rest of the group.

Problem solved.

Re:Proof! (1)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#45568917)

Didn't Sting make a song about that? Someone had to shovel all that manure, and Noah was the wealthiest man on Earth, wasn't going to be him!

Re:Proof! (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45567975)

So up to two sons of Noah's wife weren't actually his?

Re:Proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568387)

Common theme in the Bible. At least one of the sons of Josephs wife weren't actually his.

Noah (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#45567999)

This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...

There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.

I don't believe science can prove OR disprove a god or buddah or FSM or anything beyond the natural world. Supernatural is unprovable scientifically by definition....**super** natural.

Why not talk about the mythology?

Are we projecting (because the Noah story is still widely told) onto this finding if we compare it to the Torah's account of Noah and the repopulation of the world after?

There are several ancient maps showing [wikimedia.org] **very testable** notions of population distribution. If these are anywhere near accurate in explaining human population distribution why not do more science based on it?

Is anyone really concerned about proving god exists somehow? what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

Re: Noah (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 5 months ago | (#45568085)

The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."

Re: Noah (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568223)

The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."

"A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.

Re: Noah (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 5 months ago | (#45568567)

The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle." "A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.

You're missing the point. The GP used a non-existent word ("alot") but probably wouldn't use a similarly constructed non-existent word ("alittle"). The fake word "alittle" was presented to cause that person to stop for a second and think about the word they're typing. A "lot" is a measure of quantity, usually used to imply a non-small number of something. Like, "I suppose I could take just the one, but since they're a bargain, I'll take the whole lot." A follow up would be, "Did you see what he bought? He went shopping for one, but bought a lot." Not "alot," but "a lot" ... where "a" is singular a refers to quantity one lot. Like saying he bought "..a bunch of bananas, not just one." But if someone asks how many bananas you bought, would you say, "abunch" or "a bunch"? A bushel of corn, or "abushel?" A pair of socks or "apair?"

Re: Noah (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568813)

Of course that doesn't proof that there is no word "alot". For example, "cannot" would be more logically written as "can not". With all other words it's separate "I must/I must not", "I may/I may not", "I might/I might not", "I shall/I shall not" etc. So from pure logic you'd also conclude that it's also "I can/I can not". But it isn't. It's "I can/I cannot".

The only way to see whether "alot" is a valid word is to consult a (sufficiently recent) dictionary.

Re: Noah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568921)

That would be "a follow-up."

"Follow up" makes "follow" a verb, you pedantic twat.

Re: Noah (1)

Arker (91948) | about 5 months ago | (#45568825)

I have not seen anyone writing 'alittle' or heard it spoken either. I rather suspect this actually has more to do with a/an being effectively a prefix in most spoken English, and perhaps also on analogy with 'another' which is comprehensible as 'an other.'

Re: Noah (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 5 months ago | (#45568939)

I rather suspect this actually has more to do with a/an being effectively a prefix in most spoken English

I'd say it has a lot more to do with ignorance. Trying to apply uniform principles to a creole like English is like pushing on a rope.

Re:Noah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568113)

what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

A lot of atheists suddenly forced to correctly word their assertions that INSERT RELIGIOUS EVENT did not happen and instead have to reword it to RELIGIOUS EVENT has scientific explanation - insert long winded scientific explanation of chain reactions that sounds just as outlandish as "a wizzard did it" to most people.

Re:Noah (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 5 months ago | (#45568255)

Not really. This is a gene that's particular to Western Europeans [wikipedia.org]. Not Asians, Aficans or any other race on the planet. The flood that supposedly took out everyone on the planet except for Noah and his crotch fruit would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is not the case.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, predicts that beneficial genetic mutations will spread exactly like this.

dont forget the wives (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#45568449)

everyone on the planet except for Noah and his crotch fruit would have left everyone sharing the same genetic code which is not the case.

if you're going to talk about Mythology you should get it right.

the Torah records **8** humans aboard the ark... [wikipedia.org]Noah, his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth...and all of their wives.

this is the problem...people who talk about things they know nothing about...these kinds of comments only give fuel to the people trying to put Young-Earth Creationism into textbooks in Kansas...

get it right for fucks sake....**we're** supposed to be the scientific side of the debate!!!

is 8 people enough genetic material? who cares? it wont prove or disprove anything to anyone...

TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science

Re:dont forget the wives (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 5 months ago | (#45568511)

If you're going to reply to a comment, you should get it right. I pointed out that there are many races that do not share the genetic code found in Western Europeans. Noah's sons didn't manage to marry one of every ethnic race on the planet.

