shaolin monks

[cherimoya_kid]

Incidentally, I winced when  that "4 women" figure was mentioned. I can't remember where exactly I read it, but it was mentioned that such claims, along with similiar ones such as the African Eve theory, are quite bogus. We are not all descended from one woman or even 4 or whatever. If we were, we would all be so inbred that we would all be village-idiots with multiple inherited genetic diseases.

Umm, no.  Are you not familiar with the "mitochondrial Eve"?  It's pretty solid science. All women descend, matrilineally, from 1 woman.  All men descend, patrilineally, from 1 man.

Genetic diversity decreases the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go.  The animals with the greatest genetic diversity are sponges on the seafloor.  The ones with the least are primates, and the species with the least genetic diversity of all primates is humans .

The science is very solid.  It's pretty obvious how the genetic diversity thing came to happen, too.  Less-complex species have evolved multiple times.  Humans evolved only once, roughly speaking (granted, Neanderthals contributed to our DNA, and maybe some other proto-humans did as well, but not much).

Here's the link to the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

As far as all Native Americans descending from 4 women, it's proven through mitochondrial DNA, again.  I'd be happy to research and find you some links, if you want.  You have to realize, the Bering Land Bridge was only open for a relatively short time in recent human history.  Siberia/Mongolia was EXTREMELY sparsely populated at that time  (and still is), so the odds of the few humans living there actually crossing over was pretty low.

[TylerDurden]

First of all, I have been extremely suspicious of the scientific integrity/competence of palaeo-era genetics studies ever since numerous DNA-analyses in the past few decades constantly claimed for years that it was physically impossible for the Neanderthals to have interbred with humans. After a long period, it was found that we did indeed mostly have some Neanderthal ancestry, and it wouldn't surprise me if further research indicates a much higher amount of Neanderthal etc. DNA in us than currently claimed.

The other point is that inbreeding carries very severe consequences for the human species, often resulting in infertility. There are classic examples such as the Habsburg Lip caused by generations of royal intermarriage(the worst example, I reckon), and the genetic diseases in various inbred populations such as the Amish, Iceland or Ashkenazi Jews. Now, I'll concede that the Mitochondrial Eve theory suggests that we are all descended from one woman, in the sense that we all may share a very microscopic amount of DNA with this woman, but if there was any more than that, we would, like I said, be so hopelessly inbred that we wouldn't likely have survived.

[PaleoPhil]

Correct, there may be some misunderstanding here about mitochondrial Eve:

Not the only woman
One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her[;] that she was the only woman alive at the time. [10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_the_only_woman

Mitochondrial Eve is the only woman going back 200,000 years from whom we all share some mitochondrial DNA, but she wasn't the only woman at the time and we all have other ancient ancestors beyond her, including some of us from other species like H. neanderthalis, as Tyler mentioned, Homo denisova, and possibly Homo floresiensis (aka "the Hobbit").

[PaleoPhil]

Here's a good quote by Tyler on the continuum of harm concept that may be one of many potential factors in Shaolin success:

Cooking in moisture is "less worse" than other forms of cooking. It is true that cooking at lower temperatures for longer periods is better than cooking  at higher temperatures for short periods.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/raw-weston-price/raw-food-and-bone-broth/msg81386/#msg81386

[svrn]

so mitochondrial wasnt the only one? just the biggest slut?

[PaleoPhil]

She wasn't the only one and wasn't necessarily the most prolific or multi-partnered mother either (I haven't seen anything on how prolific she was)--just the chance woman who happens to share some mitochondrial DNA with all of us. To go beyond that would be to speculate without evidence. Another way to put it is that she was the only woman 200,000 years ago whose descendants ever since have had at least one female in every generation.

[svrn]

well I dont believe in simple chance over such a large timeframe so im going to have to go with the slut theory unless there is another explanation.

[PaleoPhil]

Troll, you may not be aware that comments along the lines of "slut" seem to turn off at least some of our female members, at least one of whom reported sensing a general sort of female-bashing tone to this forum to me privately and I seem to recall some public complaints as well. As a moderator, albeit just of the moribund carnivore subforum, I should probably make some effort to discourage such comments, which aren't necessary (there are other more scientific terms that are probably more descriptive and less likely to cause dissension in the ranks). I seem to recall it being hinted to me that I should speak out more about it and I guess I have not been outspoken enough on the matter, for which I apologize to our female members. Oh, and please don't try to defend it with straw men tangents like complaints about "political correctness." I'm not calling for that, just trying to avoid unnecessary and unconstructive troubles among our members. One can be politically incorrect without crassness, however well intentioned.

