"Descent From Antiquity" - Genetic Trivia, or a Profound Truth?

Posted by Minnesotastan in Everything Else on October 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm


Van Buren and Obama

A seventh-grader in California has collaborated with her grandfather to produce a genealogical chart demonstrating that Barack Obama is related to all previous United States presidents (except for Martin Van Buren).  This happens because Obama and the other presidents have family trees that can be traced back to John “Lackland” Plantagenet, King of England at the beginning of the 13th century.

Van Buren (who incidentally was the first U.S. president to be born in the United States) is excluded from the group because his ancestors were Dutch rather than English.

This young lady’s accomplishment is remarkable in terms of the scholarship and genealogical research involved, but whether the result is important depends on one’s view of the “descent from antiquity” concept, which has been used to demonstrate that immense groups of persons living today are descended from Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Marie Antoinette, and other historical figures.  A diagram at Wolfram Alpha demonstrates the genetic distance between tenth cousins; from that viewpoint such “relationships” are genetically trivial.  A Neatorama post last year discussed the relationship of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Brangelina.  The most scholarly compilation in this regard is probably Mark Humphrys’ “Royal Descents of Famous People.”

The other point of view, of course, is that our relationship with all other humanity is not trivial, but rather a principle that should guide everything from personal ethics to foreign policy.  An article in The Atlantic discussed this concept of “everyone” being related to “everyone else” and noted that it carried another implication:

The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass. Just as we are descended from most of the people alive on the planet a few thousand years ago, several thousand years hence each of us will be an ancestor of the entire human race—or of no one at all.

Story via Reddit.  Photo credits: Wikimedia Commons


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post

Tags: , ,


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:
BuckyBalls (w/ Mystery Bonus!)


COMMENT

19 comments to ""Descent From Antiquity" - Genetic Trivia, or a Profound Truth?"

  1. Flux
    October 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    I'm sure, somehow, he's also related to Kevin Bacon.

  2. wit of a twit
    October 30th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    there is one thing that has bothered me about genealogy/ family trees. There are so many tpeople that came together to form a family and or descended from a common ancestor. Knowing that people still like to focus on the one individual that was different.

  3. zeytoun
    October 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Consider this:

    On average, 10% of people were not sired by the person they believe is their father.

    In other words, going back further than 10 generations means that it is more probable that you are NOT related to the ancestor, with increasing probability, the further you go...

  4. eni
    October 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Ironic that all our presidents are descended from an English king...

  5. tr
    October 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Not really ironic at all. The Prominent Citizens of the english colonies were peppered liberally with cadet branches of the British ruling class. In time the colonial upper crust became the early U.S. upper crust, which has proven to be about as stable as that of most societies.

  6. Johnny Cat
    October 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Cue the Martin Van Buren haters in 3...2...1..

    Seriously though, nice article. Provokes thought that should be basic understanding.

  7. fredsnothere
    October 30th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Follow all the branches in between you'll probably find yourself in Hitler's mother's womb as well. Follow a few others and you'll probably find Ted Bundy and Josef Stalin too. Go back far enough and everyone's a monkey's uncle. Booya!

  8. wigglesPEsquire
    October 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    So he's not a Van Buren boy?

  9. Stymie
    October 30th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    Sorry, sounds a wee bit 'fishy' to me.

  10. werD
    October 31st, 2009 at 1:22 am

    10% of people were not sired by the person they believe is their father?

    Consider this: on average, 90% of unsourced statistics are made up.

  11. Foreigner1
    October 31st, 2009 at 4:15 am

    I knew it I knew it!!! - Y'all are distant cuzzez of mine!!! - We're all related and that's why we all feel so comfy cozy around here.

    ...Oh Darn I'm Dutch so that doesn't fly for me if you all are English...... Well in that case surely Van Buren must be family of mine in some way or form.

    ... Oh wait if we go back even futher, some of my anscestors went to England in the time of the Daneland so I still must have lots of relatives over Yonder and then indirectly also in the America's (apart from the confirmed members that went there during the late 1890's and early 1900's and just after WW2...).

    And if we go back even before that, undoubtedly during the time of the Great Migrations there must have been common anscestors.

    And even before that during the days of Cro Magnon or befor that during Australopithecus-Days..........

    :lol: Hello there Exended Family!!!! :lol:

  12. felixthecat
    October 31st, 2009 at 5:06 am

    "On average, 10% of people were not sired by the person they believe is their father."

    Sperm Wars, Robin Baker

    "Consider this: on average, 90% of unsourced statistics are made up."

    Defensive?

  13. Skipweasel
    October 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    "Family Tree" is always a very self-centered phrase. Rather, think of it as a family thicket, intertwined with everyone else's.

  14. Shurik
    October 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    im gonna go and back the 10 percent bastard births and chastise the made up statistics guy for making shit up

  15. Skipweasel
    November 1st, 2009 at 4:51 am

    Well, this...
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10407460
    suggests that at least in one population the estimate of 10% isn't far off.

    While this study from Switzerland...
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7860087
    gives a much lower value for their population.

  16. whitcwa
    November 1st, 2009 at 10:52 am

    I have never understood the pride people take in finding out an ancestor was famous or was a passenger on the Mayflower. We can't take the blame or get the credit for the actions of those who preceded us.

    Zeytoun, 10% sounds way too high. It implies that most women are cheating on their husbands since not every liason leads to pregnancy.

  17. Fran
    November 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Being related to all those presidents and he still can't accomplish anything presidential.

  18. Another Tim
    November 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Fran -- you are right.

    Or to paraphrase, "the nut fell far from the tree."

  19. Jim Johnson
    November 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Why do you even post things like this, what a joke..


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS