Cheney and Bush Obama's distant cousins?

[Radrook]

I came accross that info on the Internet recently. Is there any truth to that claim?


From: N.Y. Post

February 14, 2008
COUSINS: OBAMA, CHENEY, BUSH RELATED

October 17, 2007 — Who says Barack Obama doesn’t have what it takes to be president? Turns out, he’s a distant cousin of both Dick Cheney and George Bush.

The vice president’s wife, Lynne Cheney, announced her discovery yesterday while hawking her new book, “Blue Skies, No Fences,” on MSNBC.http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/cousins-obama-cheney-bush-related/

[LawnOven]

Yes I think so,

Plus almost everyone is distant cousins.

[Lisa Simpson]

Why would it be surprising that a man with a white mother might be distantly related to two white guys?

I'm distantly related to one former member of this forum and share the same last name with at least one current member of this forum.

[volatile]

There was a similar story about Bush and Hillary Clinton being "distant cousins" doing the rounds a few months back.

The clue is in the word "distant".

[gtc]

There is usually a number of these stories when a new President is elected. I imagine his father's tree would be quite challenging to research.

[ponderingturtle]

By marriage and the like someone calculated that everyone on earth is related by marriage anyway to someone who lived in the 10th century or so. Not any specific actual person, but there you go.

If someone is your 10th cousin 3 times removed does it matter?

[gtc]

If someone is your 10th cousin 3 times removed does it matter?

No. But it is interesting and it does feed the CTs.

[Puppycow]

Yes I think so,

Plus almost everyone is distant cousins.


Fixed that for you. :D

[Alferd_Packer]

Cheney and Bush are black?

[ponderingturtle]

No. But it is interesting and it does feed the CTs.

I don't think it even rates as interesting.

[gtc]

Each to their own. I am not saying it is significant in any way.

[Damien Evans]

THis was in another thread a few months ago. They're something like 12th cousins, which would put their last common ancestor at somewhere around the time of Henry VIII.

Big Whoop.

[gtc]

Big Whoop.

The thought of sexual relations with relatives, no matter how distant, is a little of off putting. Unless you are from Darwin.

[Whiplash]

So, he's qualified because of his blood/family tree? What, is this a monarchy? (that article says he "has what it takes" based on this, but no doubt, facetiously).

[BenBurch]

... Plus almost everyone is distant cousins.

Fixed it for you.

[Damien Evans]

The thought of sexual relations with relatives, no matter how distant, is a little of off putting. Unless you are from Darwin.

I guess you'll be too grossed out to ever have sex again then.

[gtc]

Like MC Hammer, I'm too legit 2 quit.

[Damien Evans]

Like MC Hammer, I'm too legit 2 quit.

:dl:

[JoeTheJuggler]

The thought of sexual relations with relatives, no matter how distant, is a little of off putting. Unless you are from Darwin.

You prefer sex outside the species?

[PrincessIneffabelle]

The thought of sexual relations with relatives, no matter how distant, is a little of off putting. Unless you are from Darwin.

I disagree. My husband and I are 7th cousins. This means that we share a great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. Seeing as this common ancestor was born 244 years ago (1764), we don't see this distant relationship to be any kind of impediment to our sexual attraction to each other.

A couple of centuries really eliminates any ickiness.

:)

[Kaylee]

My husband and I are 7th cousins.
Why do you even know that? :):boggled::)

[Radrook]

Why do you even know that? :):boggled::)

You consider knowing that an impossibility? There was an investigation recently o see how many people within a geographical area where he is known to have spread his genes could trace themselves back to Genghis Kahn. Only some were traced back to him. So this idea that everyone can be traced back to everyone else who lived ancient times doesn't fit in with the results.

[Radrook]

Cheney and Bush are black?

Seems you consider Obama's mother black as well. Otherwise, why the question.

[Alferd_Packer]

Seems you consider Obama's mother black as well. Otherwise, why the question.


:rolleyes:

Sheeesh, I know that sometimes it is hard to tell when peple are joking on the internet, but, come on. . .

[Alferd_Packer]

So this idea that everyone can be traced back to everyone else who lived ancient times doesn't fit in with the results.

unless you subscribe to the Mitochondrial Eve theory.

