That study that notes all Europeans and, yes, including those of mixed-European, African, Asian, Native American, Australian, etc. ancestry around the world, almost certainly have the 8th-9th century Emperor Charlemagne as one of their ancestors, also, even more certainly, proves that they have ancestors who were Jews, Muslims, Roma, etc. haters and oppressors killers of Jews, Muslims, Roma, etc. as well as those who may rightly be remembered as saints - or at least the parents of saints, in the case of saints who didn't leave children, etc. The reason for that is while there was only one Charlemagne to have been our ancestor, there were many, many times more Jews, Muslims, Roma, sinners and saints, heroes and cowards who left children.
I will note that a similar thought experiment produces the mathematical liklihood that a huge number of us all over the world also have one of the most notorious and vicious genocidalists in history, Genghis Khan, as one of our great, great, . . . great-grandfathers. And he was in the Hitler-Stalin-Mao league of those. And there's no real way to know who isn't one of his brat's brats.
We are all of us mutts, or most of us who are lucky enough to be mutts are. That's good because the artificial practice of maintaining pure blood lines is human folly guaranteed to produce genetically inherited problems. Look at the British Royals if you want an example of those troubles. It is remarkable the extent to which people in science misidentified that artificial practice in animal husbandry was an example from which "natural" selection could be deduced. What they were deducing was the creation of genetic bottle necks, there was nothing natural about it and many of the desired "traits" to which Darwin attributes "superiority" or through the shell game he practiced, "fitness" were accompanied with seriously dysgenic characteristics among those "superior" types which were deemed "more fit". Again, look at the Brit royals for a good example of the practice. There are natural examples of what happens when a small population of animals has only itself to breed with and the results are not usually anything anyone would take as good over time.
I had a discussion with someone who seemed to not like the idea but who knows enough math to know the rather simple figures that come from a. what happens when you progressively raise 2 to the next power up and, b. the absolute and ever decreasing numbers of members of the human species in the past makes these conjectures almost impossible to not believe. I noticed in our discussion that he kept imagining our ancestors as having been strictly monogamous, which is certainly not true. I looked and found a study that guessed that about 15% of men father children with more than one mother and if that's the case then the same percentage of women must have children with more than one father - those percentages have to be equal. That's not an insignificant percentage of the population who are doing extra-mixing of the lineage. I don't know that much about the sex lives of the Carolingians but I know royals and such others as soldiers aren't famous for their strict fidelity in marriage.
I find that near mathematical certainty to be wonderful and if became more universally realized in place of the kind of Darwinian bull shit so many have as their understanding of science, Nazi-white supremacist type of poison I've spent so much time debunking would be seen for the stupidity it is. I think it might have that good effect, a universal acid against chauvinism, racism and bigotry. It would certainly take the ginger out of the Nazis, so called or otherwise named, if it became the popular understanding of science that a "pure blood line" "racial purity" "ethic purity" were about as desirable as a genetic defect or an incurable STD. Ethnic purity is the herpes that eats the mind and soul. It produces monsters.
No comments:
Post a Comment