With that out of the way, it would be interesting to learn whether mitochondrial eve was a sort of female Chinggis Khaan, with many partners and offspring. I just haven't seen any evidence on it one way or another.

[svrn]

I dont see why that would be viewed as bashing females. Why would any non promiscuous female feel uncomfortable with that term? Iv known several non promiscuous females who use the term slut when talking about our modern debased culture. Slut does not equal woman so women should not feel offended unless perhaps they are sluts.

[TylerDurden]

The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.

[PaleoPhil]

Slut does not equal woman so women should not feel offended unless perhaps they are sluts.

I'm not going to tell all women what they should or shouldn't feel offended or made unwelcome by, so I wonder what the opinion is of any of our female members on this defense of yours? It might be healthy and perhaps eye-opening for us males to hear their perspective, and perhaps my judgement was off on this one. Do all ladies here agree with Troll that any woman who is offended by the word "slut" must herself be a slut?

It might also help if you explained what you mean by "slut," Troll, as it's a rather vague term. Also, do you use it in face-to-face conversation with women? For example, if a woman said to you that her grandmother had a lot of children/descendants, would you say directly to her face "she must have been a slut"? If she took offense, would you then say to her, "If you're offended, then you must be a slut too"? And if you said those things to her, do you think she'd be more inclined to give you a hug or a slap in the face?

[TylerDurden]

If I might make a point, words are not necessarily insulting in themselves, and another person's interpretation of what someone else says is also invalid. The only thing that matters is the intention of the speaker, not the words he says.  Not that I am necessarily in favour of the usage of that word, I'm just speaking in general.

[svrn]

I wouldnt considr a woman who ahd and raised a lot of children a slut unless it was with many different men. If it was with one man or maybe another after he died perhaps I consider that great and would actually commend her for raising many kids. To me a slut would be a woman who has sex with lots of men without any attatchment or having kids or a welfare queen who has lots of kids with different fathers who she has nothing to do with when the kid is born. That is a clarification of my definition of slut for you.

Now I know thats not how I used it in the previous context but I was really just being silly when using that. I wasnt being serious or trying to offend anyone. Now please lets stop discussing this on this board. This is not why I come on here.

[svrn]

The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.

Interesting point. However it may also be worth it to consider that we are a lot less fertile today then we were back then. Also since ancient people ate the raw paleo diet which is known to have a lot less complications in childbirth as well as relatively painless we should consider that this may also have an effect on being able to have more kids. Also the tribal support systems for allowing kids to survive back then were also much much stronger than today.

[raw-al]

The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history.

Geezus!!!!!!!!! Who was that?

[TylerDurden]

Geezus!!!!!!!!! Who was that?

Some Russian woman during the reign of Catherine the Great. She was given some form of decoration for her efforts.

I presume she must have had a lot of triplets and twins and maybe one or two quadruplets as well.

As regards child support in palaeolithic times, these people may have had healthy diets but were also constantly subject to famine at any one moment, plus, unlike settled societies, they did not have the extra more complex social systems needed to maintain larger populations. A larger settled population would be able to support more children and so on...

[raw-al]

I suspect that children were more of a communal thing so food was spread around when it was acquired. That's not too unusual even nowadays in very small isolated communities.

[PaleoPhil]

If it was with one man or maybe another after he died perhaps I consider that great and would actually commend her for raising many kids. To me a slut would be a woman who has sex with lots of men without any attatchment or having kids or a welfare queen who has lots of kids with different fathers who she has nothing to do with when the kid is born. That is a clarification of my definition of slut for you.

So then mitochondrial Eve might not have been a slut by your definition, since you don't know how many men she had children with and whether they were one at a time (such as due to the death of one man followed by partnering with another), just like you wouldn't know how many men a grandmother who had many descendents had been with and you wouldn't tell her grandaughter that she must have been a slut, yes?

Now I know thats not how I used it in the previous context but I was really just being silly when using that.

Thanks for the explanation. I have indeed noticed that people tend to say much different things on the Internet than in person, and I don't think many realize how this can come across to others and don't intend harm. I myself have said some things I realized afterwards I would not have said in person. One more way in which modern society can at times bring out the worst in us, though I'm very thankful for the information and sharing that the Internet has provided. It's a double-edged sword. My comments weren't meant as admonitions so much as trying to share female perspectives we males might not always consider.

