If all humans share ONE common ancestor, doesn't that mean we're all inbred?

Question

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

Answer 1

And how do you think this might have happenned ...? One day a chimp mom popped out a human who had s*x with himeself which then gave rise to the human race? - just joking lol

What would have happenned is within the population of species which was the common anscestors of man and the other great apes a fraction of that group split off a remained isolated somehow from the main population and through environmental pressures gained certain adaptions which led them on the way to becoming human. Eventually this subspecies of 'neo humans' changed to the point that it could no longer breed with the other population (which was also changing due to environmental pressures and became the ancestors to chimps and bonobos).

This neo human population (sorry I forgotton the proper names - Austrolopehecine?) became distinct eventaully changed again (NB most species only have a 2 million yr shelf life on earth b4 they either die out or change into something similar but different) to become homo habilus I think, then homo erectus then homo sapien i.e. modern humans. The humans tree also had a few branches i.e the neandertals.

By this time there populatioon had spred across the world in little tribal bands and each of these groups also adapting to natural, sexual and maternal selection. This is what caused the different races around the world to appear. If the different human races remained isolated no doubt in a million or so years they would have also become separate species.

Within these races there are also sub groups which if you travelled the world a hundred years ago when people rarely left the areas they were born in would have been quite distinct e.g. Chinese and Japnese look differnt even though they're both asian, italian and scottish people look different even though they're both Caucasian etc.

So now we travel the world and are slowly all interbreeding again, mixing everything up which personally I think will strengthen the human race. Within a few hundred years (genetic engineering aside) Most of the world will have dark hair dark eyes and great tans

And thats the human species in a nutshell.

All life evolved from one single celled organism that began splitting so if you look at it that way we are all related, animals, plants, fungi etc

Answer 2

I haven't thought about it but I see how people might think that this Eve that has been reported would be actual remains but no, no remains.  Think about it in the past there were small towns in the US and small villages in Europe so, people had to be more or less related.  I have even read in some psychology book that people who are distance relatives have good marriages because they think alike.  We know better now but in the past they did much that we would disapprove of in this day and age.   Thanks

Answer 3

Actually TWO common ancestors, separated by tens of thousands of years.

The Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common female ancestor of (all) human lineage, existing around 140,000 years ago.

The Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor of human males, existing around 60,000 years ago.

There is a probability that Mitochondrial Eve is an ancestor of Y-chromosomal Adam. But it is not necessarily so, the mitochondria of Y-chromosomal Adam, if different from Mitochondrial Eve, is lost.

As for the original question: Yes, all humans are related to a certain extent.

However, the two most recent common ancestors (Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam) are separated by around 80,000 years or more than a thousand of generations.

There are other males other than Y-chromosomal Adam 60,000 years ago, but they're genetic information (at least the Y-chromosome) may be lost over the later years, this means that there is much less inbreeding in the human lineage than the Bible suggests.

Addendum:

If you define inbreeding as mating between cousins hundreds of times removed, then yes we're all inbred. -_-'

Addendum 2:

I think you are confused about the meaning of the "most recent common ancestor."

The most recent common ancestor of humans is NOT the first human (or rather human ancestor).

The most recent common ancestor is just that: "most RECENT." There are plenty of common ancestors of humans before Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. For example, the parents (both male and female) and all direct ancestors of Mitochondrial Eve are also common ancestors of all humans (they are just not the "most recent" common ancestor).

The most recent common ancestors are merely the LAST common ancestors of all humans. After Mitochondrial Eve, the maternal lineage diverges; after Y-chromosomal Adam, the paternal lineage diverges.

Answer 4

the genetic argument against inbreeding is low genetic variety ultimately limiting adaptability as well as increasing the possible expression of detrimental recessive traits. keeping that in mind there is no reason to automatically suggest that the possibility of inbreeding disproves evolution.

some plants, without receiving a mates genetic contribution will literally clone itself, with this method its quite easy to increase the population from one individual to several, so long as nothing major happens for several generations no harm done.

Answer 5

Even though I was raised creationist, that is a huge huge argument for evolution, because inbreeding in non-complex organisms is substantially less negatively consequential than inbreeding in complex organisms.

Answer 6

"Common ancestor" means a species not an individual. (or two)

Look at the numerous dog breeds that have appeared over the years. Is it possible to trace a breed back to just one individual? It's an oversimplification but the amount of genetic material donated by one animal gets more and more diluted.

Interbreeding results in some serious deformities. Some dog breed are so interbreed that hips and other parts must be examined to make sure physical problem won't appear later or be passed on in the breed.

As for the one common ancestor consider Pocahontas. How inbreed would one be if they were descended from her? Starting in 1600, there has been 15 generations to today. That means if you were "a descendant of Pocahontas" you would have 1/16384 th of her genetic inheritance. That's pretty diluted. (and thanks to the one that pointed this out to me.)

Answer 7

SURE DOES COUSIN