Of course you ignored all that and took one sentence out of context to try and make some point.

TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science

I didn't respond to TFA. I responded to a post from someone who was claiming that TFA supports the biblical flood.

Re:dont forget the wives (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 months ago | (#45568887)

All but four of those people have a notable lack of y-chromosomes, and the four remaining all share theirs (well, in the context of the bible, perhaps not).

Re:Noah (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#45568369)

insert long winded scientific explanation of chain reactions that sounds just as outlandish as "a wizzard did it" to most people.

No. I imagine the usual explanation is that someone came up with a great story which didn't really happen the way that they claimed.

Re:Noah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568165)

not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.

So they accept that it's not actually the truth, but still choose to believe that much of anything in a book filled with exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and feel-good messages is true?

define "believe" (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#45568221)

I'm not playing this game...

define "believe"...

I watch Fox News...when Stephen Colbert is parodying it...but I watch what is happening just like anything else, analyzing and processing it...Fox News is ridiculous!

But I can't say I've never watched it...even in the course of parody...and I've seen that **sometimes** not **everything** they do is bullshit. I've seen a few clips where Colbert or John Stewart are actually giving respect to Fox News and makign fun of someone else.

In that same way, I "believe" what I see as true in **any** text...

So...that's where I'm coming from...I want to know how **YOU DEFINE BELIEVE**

If you want to have a value-added conversation you have to start there...what do you mean by "believe"?

Re:define "believe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568641)

You're a moron if you can't figure out what was meant by that word.

Re:define "believe" (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568907)

define "believe"...

to believe: to assume something is true despite not having sufficient evidence to support that assumption

Re:Noah (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 5 months ago | (#45568275)

...what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

One of the biggest industries on the planet would cease to exist. It would create economic chaos. Next thing you know, nihilism... and anarchy!

Re:Noah (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 5 months ago | (#45568637)

This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.

Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...

There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.

The problem with that is the stories were presented as literal truth until proven otherwise and then they conveniently became mythology buried under abstraction.

Re:Noah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568741)

> what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?

Please remember that religion gave us the "the Breast Ripper" as the answer to adulterous women whilst atheists think it more humane to ask for her number.

Re:Noah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568759)

I don't believe science can prove OR disprove a god

Designing an experiment to prove that God exists is trivial:

Say you have a bunch of amputees, you pray for some of them to grow limbs again... and they do. And those you didn't pray for do not. And say you repeat these experiments all over, and they give the same results. In that case and providing that the experiments were performed properly, it would be reasonable to assume that God does in fact exist.

What is impossible by definition is to prove that god DOESN'T exist, because it's a non-falsiable affirmation. Say the aforementioned experiment fails. Can you conclude that god does not exist?? of course not, he might just decided not to take an action regarding the patient's limbs.

Re:Proof! (1, Funny)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#45568047)

Luckily I'm not an atheist.

I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)

Re:Proof! (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568109)

Luckily I'm not an atheist.

I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)

Then you're not a true agnostic. Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.

Ahh yes, the No True Agnostic gambit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568267)

Luckily I'm not an atheist.

I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)

Then you're not a true agnostic. Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.

But everyone knows that a true agnostic doesn't know what an agnostic is. Since you believe you do know, then clearly I can not choose the wine in front of you. Being a perceived agnostic, maxwell demon [slashdot.org], you would know this and through your education you would learn that man is mortal and try to distance the poison from yourself. You are not a fool so clearly I can not chose the wine in front of me. What were we talking about again? Pass the cheese.

Re:Proof! (0)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#45568315)

Sorry, the "True Scotsman" argument doesn't work with me.

Re:Proof! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568535)

Since there is no evidence for the claim that nobody knows whether there is a god, that claim can only be believed on faith. But faith is the antithesis of agnosticism.

Re:Proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568769)

But logic requires faith that it does not change and will continue to, or still does, work. Really everything comes down to faith in perception eventually. So, again, your view on agnosticism is somewhat askew.

Re:Proof! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#45568409)

Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.

No. Because there still is the possibility of some sort of definitive proof. Although how you would show that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists to an organism which is inherently extremely limited in what it can perceive or do sounds rather impossible to me. There's only so much input a human can receive over a finite life span and only so many internal state changes (including thinking) that the human can do over that life span.

Re:Proof! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 5 months ago | (#45568649)

So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists? OK, apart from the obvious option of killing everyone and then stating that since there's no one left, there's no one who could know anything – but then, in that case it won't matter any more anyway ;-)

Of course you'll also get into the problem of defining exactly what "knowing" means, and if you are not careful, you'll easily define it in a way that no human is able to know anything. Of course in that case, the statement that no human knows whether a god exists is trivially true, but just as trivially meaningless.

Indeed, in the case that an omnipotent god exists, that omnipotent god should have the power to let anyone whom he wants to know it know that he exists. Therefore if you could proof that nobody can know if a god exists, then you would, by this very act, have disproved god, and therefore could no longer logically be an agnostic, but an atheist.

But that means that to proof that nobody knows whether a god exists, you'd have to do the proof without denying the possibility that they could possibly know. However, since you can't know what happens inside someone else's mind, how could you exclude that they gained that knowledge somehow?

Re:Proof! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#45568725)

So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists?

Well, an existing god for starters would probably know that. You have to bootstrap from the supernatural side and make the supernatural, natural. Nobody seems inclined to do so at the moment.

Re:Proof! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#45568067)

Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them... However I doubt they are rarely as grandiose as the stories make them out to be.

However if a story in the Bible is shown to be true or false, it really doesn't but a final clinch in is their a god or not belief.

Now did Noah build a massive boat. Or was a merchant, with a set of connecting rafts, and when a big flood came he got lucky, he had enough supplies to wait it out and get to a safe spot... Perhaps in Europe were there wasn't much population...
That stated, Europeans probably came from a small group of nomads who have been out casted from their home land... (The family of Kian?) and probably made their own society there, growing over time.

Re:Proof! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#45568419)

Or perhaps older humans looked out over some vast ancient flood plain and realized it was a flood plain. A couple of nibbles off some fun mushrooms and a bag of fermented something or other and the prefrontal cortex goes wild....

Re:Proof! (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#45568943)

Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them...

Really? Care to name any, and any objective proof whatsoever that they have this "source of truth"? If not, you're just hand waving as much as the pope.

Re:Proof! (2)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 5 months ago | (#45568125)

The article makes claims that the world is more than 6000 years old. It actually tries to assert that people were around 70 thousand years ago. How crazy is that? This article can be further discredited because it uses things such as science, and math. Clearly the authors have an agenda.

Re:Proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568135)

What now atheists? You better hope it doesn't flood again.

I'm an atheist who lived through the Colorado floods this year, you insensitive clod!

Re:Proof! (1)

sjwt (161428) | about 5 months ago | (#45568269)

Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..

sure it would make sense if we had a passage reading "And 20,000 of the best bitches boarded the arc to keep Noah and his boys busy!" and "Gawd turned his back to all the fornication that he had outlawed"

Re:Proof! (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#45568429)

Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..

sure it would make sense if we had a passage reading "And 20,000 of the best bitches boarded the arc to keep Noah and his boys busy!" and "Gawd turned his back to all the fornication that he had outlawed"

nah the fornication laws came several hundred years later to mosses, gods last command to humanity before the flood was be fruitful and multiply so...

On The Female Side It Was Just One (5, Funny)

JohnPerkins (243021) | about 5 months ago | (#45567919)

...your mother.

Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#45567987)

According to science, we're all brothers (and sisters, and whatnot) descended from the same greatest grandmother, Mitochondrial Eve. So in that sense, it was your great (etc.) grandmother, and mine too. Burn?

Finding out that most Europeans are descended from just a handful of people is not shocking, for a variety of reasons.

Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#45568119)

It also means that at least 1/3rd of the population is some kind of royalty, possibly 2/3rds or all of them!

Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#45568293)

It also means that at least 1/3rd of the population is some kind of royalty, possibly 2/3rds or all of them!

Given that royalty seems to have traditionally run around fucking everything that wiggled, that seemed like a safe bet, anyway. If you study European history it seems like there should be more royal bastards and progeny of royal bastards than everyone else put together, by now. Also, I can't help but think about how the royalty then went on to enshrine inbreeding. I guess you return to your roots, or in this case, trunk.

Re:On The Female Side It Was Just One (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 5 months ago | (#45568219)

According to science, we're all brothers (and sisters, and whatnot) descended from the same greatest grandmother, Mitochondrial Eve. So in that sense, it was your great (etc.) grandmother, and mine too. Burn?

Finding out that most Europeans are descended from just a handful of people is not shocking, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, yes, yes, my family tree needs some serious pruning. I'm kinda busy at the moment, though...

