[bonanova]

Prove or disprove that Forest Gump and Bubba are not relations.

Yeah, it's just a story. OK. Logically prove or disprove Tom Hanks

and Mykelti Williamson are not [blood] relations.

And by extension, all members of Brainden!

Stories of Adam and Noah aside. Not a religious riddle.

[Guest]

Unfortunately this is not possible. IF we had some DNA samples, we could find some homology or lack there of certain genetic elements (specifically single base pair points known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs). If I go back to my great great .......... great grandpa, Johnny the Chimp, you will find that we are 99.5-99.9% similar in terms of our sequence homology. Intraspecies comparison is a little trickier. For comparison's sake, let's bring up 5 random loci throughout the human genome and assume each one has one SNP and call them either A or T.

1. 1p35

2. 3q29

3. 5q31

4. 7p13

5. 9q34

Let's say I have the "A" form in all 5. Then let's say Bonanova has the "A" form in 1-4, but the "T" form in 9q34. IF we're the only people in the world with this particular sequence homology, it's a safe bet we're related, but diverged at some point due to (most likely) some recombinant event (mating and propagation of the other SNP form). Oh, I don't use the term "allele" because allele is reserved for coding sequences that produce a protein product (5% of the genome). These SNPs exist in both coding and non-coding sequences. Anyways, let's push on to Martini - Martini has the "T" form in 1 - 4, but on 9q34 he has the "A" form, like me. Either way, you have 120 possible SNP combinations (or more if the SNPs can exist as more than two nucleotide types, which is rare, but possible). Begs the question, how many SNPs are there? LOTS! In college (2004), the current number was between 2-3 million, and more were being discovered. That presents a LOT of combinations. You can NEVER prove a relation. You can only construct a probability distribution. For Bubba/Forrest, you'll find this construct to be rather low (skin color is controlled by multiple loci. Since they have different alleles in these loci, it's one of those .00001% chances that they are related. This is how a big chunk of forensics works - just see how/where homologies between two samples are, and you construct a probability distribution of relation. So no matter how closely related two people are, you will NEVER prove anything - you can't PROVE I'm related to my sister, but you can get 99.9999999% possibility we are related.

[Guest]

Unfortunately this is not possible. IF we had some DNA samples, we could find some homology or lack there of certain genetic elements (specifically single base pair points known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs). If I go back to my great great .......... great grandpa, Johnny the Chimp, you will find that we are 99.5-99.9% similar in terms of our sequence homology. Intraspecies comparison is a little trickier. For comparison's sake, let's bring up 5 random loci throughout the human genome and assume each one has one SNP and call them either A or T.

1. 1p35

2. 3q29

3. 5q31

4. 7p13

5. 9q34

Let's say I have the "A" form in all 5. Then let's say Bonanova has the "A" form in 1-4, but the "T" form in 9q34. IF we're the only people in the world with this particular sequence homology, it's a safe bet we're related, but diverged at some point due to (most likely) some recombinant event (mating and propagation of the other SNP form). Oh, I don't use the term "allele" because allele is reserved for coding sequences that produce a protein product (5% of the genome). These SNPs exist in both coding and non-coding sequences. Anyways, let's push on to Martini - Martini has the "T" form in 1 - 4, but on 9q34 he has the "A" form, like me. Either way, you have 120 possible SNP combinations (or more if the SNPs can exist as more than two nucleotide types, which is rare, but possible). Begs the question, how many SNPs are there? LOTS! In college (2004), the current number was between 2-3 million, and more were being discovered. That presents a LOT of combinations. You can NEVER prove a relation. You can only construct a probability distribution. For Bubba/Forrest, you'll find this construct to be rather low (skin color is controlled by multiple loci. Since they have different alleles in these loci, it's one of those .00001% chances that they are related. This is how a big chunk of forensics works - just see how/where homologies between two samples are, and you construct a probability distribution of relation. So no matter how closely related two people are, you will NEVER prove anything - you can't PROVE I'm related to my sister, but you can get 99.9999999% possibility we are related.

I was gonna say dat!

who wouldnt?!

lol

[bonanova]

I need proof.

[Guest]

I know you said that this is not a religious riddle, BUT, every one can from some where. There had to be first parents.

Or if you belive in evoultuion, a first life form.

so we are all human, and we all came from the same place.

So, I guess you might say we are all realated.

[Guest]

Oh and if you need proof, read the bible, or any life science book.

[Guest]

mitochondrial eve,

comes before xmas eve. and before new years eve

Probably looking for numbers - but i can say...

there are seven!.

[Guest]

I need proof.

Ok - send me a sperm sample.

[bonanova]

LIS has it.

There is in fact a single woman who is the most recent direct female ancestor of everyone alive today.

In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea wrote:

"Mitochondrial Eve is the woman who is the most recent direct ancestor, in the female line, of every human being alive today. People have a hard time thinking about this individual woman, so let's just review the reasoning. Consider the set A, of all human beings alive today. Each was born of one and only one mother, so consider next the set, B, of all the mothers of those alive today. B is of necessity smaller than A, since no one has more than one mother, and some mothers have more than one child. Continue with set C, of mothers of all those mothers in set B. It is smaller still. Continue on with sets D and E and so forth. The sets must contract as we go back each generation. Notice that as we move back through the years, we exclude many women who were contemporaries of those in our set. Among these excluded women are those who either lived and died childless or whose female progeny did. Eventually, this set must funnel down to one-- the woman who is the closest direct female ancestor of everybody alive on earth today. She is Mitochondrial Eve, so named (by Cann et. al 1987) because since the mitochondria in our cells are passed throug the maternal line alone, all the cells in all the people alive today are direct descendents of the mitochondria in her cells."

[Guest]

So it's not so much ancestral as inces-tral - "a game the whole family can play"

[bonanova]

Yes, it does mean that some of our ancestors were related.

For example,

We all have two parents, each of whom had two parents ... and so forth

So, if everything is kosher ...

2¹⁰ is about 1000. So ten generations ago we all should have about 1000 great-great-great-great- uh, direct progenitors.

2²⁰ is about 1,000,000. So, twenty generations ago we all should have about a million direct progenitors.

2³⁰ is about 1,000,000,000. So, thirty generations ago we all should have about a billion direct progenitors.

Say a generation is about 30 years.

Then 30x30 years ago, we all should be able to account for a billion procreating persons.

Wait. The world population in 1100 AD was 300 million, give or take a million.

Conclusion:

All of our family trees are missing a few branches.

So not only were Forest and Bubba "relations", Lt. Dan was in the mix, too.

Howdy, Cousin!!!