Zerjal et al. [2003] [6] identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the men in the world). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago (thus several generations prior to the birth of Genghis). Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, and must therefore be the result of selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection. Both due to the power that Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities.[7]
According to Family Tree DNA, Genghis Khan is believed to have belonged to Haplogroup C3.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by Cushman on Saturday August 06, 2011 @06:50AM
(#2853587)
This is not as surprising as it might seem, and in fact is more of a statistical trick than anything else— according to Wiki, the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today is believed to have lived only 2~5,000 years ago.
Of course Genghis Khan was unusually prolific, and the direct patrilineal aspect is what makes it special, but you don't have to go far back in time to find an ancestor you share with one in ten people, let alone one in a hundred.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by sorbus on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:25PM
(#2854217)
Reading this comment, I thought that the 2,000 to 5,000 year claim was complete rubbish. Turns out that it's not, which is a bit surprising - it's supported solely by computer models at this point, not genetic evidence, and is probably contradicted by groups that were not interbreeding at the right times, but still.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by tomjen3 on Saturday August 06, 2011 @09:07AM
(#2853751)
Sorry that statistic seems completely impossible -- how would a man alive just before the roman republic became an ancestor to the Gauls (whom the Romans wouldn't discover for quite some time) let alone the American Indians?
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by Cushman on Saturday August 06, 2011 @01:59PM
(#2854458)
All people alive today, not all people ever. The article cited[1] quotes indigenous populations in North and South America dropping by 97% and 93% before 1570— in the centuries since, it has become statistically improbable that any Native Americans descendants exist who don't share a European ancestor with you.
Now it comes from a computer model, so there could be errors or exceptions— I'm thinking extant uncontacted peoples, here. The model accounted for this possibility, as the paper notes: ...in order for a remote island to affect the MRCA
date, it must have been colonized prior to the lineage of
the mainland MRCA reaching the source population and
it must have remained genetically isolated until very re-
cently in order for there to be surviving people with no
modern mainland ancestry.
Remember that uncontacted peoples are uncontacted by us; the ones we know of have regular if infrequent contact with other tribes, so if contacted tribes share the MRCA it's quite probable that uncontacted ones do as well. Could there be a cache of 50-100 human beings somewhere on this planet who happen to share an MRCA with us who is older than the one shared by all other living persons, maybe 10,000 years? Sure. But they would be the only ones out of 7 billion.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by 46Bit on Saturday August 06, 2011 @10:26AM
(#2853897)
They probably wouldn't no. However he's talking about humans alive today. Whilst I'm not really keen on this distant ancestral concept due to it essentially being a statistical trick, it's not unreasonable to assume that the descendants of Gauls/etc would have married someone in that descendancy tree, somewhere along the way.
The place this really falls down would probably be extremely isolated tribes which have had little if any external contact - there's very few nowadays, but some are remote enough that no pairing has probably happened.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by iwwr on Saturday August 06, 2011 @06:42AM
(#2853580)
I wonder what the degree of relatedness (assuming inbreeding) these descendants actually have with Genghis Khan. We know that family trees break down into direct acyclic graphs over the longer term.
Note that the title assumes just patrilinear descent, so any man that may have had only daughters will not pass on the Y chromosome, though he will still have a non-patrilinear lineage (carried by both sons and daughters).
BTW, what are the main structural differences between strictly male and strictly female lineages?
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by Someone on Saturday August 06, 2011 @09:35AM
(#2853796)
The obvious one is a difference in branching factor. Women can have ten children, and I would expect many more men than women die childless (not only because more than half of all newborns are male)
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by jodrellblank on Saturday August 06, 2011 @05:24PM
(#2854940)
I remember reading a long article/blog entry once, and it claimed that we living humans are descended from 80% of all the women who ever lived but only 40% of all the men.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by leilavc on Saturday August 06, 2011 @07:10AM
(#2853608)
It's worth noting here that this paper only looks at Kahn's direct descendants through the male line of Genghis Kahn. I believe that the number of people alive who are in any way related Genghis Kahn (through both matrilineal and patrilineal lines) is a lot higher than 1 in 200.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by sorbus on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:09PM
(#2854174)
Yep, there are "indirect descendants". If X is a direct descendant of Y's sister (or other sibling), then X is an indirect descendant of Y. Doesn't make much sense, and it's hardly ever used, but there you go.
Another reason to say "direct descendant" instead of just "descendant" is that it makes it clear that there's a blood relation.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by Cushman on Saturday August 06, 2011 @02:06PM
(#2854471)
And it makes a big diference— as I mention below, our most recent common ancestor is probably only 2~5,000 years old. However, genetic testing puts the age of our most recent patrilineal ancestor ("Y-chromosomal Adam", the one man every man alive now can say was his father's father's father's father's...) at more than 60,000, possibly 140,000 years old, and our most recent matrilineal ancestor ("mitochondrial Eve", the one woman etc.) is ~200,000 years old.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by iwwr on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:58PM
(#2854297)
The point being that after a while, everyone is related from a mixed lineage, but male-only or female-only lines may die off, either a man having only daughters or a woman having only sons, or having no children at all.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by DennisP on Sunday August 07, 2011 @11:30AM
(#2856796)
Douglas Adams had something to say about this.
