Reflections. Part II – Aren’t we all related?

Two qualifications to start – our genealogical “reflections” blogs are mostly written with the western and near-eastern world in mind, although the genealogical aspects apply worldwide. Also, the “reflections” series are a greatly simplified presentation of current thinking on the subjects covered.

The question, “aren’t we all related?” has been brought to our attention on several occasions, although for different reasons. In any event, it certainly offers some interesting discussion ideas.

Not everyone agrees exactly how we might be related, and the importance varies among those with different viewpoints about religion, culture, science, etc. To help clarify the question, four aspects of genealogy are discussed: legal, spiritual, scientific and pedigree. Pedigree genealogy is integral to the question, but will be covered in reflections III.

Although today a lot of genealogy is pursued for enjoyment, it is done in the shadow of immense legal interests. The entirety of human civilization has been a tangled tapestry of dibs on who begot whom, who should get the benefits of inheritance, who’s entitled to the biggest pile of goodies, what type of livelihood they may pursue, who should rule, who should live, where they are entitled to live, and even how one might be allowed to die. Authorities exist to track, regulate and enforce such matters. Today, as always, wars are instituted or mitigated, nations rearranged, and economic, political and social problems revolve around genealogical concerns. These things are not as ubiquitous as they once were, but, “how” we are related remains important.

The spiritual or faith-based notion of how we are related can be a matter of great contention. A preponderance of faith-based models of human origins are premised on the idea that human-kind was spontaneously created, and that all ensuing humans stem from such a special event. Therefore, according to most faith-based perspectives, all humans are related. However, different versions of the origin of humans exist under this heading. For example, the genealogical construct in the Biblical “Adam and Eve” asserts that all humans on earth who have ever existed, down to those alive today, and those yet unborn, stem from a unique, divine event occurring nearly 6000 years ago. For the doctrinaire devotees of the Judeo-Christian faiths this is a settled matter, some variations among followers notwithstanding. Islamic faith follows a similar paradigm. Meanwhile, billions of people, devoted to other forms of faith-based models, hold different views.

An interesting aspect of this construct is that emanating directly from “god” does not guarantee reason, equality, fairness or justice. Thus, one can enjoy abstract notions about human origins, exclusivity of species, clan origins, and relatedness of life, while dismissing those “humans” who vary from a given doctrine, or pattern. Many millions ascribing to a faith-based model accept the idea that different “races”, and sub-races, of humans exist, that some are more superior (or preferred) over others (e.g., cast systems; “slaves”; nobility; social Darwinists), and that it would be better if these didn’t mix genetically. Those with varying skin colors, physical features, creeds, languages and other differences are frequently subject to prejudice, and other “godless” like behaviors.

Empirical (scientific) genealogy is the antipathy of the faith-based model. However, this does not endow devotees with any more claims to humanity or human stewardship. What it does do is require them to understand and follow the processes and procedures of scientific inquiry. Science now clearly supports the observation that we are all made of “star stuff.” The same atoms, molecules, elements and cosmic features that make the stars – the universe – is the same stuff of which we are made. Hence, we are all related at the origin of the universe level.

The Biological Evolution Model emerged in the mid-1800s as a bi-product of the scientific process. This model postulates that all humans are the result of a chemical process which began billions of years ago. This process evolved a feature for replicating life, which since the 1950s we have known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a principle component of the human genome. The Genome is the sum of all genetic material for a given species. Through DNA the human population can theoretically be traced to the origin of our species in SE Africa, including the current “version” (Homo sapiens-man the wise; 100,000 – 300,000 thousand years ago). Thus, we’re all related at the human genome level

Incidentally, based on scientific DNA evidence, there are no unique “races” among Homo sapiens. “Race” always was a socio-political construct designed to explain previously unknown human biological variations, and a convenient way of “pigeon-holing’ humans. It’s time to move on.

Genealogists use “reproductive” (yDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA) in their ancestral pursuits. yDNA is transferred through the paternal line; mtDNA through the maternal line. Over time, variations in human appearance and substance result from DNA mutations facilitated by the environment and the intermingling of different genetic strains within the human population. Eventually, mutations to DNA contribute to the demise of some organisms and the adaptation of others to change. Because mtDNA is passed through the maternal line, and appears subject to less variation, it can be used to trace every living human female to her earliest common ancestor, or “Eve”. In his book, The Seven Daughters of Eve (2001), world renowned DNA genealogist, Bryan Sykes, has identified, through mtDNA, seven original “Eves” representing over 95% of western humanity. Thousands of women lived within the timeframe of the seven Eves, but only the “Eves’” clans’ genes survived. If your ancestors are from Europe or the near East, the chances are excellent that one of these Eves was your mtDNA mommy. William’s Eve is “Katrine”, who lived 15,000 years ago [YAG], Jennie’s Eve is “Helena” (20,000 YAG). The offspring of these seven clan mothers experienced evolutionary changes due to mutations and intermixing with other clans over many thousands of years. These patterns can be traced to 1-3 “Mitochondrial Eves” living in SE Africa many tens of thousands of years earlier.

Current DNA analysis suggests that modern humans are related to within .1-.4% variation (95.5+%). Interestingly, human DNA is also linked to every other biological entity on earth (e.g., Chimpanzees 96-98%; bananas 50%). The biological evolution model suggests our DNA evolved into humanoid forms millions of years ago in Southeastern Africa. After a number “rehearsals” and migrations out of Africa, modern humans (Homo sapiens) journeyed out of Africa about 50-60 thousand years ago, and eventually spread throughout the world. Today, Homo sapiens appear to be the only humanoid species remaining, but evidence exists that Homo sapiens “married” with previous forms of humanoids, such as European Neanderthals. Today, modern humans evolving from their European environment still have DNA markers of those earlier encounters. William’s and Jennie’s DNA both have an estimated 2.9 percent Neanderthal DNA; Europeans average about 2.7%. This slight variation may be due to other human migrations into European terrain, decreasing the impact of Neanderthal DNA markers (Don’t even think about alternative ideas.).

Statistical genealogy, derived from the scientific model, uses a mathematical algorithm to estimate the number of descendants that might be possible from a single progenitor (forebear) over a number of generations. However interesting, this exercise has little value in determining or identifying genealogical lineage. Moreover, the more variables one considers, such as multiple family births, (6-10 several generations ago), “flexible” marriages, and clan connections (aunts, uncles, and cousins), etc., the more unwieldy the accounting becomes, even with a powerful computer. So, theoretically, statistical genealogy may demonstrate how a group, or person, can claim millions of descendants over a few generations, including the possibility of some chance relationships. However, it cannot, currently, determine how, to whom or other individual relationships, even with DNA assistance. It appears that only pedigree-based genealogy can make those connections, where the record exists.

Soon to follow: Part III – Pursuing Ancestors: Pedigree Genealogy – Who’s really related!

       -- William