We are all related!
Every person in the world today born between 1904 and 2003 is from 188% to 1668% related to everyone born between 980 and 1079 when the world's population was respectively 257.4m and 284.5m. This time period, 980 to 1079, covers both the Norman conquest of England in 1066 and the flowering of the Mexic and Arabic civilizations - the latter of which stirred the first of many Crusades that brought the West far more into contact with the East than it had been since the fall of the Roman Empire in 409.
The practice of family intermarriage was common, if not mandatory, in the past, especially in relation to royal families. Also, families were far bigger than they are now - so our ancestors born between 980 and 1079 were far more related to his or her own generation than we are.
And, taken to logical extremes, the further you go back in history the more related the world's population was until, ultimately, there had to be an Adam and Eve of sorts - even if they merely constituted a soup of chemicals in the middle of a place called Pangaea.
Charles Darwin may have shocked the religious establishment of the mid-19th century by postulating that human beings evolved from the apes, but Jim Watson and Francis Crick rocked the mid-20th century world with their discovery of DNA which not only proved that we share 98.5 percent of our genetic makeup with chimpanzees but also showed that we share 75 percent of our genetic makeup with pumpkins!
Faced with this incontrovertible evidence, it is sad that there still exist large groups of people who, led by those with vested interests in ancient beliefs persisting, deny our close relationship with the apes and also, in some cases, maintain the superiority of some human beings over others.
Naturally, a belief in being 'special' allows us to eat or mistreat those things that we deem are not special, so religions that foster this sort of concept are particularly divisive.
Millions of years ago the resemblance between the early hominids and the apes was so close that it must have been difficult to tell them apart. Our resemblance to apes is not very close now, but it is still there for those who wish to see it. We have no qualms about eating pumpkins, but eating apes is akin to cannibalism in all but primitive tribes.
Initially, then, we were all closely related and looked similar. Migration and climate changes led to isolation and inbreeding that led, in turn, to the distinctive races developing.
The distinctive features that a dog breeder, say, can achieve artificially in a few years took millions of years for us to achieve naturally. It was only through later migration - nomadic wandering, invasion, colonization and trading - that the races met up with each other again and the notion of being 'special' evolved.
Eventually, of course, and not so very long ago, we came to accept the humanity of all races and started to interbreed, and in doing so we all came, once again, to be closely related. But old notions - like the ancient Egyptian belief that cats were gods, or the old European belief that kings ruled by divine right - take a long time to die out completely.
While some races remain relatively 'pure' - particularly the Japanese - there are very few 'white' people in the world today who do not have ancestors or relatives in Africa, India, China, Polynesia or the Middle East, and very few 'black' people who have been spared a whitewash.
Just having had a father or grandfather who travels - as a merchant, a preacher, a teacher, a soldier, a sailor or whatever- almost guarantees a swag of unknown relatives in some other part of the world. The amazing DNA project led by National Geographic and IBM is uncovering these facts right now!
What divides us is not race - we are all related. At some time in the future everyone's DNA profile will be known and it will probably become mandatory to screen all couples before they have children in order to eliminate genetic problems in future generations. It is from mitochondria - a sub-cellular structure of DNA that is passed on by mothers to both sons and daughters - but only daughters pass it on throughout the generations (unlike the gender genes on the Y chromosome that pass from fathers to sons but not daughters) that we will all be presented with incontrovertible evidence of our relatedness. The mitochondrial structure outlasts the Y chromosome - permitting identification of ancient bodies - so family genealogy may one day be determined by mothers rather than fathers.
What divides us is the belief systems - the ancient religions - that one tribe devised in order to set itself apart from, and superior to, not just another tribe but also to differences such as gender and wealth within the tribe.
And those with a vested interest in maintaining these ancient and divisive belief systems - whose jobs, power and wealth depend upon manipulating the hearts and minds of the masses - are also those who have a vested interest in promoting the conditions of war, poverty, overpopulation, ignorance and misery upon which they feed.
Close relationships, of course, are not always harmonious. Historically and statistically, more of us are murdered by relatives than by strangers, and the bigger the family - especially with multiple wives and step-siblings - the more violent the conflict over power, property and living space.
While China took a responsible approach with its 'one child' policy in 1980, the blatant promotion of big families by other regimes is creating a huge problem of 'space' for the rest of us.
The practice of family intermarriage was common, if not mandatory, in the past, especially in relation to royal families. Also, families were far bigger than they are now - so our ancestors born between 980 and 1079 were far more related to his or her own generation than we are.
And, taken to logical extremes, the further you go back in history the more related the world's population was until, ultimately, there had to be an Adam and Eve of sorts - even if they merely constituted a soup of chemicals in the middle of a place called Pangaea.
Charles Darwin may have shocked the religious establishment of the mid-19th century by postulating that human beings evolved from the apes, but Jim Watson and Francis Crick rocked the mid-20th century world with their discovery of DNA which not only proved that we share 98.5 percent of our genetic makeup with chimpanzees but also showed that we share 75 percent of our genetic makeup with pumpkins!
Faced with this incontrovertible evidence, it is sad that there still exist large groups of people who, led by those with vested interests in ancient beliefs persisting, deny our close relationship with the apes and also, in some cases, maintain the superiority of some human beings over others.
Naturally, a belief in being 'special' allows us to eat or mistreat those things that we deem are not special, so religions that foster this sort of concept are particularly divisive.
Millions of years ago the resemblance between the early hominids and the apes was so close that it must have been difficult to tell them apart. Our resemblance to apes is not very close now, but it is still there for those who wish to see it. We have no qualms about eating pumpkins, but eating apes is akin to cannibalism in all but primitive tribes.
Initially, then, we were all closely related and looked similar. Migration and climate changes led to isolation and inbreeding that led, in turn, to the distinctive races developing.
The distinctive features that a dog breeder, say, can achieve artificially in a few years took millions of years for us to achieve naturally. It was only through later migration - nomadic wandering, invasion, colonization and trading - that the races met up with each other again and the notion of being 'special' evolved.
Eventually, of course, and not so very long ago, we came to accept the humanity of all races and started to interbreed, and in doing so we all came, once again, to be closely related. But old notions - like the ancient Egyptian belief that cats were gods, or the old European belief that kings ruled by divine right - take a long time to die out completely.
While some races remain relatively 'pure' - particularly the Japanese - there are very few 'white' people in the world today who do not have ancestors or relatives in Africa, India, China, Polynesia or the Middle East, and very few 'black' people who have been spared a whitewash.
Just having had a father or grandfather who travels - as a merchant, a preacher, a teacher, a soldier, a sailor or whatever- almost guarantees a swag of unknown relatives in some other part of the world. The amazing DNA project led by National Geographic and IBM is uncovering these facts right now!
What divides us is not race - we are all related. At some time in the future everyone's DNA profile will be known and it will probably become mandatory to screen all couples before they have children in order to eliminate genetic problems in future generations. It is from mitochondria - a sub-cellular structure of DNA that is passed on by mothers to both sons and daughters - but only daughters pass it on throughout the generations (unlike the gender genes on the Y chromosome that pass from fathers to sons but not daughters) that we will all be presented with incontrovertible evidence of our relatedness. The mitochondrial structure outlasts the Y chromosome - permitting identification of ancient bodies - so family genealogy may one day be determined by mothers rather than fathers.
What divides us is the belief systems - the ancient religions - that one tribe devised in order to set itself apart from, and superior to, not just another tribe but also to differences such as gender and wealth within the tribe.
And those with a vested interest in maintaining these ancient and divisive belief systems - whose jobs, power and wealth depend upon manipulating the hearts and minds of the masses - are also those who have a vested interest in promoting the conditions of war, poverty, overpopulation, ignorance and misery upon which they feed.
Close relationships, of course, are not always harmonious. Historically and statistically, more of us are murdered by relatives than by strangers, and the bigger the family - especially with multiple wives and step-siblings - the more violent the conflict over power, property and living space.
While China took a responsible approach with its 'one child' policy in 1980, the blatant promotion of big families by other regimes is creating a huge problem of 'space' for the rest of us.
<< Home