"Mr L Prosser was, as they say, only human. In other words he was a carbon-based life form descended from an ape. More specifically he was forty, fat and shabby and worked for the local council. Curiously enough, though he didn't know it, he was also a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though intervening generations and racial mixing had so juggled his genes that he had no discernible Mongoloid characteristics, and the only vestiges left in Mr L Prosser of his mighty ancestry were a pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats.
"...Mr Prosser's mouth opened and closed a couple of times while his mind was for a moment filled with inexplicable but terribly attractive visions of Arthur Dent's house being consumed with fire and Arthur himself running screaming from the blazing ruin with at least three hefty spears protruding from his back. Mr Prosser was often bothered with visions like these and they made him feel very nervous. He stuttered for a moment and then pulled himself together.
"...He saw the bulldozer driver's union representative approaching and let his head sink back and closed his eyes. He was trying to marshal his arguments for proving that he did not now constitute a mental health hazard himself. He was far from certain about this - his mind seemed to be full of noise, horses, smoke, and the stench of blood. This always happened when he felt miserable and put upon, and he had never been able to explain it to himself. In a high dimension of which we know nothing the mighty Khan bellowed with rage, but Mr Prosser only trembled slightly and whimpered. He began to fell little pricks of water behind the eyelids. Bureaucratic cock-ups, angry men lying in the mud, indecipherable strangers handing out inexplicable humiliations and an unidentified army of horsemen laughing at him in his head - what a day."
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by apaprocki on Saturday August 06, 2011 @07:26AM
(#2853627)
What is really annoying about articles like these is that they don't actually tell you the Y-DNA haplotypes or SNPs in the phylogenic graph. Even if it isn't cluttering up the main article it would be great to have as footnote information for those of us who actually know our Y-DNA information.
Sure enough, by clicking through and getting to the real journal article, this is the footnote that accompanies the graph which is duplicated in the Discover article:
Figure 1 - Median-joining network (Bandelt et al. 1999)
representing Y-chromosomal variation within haplogroup C*
(xC3c). Chromosomes were typed with a minimum of 16 binary
markers (Qamar et al. 2002; Zerjal et al. 2002; our
unpublished observations), including RPS4Y and M48, to
define the lineage C*(xC3c) (Y-Chromosome-Consortium 2002),
also known as haplogroup 10, derived for RPS4Y and
ancestral for M48. Sixteen Y microsatellites were also
typed, but DYS19 was excluded from the network analysis
because it is duplicated in haplogroup C. The central star-
cluster profile is 10-16-25-10-11-13-14-12-11-11-11-12-8-10-
10, for the loci DYS389I-DYS389b-DYS390-DYS391-DYS392-
DYS393-DYS388-DYS425-DYS426-DYS434-DYS435-DYS436-DYS437-
DYS438-DYS439. Circles represent lineages, area is
proportional to frequency, and color indicates population
of origin. Lines represent microsatellite mutational
differences.
If you are interested in DNA and haven't tested your own Y/mt-DNA, I highly recommend getting it tested (e.g. FamilyTreeDNA) and finding out a little bit more about yourself.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by pella on Saturday August 06, 2011 @09:02AM
(#2853738)
"According to Family Tree DNA, Genghis Khan is believed to have belonged to Haplogroup C3."
----
"One particular haplotype within Haplogroup C3 has received a great deal of attention for the possibility that it may represent direct patrilineal descent from Genghis Khan."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA)
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by config_yml on Saturday August 06, 2011 @09:09AM
(#2853753)
I've recently read that about every second western european male is somehow a descendant of the egyptian pharaoh Tutenchamun. I actually lived right next to the labs of a company where you can get yourself tested for that specific gene (and all other sorts of DNA related tests).
I guess then it is not too uncommon to have some genetic relation to any kind of people if they've lived many hundreds of years ago.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by dfischer on Saturday August 06, 2011 @06:51AM
(#2853589)
Also, I remember someone doing "math" on how many women Genghis Khan had to sleep with everyday his life to reach the number he did (it was like 2,000 women wasn't it?) compared to his lifetime... I remember the number being pretty ridiculous.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by burgerbrain on Saturday August 06, 2011 @01:06PM
(#2854316)
Well, if it was only 2000 women, and he was doing it during his entirely 21 year reign, then he was only sleeping with a new woman on average a little bit less than every 4 days.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by Hisoka on Saturday August 06, 2011 @11:41AM
(#2854095)
The ideal lifestyle if life was perfect would be that of Genghis Khan. There'd be no use for religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc. All of philosophy stems from "I can't have everything that I want, so...". But if you can have everything you want: endless supply of women.. then life is all grand. You conquer, You win, You build, you get endless orgasms. No need to master your emotions and deal with unfairness.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by sorbus on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:14PM
(#2854191)
Also an endless number of people trying to kill you. Not to mention that - while Genghis Khan's religion isn't known - it was probably either Shamanism or Tengriism, and he was "interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji."[1] So you're operating under an "idealized" view of his life. And that's without even getting into the misogyny that your opinion reveals.
Re:1 in 200 of men alive today are direct descendants of Gen...
by 46Bit on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:52PM
(#2854278)
Sure, it's ideal if you avoid all the pillaging, burning, raping, death and so on and so forth. Do get your point, but I think it's a little ... erm, disturbing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_e...
Zerjal et al. [2003] [6] identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the men in the world). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago (thus several generations prior to the birth of Genghis). Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, and must therefore be the result of selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection. Both due to the power that Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities.[7] According to Family Tree DNA, Genghis Khan is believed to have belonged to Haplogroup C3.
-- * --
The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols
http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajhg2...
Of course Genghis Khan was unusually prolific, and the direct patrilineal aspect is what makes it special, but you don't have to go far back in time to find an ancestor you share with one in ten people, let alone one in a hundred.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
Now it comes from a computer model, so there could be errors or exceptions— I'm thinking extant uncontacted peoples, here. The model accounted for this possibility, as the paper notes: ...in order for a remote island to affect the MRCA date, it must have been colonized prior to the lineage of the mainland MRCA reaching the source population and it must have remained genetically isolated until very re- cently in order for there to be surviving people with no modern mainland ancestry.
Remember that uncontacted peoples are uncontacted by us; the ones we know of have regular if infrequent contact with other tribes, so if contacted tribes share the MRCA it's quite probable that uncontacted ones do as well. Could there be a cache of 50-100 human beings somewhere on this planet who happen to share an MRCA with us who is older than the one shared by all other living persons, maybe 10,000 years? Sure. But they would be the only ones out of 7 billion.
[1] http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
The place this really falls down would probably be extremely isolated tribes which have had little if any external contact - there's very few nowadays, but some are remote enough that no pairing has probably happened.
Note that the title assumes just patrilinear descent, so any man that may have had only daughters will not pass on the Y chromosome, though he will still have a non-patrilinear lineage (carried by both sons and daughters).
BTW, what are the main structural differences between strictly male and strictly female lineages?
Haven't been able to find it again, though.
from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=all+living+hum...
Another reason to say "direct descendant" instead of just "descendant" is that it makes it clear that there's a blood relation.
"Mr L Prosser was, as they say, only human. In other words he was a carbon-based life form descended from an ape. More specifically he was forty, fat and shabby and worked for the local council. Curiously enough, though he didn't know it, he was also a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though intervening generations and racial mixing had so juggled his genes that he had no discernible Mongoloid characteristics, and the only vestiges left in Mr L Prosser of his mighty ancestry were a pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats.
"...Mr Prosser's mouth opened and closed a couple of times while his mind was for a moment filled with inexplicable but terribly attractive visions of Arthur Dent's house being consumed with fire and Arthur himself running screaming from the blazing ruin with at least three hefty spears protruding from his back. Mr Prosser was often bothered with visions like these and they made him feel very nervous. He stuttered for a moment and then pulled himself together.
"...He saw the bulldozer driver's union representative approaching and let his head sink back and closed his eyes. He was trying to marshal his arguments for proving that he did not now constitute a mental health hazard himself. He was far from certain about this - his mind seemed to be full of noise, horses, smoke, and the stench of blood. This always happened when he felt miserable and put upon, and he had never been able to explain it to himself. In a high dimension of which we know nothing the mighty Khan bellowed with rage, but Mr Prosser only trembled slightly and whimpered. He began to fell little pricks of water behind the eyelids. Bureaucratic cock-ups, angry men lying in the mud, indecipherable strangers handing out inexplicable humiliations and an unidentified army of horsemen laughing at him in his head - what a day."
(Hitchhikers chapter 1)
Sure enough, by clicking through and getting to the real journal article, this is the footnote that accompanies the graph which is duplicated in the Discover article:
If you are interested in DNA and haven't tested your own Y/mt-DNA, I highly recommend getting it tested (e.g. FamilyTreeDNA) and finding out a little bit more about yourself.----
"One particular haplotype within Haplogroup C3 has received a great deal of attention for the possibility that it may represent direct patrilineal descent from Genghis Khan." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA)
I guess then it is not too uncommon to have some genetic relation to any kind of people if they've lived many hundreds of years ago.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Religion