'Greece' The Spoilt Child Of Europe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Amphipolis
    Banned
    • Aug 2014
    • 1328

    #31
    Originally posted by tchaiku View Post
    How much percent of Greeks do you think are ancient?

    Comment

    • Risto the Great
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 15658

      #32
      So, you're saying all the transported populations into modern Greece have nothing to do with the ancients then, right?
      Risto the Great
      MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
      "Holding my breath for the revolution."

      Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

      Comment

      • tchaiku
        Member
        • Nov 2016
        • 786

        #33
        There might be someone isolated in Crete or maybe Laconia who have considerable ancient Hellenic blood.

        Comment

        • Amphipolis
          Banned
          • Aug 2014
          • 1328

          #34
          Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
          So, you're saying all the transported populations into modern Greece have nothing to do with the ancients then, right?
          This is not what Pedigree collapse means.

          Comment

          • Risto the Great
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 15658

            #35
            Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
            This is not what Pedigree collapse means.
            Just not sure how it applies to all the transported populations that now constitute modern Greeks, that's all.
            Risto the Great
            MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
            "Holding my breath for the revolution."

            Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

            Comment

            • Amphipolis
              Banned
              • Aug 2014
              • 1328

              #36
              That is an example of Pedigree Collapse



              Leading geneticist says we’re ALL related to royalty

              Speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival, geneticist Dr Adam Rutherford said ‘literally’ everyone in Europe has a direct lineage to Charlemagne. Many a celebrity has sought to further boost their credentials by revealing they are descended from kings and queens on genealogy programmes. But according to a leading geneticist, their boasts are nothing special – because we are all related to royalty. BBC broadcaster Adam Rutherford said shows like BBC1’s Who Do You Think You Are? often try to identify someone in a celebrity’s family tree with ‘fame or infamy’.

              Last year EastEnders actor Danny Dyer said he could ‘not compute’ it after the show revealed he was a descendant of 14th-century king Edward III. And after featuring on a genealogy show in the US, Sir Richard Branson last year boasted of the ‘extraordinary family fact’ that he was related to Charlemagne, who ruled much of Western Europe from 768 to 814. But yesterday Dr Rutherford, who has a PhD in genetics, said that actually this was not remarkable at all.

              Speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival, sponsored by the Daily Mail, he said that ‘literally’ everyone in Europe had a direct lineage to Charlemagne, while there was a ‘significant’ chance most people in Britain are a descendant of Edward III. The only difference between us and celebrities is that most of us don’t have the means to prove it. He said he and a team at University College London had worked on the notion that you have two parents, who also had two parents, and so on, working backwards to form an ever expanding family tree.

              From this, they were able to work out that everyone living in Europe in the 10th century, and so before, was somehow related to everyone who now lives on the same continent. Dr Rutherford, who presents BBC Radio 4’s Inside Science, said: ‘When you do family trees and in things like Who Do You Think You Are? … the real key comes in managing to identify someone of fame or infamy in your family tree. ‘And the reason I quip that story is because this is fundamentally not how genetics works.

              ‘Richard Branson last year announced that he had looked into his family tree and found he was 40 generations away from Charlemagne. ‘Literally every person in Europe is directly descended from Charlemagne. Literally, not metaphorically. You have a direct lineage which leads to Charlemagne.’ He added: ‘Looking around this room, every single one of you … is directly descended between 21 and 24 generations from Edward III.’



              ====
              Last edited by Amphipolis; 06-27-2017, 04:08 AM.

              Comment

              • tchaiku
                Member
                • Nov 2016
                • 786

                #37
                Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                That is an example of Pedigree Collapse



                Leading geneticist says we’re ALL related to royalty

                Speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival, geneticist Dr Adam Rutherford said ‘literally’ everyone in Europe has a direct lineage to Charlemagne. Many a celebrity has sought to further boost their credentials by revealing they are descended from kings and queens on genealogy programmes. But according to a leading geneticist, their boasts are nothing special – because we are all related to royalty. BBC broadcaster Adam Rutherford said shows like BBC1’s Who Do You Think You Are? often try to identify someone in a celebrity’s family tree with ‘fame or infamy’.

                Last year EastEnders actor Danny Dyer said he could ‘not compute’ it after the show revealed he was a descendant of 14th-century king Edward III. And after featuring on a genealogy show in the US, Sir Richard Branson last year boasted of the ‘extraordinary family fact’ that he was related to Charlemagne, who ruled much of Western Europe from 768 to 814. But yesterday Dr Rutherford, who has a PhD in genetics, said that actually this was not remarkable at all.

                Speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival, sponsored by the Daily Mail, he said that ‘literally’ everyone in Europe had a direct lineage to Charlemagne, while there was a ‘significant’ chance most people in Britain are a descendant of Edward III. The only difference between us and celebrities is that most of us don’t have the means to prove it. He said he and a team at University College London had worked on the notion that you have two parents, who also had two parents, and so on, working backwards to form an ever expanding family tree.

                From this, they were able to work out that everyone living in Europe in the 10th century, and so before, was somehow related to everyone who now lives on the same continent. Dr Rutherford, who presents BBC Radio 4’s Inside Science, said: ‘When you do family trees and in things like Who Do You Think You Are? … the real key comes in managing to identify someone of fame or infamy in your family tree. ‘And the reason I quip that story is because this is fundamentally not how genetics works.

                ‘Richard Branson last year announced that he had looked into his family tree and found he was 40 generations away from Charlemagne. ‘Literally every person in Europe is directly descended from Charlemagne. Literally, not metaphorically. You have a direct lineage which leads to Charlemagne.’ He added: ‘Looking around this room, every single one of you … is directly descended between 21 and 24 generations from Edward III.’



