03-25-2019, 05:58 PM
Unfortunately, the article is cleverly worded to NOT say what it wants the gentleman in question - and us, by extension - to believe. It does not say that he is descended from Ramesses III, or that he is even descended from ancient Egyptians. What it says is that he has a common ancestor in the male lineage with Ramesses II. That is a very different thing.
Mrs. G and I may have a common ancestor, if we go back far enough. That ancestor in common does not make me Chinese, nor does it make her European. The common ancestor may have been, in fact, Siberian. It wouldn't make me her GGG Grandfather, either. It shows a degree of "relatedness", but not how that relatedness comes about.
If we go back a mere 10 generations from ourselves, each of us has 512 ancestors in just THAT generation. From now until the time of Ramesses, there are 138 generations, assuming 25 years per generation. That means that in that generation alone, each of us had, mathematically, 1.74 X 10^41 ancestors, a mathematically sound conclusion... except for the fact that there have not been anywhere near that many people on Earth if we count every single human who ever lived anywhere on Earth, including in that number all of the people NOW living.
So, in the generation of Ramesses, some of the people them living are going to show up in our ancestry multiple, multiple, multiple times. Not everyone in that generation will show up.
What the story says is that, an undetermined number of generations before Ramesses lived, a man lived somewhere on Earth. That man passed on his DNA through his Y chromosome to all of the generations to come, through certain lineages. Ramesses was along one of those lineages, and the gentleman in the article may have been along another. It does not make him a descendant of Ramesses any more than my own makes me a descendant of Alexander the Great. My own Y DNA Haplotype originated in the area of ancient Thrace - but I'm not a Thracian. Spartacus WAS a Thracian, but that does not make me descended from Spartacus, either. It just means that we may have had a common ancestor somewhere back in the mists of antiquity.
As an aside, I compared my DNA with that of a man who lived about 45,000 years ago in Siberia. The only thing left of him was a thigh bone found sticking out of a river bank. I share around 30% of my DNA with that individual - more than I share with my own first cousins, and only slightly less than I share with my siblings.
Matter of fact, with the current state of exploration, it is said that all of us, each and every person now living, had a common ancestor along the direct male lineage about 230,000 years ago. One man then living passed his DNA along to us, and every other male lineage then living died out between then and now.
With that said, I DO believe in "ancestral memory". I believe that memories of people can be coded into their DNA, which can them be passed down through generations. Recently, it has been discovered that DNA in nerve cells "repairs" itself during sleep, but not during waking periods. The current speculation is that may be THE sole reason that we sleep - so our DNA can repair itself. All organisms with nervous systems undergo sleep periods, and they believe that is the reason for it. If it can "repair" itself during sleep, what is there to prevent it from coding memories at the same time?
This would mean that any "ancestral memories" we may have would necessarily be of events that occurred to that individual before they gave birth to the offspring that eventually resulted in us - we couldn't carry encoded memories that occurred AFTER that child was conceived, as those memories could not be passed down through DNA.
It might bear looking into, but I doubt if any scientists will ever run with the idea and explore it. I mean, the very notion is just crazy, isn't it?
.
Mrs. G and I may have a common ancestor, if we go back far enough. That ancestor in common does not make me Chinese, nor does it make her European. The common ancestor may have been, in fact, Siberian. It wouldn't make me her GGG Grandfather, either. It shows a degree of "relatedness", but not how that relatedness comes about.
If we go back a mere 10 generations from ourselves, each of us has 512 ancestors in just THAT generation. From now until the time of Ramesses, there are 138 generations, assuming 25 years per generation. That means that in that generation alone, each of us had, mathematically, 1.74 X 10^41 ancestors, a mathematically sound conclusion... except for the fact that there have not been anywhere near that many people on Earth if we count every single human who ever lived anywhere on Earth, including in that number all of the people NOW living.
So, in the generation of Ramesses, some of the people them living are going to show up in our ancestry multiple, multiple, multiple times. Not everyone in that generation will show up.
What the story says is that, an undetermined number of generations before Ramesses lived, a man lived somewhere on Earth. That man passed on his DNA through his Y chromosome to all of the generations to come, through certain lineages. Ramesses was along one of those lineages, and the gentleman in the article may have been along another. It does not make him a descendant of Ramesses any more than my own makes me a descendant of Alexander the Great. My own Y DNA Haplotype originated in the area of ancient Thrace - but I'm not a Thracian. Spartacus WAS a Thracian, but that does not make me descended from Spartacus, either. It just means that we may have had a common ancestor somewhere back in the mists of antiquity.
As an aside, I compared my DNA with that of a man who lived about 45,000 years ago in Siberia. The only thing left of him was a thigh bone found sticking out of a river bank. I share around 30% of my DNA with that individual - more than I share with my own first cousins, and only slightly less than I share with my siblings.
Matter of fact, with the current state of exploration, it is said that all of us, each and every person now living, had a common ancestor along the direct male lineage about 230,000 years ago. One man then living passed his DNA along to us, and every other male lineage then living died out between then and now.
With that said, I DO believe in "ancestral memory". I believe that memories of people can be coded into their DNA, which can them be passed down through generations. Recently, it has been discovered that DNA in nerve cells "repairs" itself during sleep, but not during waking periods. The current speculation is that may be THE sole reason that we sleep - so our DNA can repair itself. All organisms with nervous systems undergo sleep periods, and they believe that is the reason for it. If it can "repair" itself during sleep, what is there to prevent it from coding memories at the same time?
This would mean that any "ancestral memories" we may have would necessarily be of events that occurred to that individual before they gave birth to the offspring that eventually resulted in us - we couldn't carry encoded memories that occurred AFTER that child was conceived, as those memories could not be passed down through DNA.
It might bear looking into, but I doubt if any scientists will ever run with the idea and explore it. I mean, the very notion is just crazy, isn't it?
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’