This would explain a lot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45567935)

In regards to the constant bickering and wars, it all makes sense! Three families? That is a shit ton of brothers fighting over stupid shit

Re:This would explain a lot (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#45567995)

In regards to the constant bickering and wars, it all makes sense! Three families? That is a shit ton of brothers fighting over stupid shit

They don't even need three... The Habsurgs, in all their imbred glory, managed to keep south-western Europe in a state of more or less constant dynastic turmoil for a few centuries...

Re:This would explain a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568121)

At least do them the courtesy and get their name right.

Re:This would explain a lot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568229)

I'm pretty sure Carlos II pronounced Hapsburg as "Habsurg", when he wasn't drooling too much to speak.

2, maybe 1 or 3? (4, Funny)

jovius (974690) | about 5 months ago | (#45568003)

Must have been quite a night!

Re:2, maybe 1 or 3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568217)

I know, I was there.

All thanks to my Tin Can Opener Time Machine. And some bearded man and Russian drinks.
Just don't ask where circumcision came from.

SO.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568017)

The truth comes out. Most of you are a bunch of inbred bastards.

Re:SO.... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 5 months ago | (#45568251)

Explains the preponderance of recessive traits like blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin. You people need to get out more.

Racist! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568039)

This article declares that Africans started with a much larger population base, and only recently completed the transformation (from neanderthol) ! Apes!

It also basically says that 3 dudes started most of Europe! What inbreeding trash!

The facts are completely racist. They are so insulting, the whole study must be disavowed. Everybody knows all races are exactly the same. History will be as our forefathers wrote it, damn the facts!

But it sure makes a whole lotta sense...

Re:Racist! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 5 months ago | (#45568237)

Complete mischaracterization. What the article says is that there was an African expansion from a smallish group in West Africa that spread out and populated most of the continent and that Europe was colonized really quickly in the aftermath of the latest glaciation by people rpobably from the middle east.

The African expansion took longer because there were more people there to compete with the expanding group.

Couple of "Leisure Suit Larry" winners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568093)

Thats all.

Either impressed all the ladies, or just never got caught.

Traveling salesmen for Flint Mining Corp?

Jake, Fred, we've been found out! (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | about 5 months ago | (#45568095)

Dang modern science, guys, they found us! It'll only be a matter of time before they round us up. I mean, it's not like you all should be GRATEFUL to your elders but NO

yuo Fa:il It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568151)

Coomunity. The

Summary errors (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 5 months ago | (#45568199)

* Bell Beaker site mentioned in summary but not in quoted article.
* Summary says R1b entered after 3rd millienium BC. Quoted article says the European expansion took place roughly 12000 years ago:

In Europe, the expansion was very rapid, taking only approximately 325 (50 to 600) years and ending approximately 12 (6 to 14) KYA,...

No mystery there. The last glacial period ended about 12000 years ago, turning much of Europe from a hard place to live to a much easier place to live. People moved in and expanded greatly.

"Do you have any children?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568201)

"ALL of them, that I know of!"

A bit early for this, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568225)

I'm not saying the research isn't mature, just that it's only December, not April first.

I mean, didn't anyone else find it suspicious that the word "rib" was used here, thinly veiled by a numeral "one" replacing the middle letter?

I would would take this with a grain of salt.

Headline again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568291)

Strange headline. According to that I also committed all the crimes of my forefathers.

Going back far enough. (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#45568455)

Going back far enough you only have one man and one woman that are the basis for Homo Sapiens.

But they may never have met - the lineages for males and females have been on different paths. All the variations we see are from mutations, and maybe in some cases DNA exchange through viruses.

Doubt it. (3, Insightful)

Chalnoth (1334923) | about 5 months ago | (#45568699)

The problem with claiming that all Europeans came from a small number of people based upon a Y-chromosome study is that such a study, by design, misses many men who failed to leave male descendants. If, for example, I have four children, but they are all daughters, then my Y chromosome dies with me, even though many other of my genes will still live on in my daughters (in aggregate, if I had four children, around 94% of my genes would survive into the next generation).

This means that over time, we lose the Y chromosomes of many ancestral men just due to random chance. Those 1-3 men might well have been traveling in a group of 200 or so, and Europeans may still carry many genes from many of the other men in that group. But because the other members of the group didn't leave behind Y chromosomes, we don't see them in a Y-chromosome analysis.

The study seems to have found good evidence that Europeans are all descended from a small group, but 1-3 men seems to be stretching it.

Re:Doubt it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568817)

but 1-3 men seems to be stretching it.

That's what she said.

Lucky Bastards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568885)

Feeling lucky tonight? *seeding Europe* Yes.

and so ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45568951)

So a few went North and the rest stayed home.

Next question....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...