                ====
                Yes if we get back to the apes, however that has little to do with Ancient Greece.

                Comment

                • Amphipolis
                  Banned
                  • Aug 2014
                  • 1328

                  #38
                  Originally posted by tchaiku View Post
                  Yes if we get back to the apes, however that has little to do with Ancient Greece.
                  Quite the contrary. Edward III of England was 700 years ago that the author correctly translates to 21-24 generations ago (usually it’s 3-4 generations per century which means average parent age for each child born is considered somewhere between 25-33).

                  Now Ancient Greece (e.g. in the days of Alexander the Great) is 2440 years ago, i.e. around 80 generations ago. Your ancestral contributors from that time is an astronomical number around power(2;80) which is around power(10;24), you know a figure with 24 digits.

                  Of course there were not so many people in the world back then, so let’s say that only half a billion or 50 million people contributed to your blood. The tricky part is that some of them contributed only once while others contributed trillions of times and these would be your main blood ancestors. Now, go and find them.


                  ===
                  Last edited by Amphipolis; 06-27-2017, 07:56 AM.

                  Comment

                  • tchaiku
                    Member
                    • Nov 2016
                    • 786

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                    Quite the contrary. Edward III of England was 700 years ago that the author correctly translates to 21-24 generations ago (usually it’s 3-4 generations per century which means average parent age for each child born is considered somewhere between 25-33).

                    Now Ancient Greece (e.g. in the days of Alexander the Great) is 2440 years ago, i.e. around 80 generations ago. Your ancestral contributors from that time is an astronomical number around power(2;80) which is around power(10;24), you know a figure with 24 digits.

                    Of course there were not so many people in the world back then, so let’s say that only half a billion or 50 million people contributed to your blood. The tricky part is that some of them contributed only once while others contributed trillions of times and these would be your main blood ancestors. Now, go and find them.


                    ===
                    By the time you hit antiquity you have about 6000 ancestors.

                    Comment

                    • tchaiku
                      Member
                      • Nov 2016
                      • 786

                      #40
                      Actually it's over 1 million by the time you get to 1000 AD. The reason why is quite simple. For example the total population of the world in 1800s was a billion, the average life is about [or was less] 80 years. So by 1800-1900 nearly a billion have died and about a billion had come to life.
                      Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                      Now, go and find them.
                      ===
                      I meant based on your assumption. The same can apply to Australian Aboriginals or even better Swedes with vikings.
                      Last edited by tchaiku; 06-27-2017, 11:12 AM.

                      Comment

                      • Amphipolis
                        Banned
                        • Aug 2014
                        • 1328

                        #41
                        Originally posted by tchaiku View Post
                        By the time you hit antiquity you have about 6000 ancestors.
                        No, one would have 6,000 living ancestors around 12-13 generations ago, i.e. in the 1600s AD.

                        Originally posted by tchaiku View Post
                        Actually it's over 1 million by the time you get to 1000 AD. The reason why is quite simple. For example the total population of the world in 1800s was a billion, the average life is about [or was less] 80 years. So by 1800-1900 nearly a billion have died and about a billion had come to life.
                        The average life does not play a role in these calculations. 1000 AD is 10 centuries, i.e. 33 generations ago. Anybody’s living ancestors back them are not 1 million but up to power(2;33) which is already 8,5 billion people.

                        Originally posted by tchaiku View Post
                        I meant based on your assumption. The same can apply to Australian Aboriginals or even better Swedes with vikings.
                        Greece is at a crossing point. The only areas of the world that are not related to us in the historical years are America, Eastern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, the last two may have indirectly contributed something as they did have some interactions with Central Asia and North Africa.



                        ==
                        Last edited by Amphipolis; 06-28-2017, 08:07 AM.

                        Comment

                        • tchaiku
                          Member
                          • Nov 2016
                          • 786

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Amphipolis View Post
                          No, one would have 6,000 living ancestors around 12-13 generations ago, i.e. in the 1600s AD.



                          The average life does not play a role in these calculations. 1000 AD is 10 centuries, i.e. 33 generations ago. Anybody’s living ancestors back them are not 1 million but up to power(2;33) which is already 8,5 billion people.



                          Greece is at a crossing point. The only areas of the world that are not related to us in the historical years are America, Eastern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, the last two may have indirectly contributed something as they did have some interactions with Central Asia and North Africa.



                          ==
                          Wachter’s model calculates that this individual would have 952,279 distinct ancestors in 1077 – only around 0.09% of the maximum but representing fully 86% of the total estimated English population of 1.1 million. This is ultimately the basis for the assertion highlighted at the beginning of this essay that everyone with English ancestry today is descended from 86% of people alive in the country at the time of William the Conqueror.

                          Many of us are interested in where our families come from as well as who our ancestors were. What and where are our ‘roots’? Some of you might even have researched your genealogy or family history.…


                          8,5 billion is impossible. If we multiply 50 individuals with that number, it would cross the total number of human beings that have lived in the last millennium.
                          Last edited by tchaiku; 06-28-2017, 09:46 AM.

                          Comment

                          • tchaiku
                            Member
                            • Nov 2016
                            • 786

                            #43
                            This is how Pedigree collapse actually works:


                            So how do we explain this?

                            With a concept called pedigree collapse, which is what happens when people end up with a mate who is somewhat or very closely related to them. So for example, if two cousins had a child, that child would only have six great-grandparents, not eight. Or, to put it another way, there are eight filled great-grandparent spots on that child’s family tree, but two of the spots are duplicates of two other spot.

                            Read more: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/01/your-...nd-future.html
                            Last edited by tchaiku; 08-09-2017, 01:40 PM.

                            Comment

                            • Risto the Great
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 15658

                              #44
                              The Targaryens are explained in the same way.
                              Risto the Great
                              MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                              "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                              Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X