[raw-al]

I find that sometimes I can be verbally objectionable in person in a way that I would not do online. Depends on the day.

When I write I can take my time and refine what I say, look back and reflect for a bit before I hit send.

Regarding "slut". I would be unlikely to call anyone that for any reason. If someone called me that and if I were female it would probably be the same as someone calling me a very not-nice name. I realize that we all say things that in retrospect we would probably like scrubbed from the record. I know I have. Many times.

Here is the Urban dictionary version... takes all types... notice the poster cannot spell. (definitely)

slut,   
Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it. She will give him a sympathy f#ck either because someone asked her to or she just has to f*ck everyone she knows. These are great people, and without them sex crimes would definitly increase. Thank you slut, where ever you are.

[raw-al]

This reminds me of the story about the pilots flying into a large airport when ATC calls up and says "XYX I am going to have to give you a hold as the airport is too congested"

Ten minutes later ATC calls back and says "I am going to have to delay your expect further clearance time on the hold another 10 minutes"

Anyways ATC calls again and says "look I am really sorry, but we have to extend your EFC time another ten minutes"

Then there is silence for a few seconds and then someone says "Bullshit".

Then ATC calls up and says "who said that?" (because it is a serious offence to swear on the radio, but there is no way of knowing whodunnit)

Then there is about ten aircraft that call in and say "negative on the BS"

I donno maybe you have to be a pilot to get it but this is the effect of dragging out this conversation on the s word.

[cherimoya_kid]

The most any woman has ever achieved was 69 children, 2 of which died in childhood, within recorded history. It's extremely unlikely that any other woman could have gone beyond that number during palaeo times given that infanticide was the norm then due to food-scarcity and the need to migrate meaning that the females could only carry one infant at a time etc. This is another reason why the Mitochondrial Eve claim is so dodgy.

How is the mitochondrial Eve idea dodgy? 

And humans are far, FAR more inbred than any other species.  It's just the nature of being the most highly-evolved species on the planet. Recognize that.

For that matter, the most recent common ancestor of every living human only lived around 2000-5000 years ago.  Here's the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

Also, take a look at the wiki for the Identical Ancestors Point, it's quite interesting too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point

And yes, I know all about the Hapsburg Lip.  Disgusting, those cousin-fucking royals.

[PaleoPhil]

For that matter, the most recent common ancestor of every living human only lived around 2000-5000 years ago.  Here's the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor ...

Again, that doesn't mean that ancestor was the only male or female alive at the time, and we know there were a lot more than two people on the planet 2000 - 5000 years ago. As Tyler pointed out, it only means we all have a tiny bit of DNA from that person.

That wiki says, "The MRCA of living humans may have had many companions of both sexes." I'm not sure where they get the "both sexes" bit, since homosexual sex wouldn't contribute to procreation, but many more offspring than today's avg (currently only about 0.9 per family in the USA) via multiple couplings and/or many children with one or more partners, is a possibility (especially for males, who aren't limited to creating only one pregnancy at a time like females are), and if later generations do the same, the population growth of that line quickly becomes enormous, such as happened with the prolific Chinggis Khaan and his prolific male descendants, and it also incorporated the DNA of many females from various parts of the Mongol Empire and defeated countries.

[TylerDurden]

To illustrate, there was, some years ago, a study which showed that a certain UK citizen was directly descended from Genghiz Khan(the correct spelling). However, that person was completely Northern European in appearance, without a trace of Mongolian ancestry.

CK, your 2nd link has a paragraph which merely proves my point exactly:-

"It is incorrect to assume that the MRCA and his/her ancestors passed all their genes down to every person alive today. Because of sexual reproduction, at every generation, an ancestor only passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. The percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.[4] As the human genome consists of roughly 2 the power of 32 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years."

[PaleoPhil]

FYI: I tend to use the Mongol's own chosen English spelling of Chinggis' name, as my basic philosophy is to let people name themselves and their own people whatever they wish, as long as I'm able to spell or pronounce the name, though there is some variation in spelling even among Mongols, I'm not a 100% stickler, and I don't expect anyone to follow suit.

Here are some images showing the spelling that is supposedly also the Mongolian government's preferred official spelling:







The Mongolian English spelling also comes slightly closer to the way Mongols pronounce Chinggis' name to my ear, though it actually sounds phonetically more like Chengis Haan to me, and sometimes it is spelled that way.

[TylerDurden]

If we used your  weird interpretation, then all American-English spellings should be instantly changed to British English, since the latter is the original standard for English from which other types of English spelling originated.