In article <MPG.1b6dc1189d181462989e28@news.optusnet.com.au>, Meteorite Debris wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:03:08 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as Emma
Pease<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

In article <pan.2004.07.23.17.43.23.723817@localhost.localdomain>, stoney wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:28:06 -0500, Kate wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:03:56 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com>
wrote:

http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm

I'm actually related to Bush (blush), fortunately it's not direct. We
both have relations in the Prescott family which is decended from
Samuel Prescott who was involved in the revolution.

The brains, ethics, integrity, and humanity stayed with your side of the
family.

The family tree thing is a tad amusing.

Well we are all related. The only question is how we are related.

So look at Bush and consider that he is a cousin of some sort.

Emma

I was thinking about that. The chart goes back about 400 years. That
would cover about 16 generations. Which means you could have 65,536
ancestors at that level of the up side down pyramid. It is unlikely
that they were all are different persons especially when you consider
that village life was once the norm with minimal migration through the
small communities. It is especially true for European royalty, who
although geographically mobile, effectively constituted a closed
breeding village. If you go back 32 generations you are talking about
4 billion ancestors more or less contemporaneously give or take a
century or so. But that is impossible given the world population at
the time.

I guess that when you go back not only do you find everyone is related
at some distance but also somewhere the tree necessarily partly
incestuous.

Depends on the definition of incestuous. If you go by the current
common American law, incestuous is a blood relationship closer than
first cousin (some states also forbid first cousin marriages) and that
is fairly easy to avoid though first cousin marriages were not unusual
and were quite legal in the 19th century (e.g., Charles Darwin and his
sister both married first cousins). Admittedly I believe that in
early medieval Europe incest was anything closer than 5th cousins and
incest also included people who were only related by marriage (e.g., a
man couldn't marry his dead brother's widow) or by religion (e.g.,
your godparents, godchildren, and some of their relations). With such
a list it was probably difficult not to marry incestuously (it did
make it easier for the powerful to get annulments since sufficient
searching would probably show your wife to be a prohibited relation).

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:08:09 +0930, Meteorite Debris wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:03:08 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as Emma
Pease<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

In article <pan.2004.07.23.17.43.23.723817@localhost.localdomain>, stoney wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:28:06 -0500, Kate wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:03:56 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com>
wrote:

http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm

I'm actually related to Bush (blush), fortunately it's not direct. We
both have relations in the Prescott family which is decended from
Samuel Prescott who was involved in the revolution.

The brains, ethics, integrity, and humanity stayed with your side of the
family.

The family tree thing is a tad amusing.

Well we are all related. The only question is how we are related.

So look at Bush and consider that he is a cousin of some sort.

Emma

I was thinking about that. The chart goes back about 400 years. That
would cover about 16 generations. Which means you could have 65,536
ancestors at that level of the up side down pyramid. It is unlikely
that they were all are different persons especially when you consider
that village life was once the norm with minimal migration through the
small communities. It is especially true for European royalty, who
although geographically mobile, effectively constituted a closed
breeding village. If you go back 32 generations you are talking about
4 billion ancestors more or less contemporaneously give or take a
century or so. But that is impossible given the world population at
the time.

I guess that when you go back not only do you find everyone is related
at some distance but also somewhere the tree necessarily partly
incestuous.

Which, according to the Babble, is good.

I've read it is thought during the last ice age human population
dropped to about 2,000.