Viggen Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago, somewhere in East Asia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Sopunds like one of those statistical analyses that involves a major error in some part of the calculation, or a flaw in the logic. I frankly don't believe it. We know that the ethnic/racial differences/characteristics existed long before either Jesus or King Tut. Surely a more recent common ancestry would have masked or merged those in some way? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 I will trust scientific genetic geneology over this statistics rubbish... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 I will trust scientific genetic geneology over this statistics rubbish... Hey don't you like being my cousin... really I'm not so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Do I detect another biological/racial agenda behind this ? I think I have a common ancestor with Pantagathus: I postulate he was a sturdy , socially prestigious individual, possibly from an Eurasiatic location, a good swimmer,engaged in part time cattle theft , liked beer and was given to oracular profundity when drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Do I detect another biological/racial agenda behind this ? I think I have a common ancestor with Pantagathus: I postulate he was a sturdy , socially prestigious individual, possibly from an Eurasiatic location, a good swimmer,engaged in part time cattle theft , liked beer and was given to oracular profundity when drunk. Obacerate kind sir and perform a krioboly! Or you may pessundate the enigma of the perantique celeripedean Orgiophants of the Ichthyarchy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 The kriobology is performed expeditiously! The Orgiophants are become opaque in appearence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) The Orgiophants are become opaque in appearence. And hopefully alabandical soon there after! Oh, and P-P, I'd be honored to consider you as a cousin. However, if you have a hot sister I may have to renounce that claim... Edited July 6, 2006 by Pantagathus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 The Orgiophants are become opaque in appearence. And hopefully alabandical soon there after! Indeed apanthropizination will ensue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Oh, and P-P, I'd be honored to consider you as a cousin. However, if you have a hot sister I may have to renounce that claim... Aha! You are from the south! For me, one step closer to world domination...well kinda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaecus Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 The conclusion of the article is not correct: we do not descend from a single person, since there were also other ancestors; instead, by coincidence, the genes of a single person (it could have been more) who lived many thousands of years ago can be found in all humans today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.