[JoeTheJuggler]

unless you subscribe to the Mitochondrial Eve theory.

Even if you don't.

All humans have a common ancestor unless you believe there were two separate incidents of abiogenesis, and two separate lines that never crossed until they somehow converged in one human species.

[LawnOven]

Fixed that for you. :D
:)

[moon1969]

Yes but so what? My grandfather was a karelian and Finno-Ugric. Vladimir Putin is a veps. Vyacheslav Molotov also had Finno-Ugric roots.

[Cleon]

unless you subscribe to the Mitochondrial Eve theory.

...Or even just the Mitochondrial DNA theory.

[Wolfman]

At the very least, they're related through a common primate ancestor millions of years ago. Albeit Bush seems not to have evolved as far from his primate ancestors as Obama has :D

[Madalch]

You consider knowing that an impossibility? There was an investigation recently o see how many people within a geographical area where he is known to have spread his genes could trace themselves back to Genghis Kahn. Only some were traced back to him. So this idea that everyone can be traced back to everyone else who lived ancient times doesn't fit in with the results.
I suspect that this investigation only looked at Y-chromosonal DNA, rather than the entire genome. So if subject A's ggggggrandmother was the ggggggganddaughter of GK, his test would come back negative.

It's entirely possible that someone "from" a geographical area where GK spread his genes had absolutely no ancestors who were descendants of GK, but it's quite unlikely. ("From" being in quotation marks, since the family could have just moved there from Mexico in the last generation....)

[Madalch]

Why do you even know that? :):boggled::)

Genealogy is a very popular hobby. You'd be surprised what you can learn.

[Radrook]

unless you subscribe to the Mitochondrial Eve theory.


That theory was proven bogus long ago.


The Demise of “Mitochondrial Eve”
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geulzOUSVJzBMAyw9rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1215fh11j/EXP=1227268942/**http%3a//www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2095

[Radrook]

Even if you don't.

All humans have a common ancestor unless you believe there were two separate incidents of abiogenesis, and two separate lines that never crossed until they somehow converged in one human species.

I'm not arguing against a common ancestor. I believe in a common ancestor but for different reasons than abiogenesis.

[Cleon]

That theory was proven bogus long ago.

No, it wasn't.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Why do you even know that? :):boggled::)

It was the family resemblence.

:D

Actually, Madalch was right -- genealogy is one of my hobbies. Due to my mother's decades-long research, my own family tree is about as filled-in as it's ever going to get. I started on my husband's tree back in 2001, while I was expecting our son. Something about bearing his offspring made me want to trace his lineage.

[Darth Rotor]

No, it wasn't.
??

I read the article. I used a grain of salt, given the name of the web site. My hackles went up at the bolded 6,000 years line, I admit.

Care to share with us why you feel that the difficulties in the initial assumptions aren't sufficient to cast Eve's mitochondrial matriarchy into doubt?

I am all ears.

DR

[Cleon]

??

..


If you and Radrook want to start a thread on the subject of why you feel that most everything we know about population genetics is in fact wrong, based on an article you found on a Christian apologetics website, you are free to do so. The science section is thataway-->

[Radrook]

Sending me to a atheistic sites to hear atheistic propaganda by atheistic scientists isn't very convincing. Ooops, sorry. I didn't notice you are a moderator telling me to shut up on my own thread. My mistake.

[volatile]

??

I read the article. I used a grain of salt, given the name of the web site.

OT - That site is selling a book called Does God Love Michael's Two Daddies? (http://www.apologeticspress.org/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/871), which " promotes God’s love for all individuals, while at the same time showing, in a loving way, that homosexuality is wrong."

It also sells a colouring book for kids (http://www.apologeticspress.org/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/2_3/products_id/2), which "teaches children the truth about the co-existence on Earth of humans and dinosaurs". So I really would doubt the scientific veracity of anything posted there...

Take your hate and ignorance and leave, Radrook.

/OT

[volatile]

Sending me to a atheistic sites to hear atheistic propaganda by atheistic scientists isn't very convincing. Ooops, sorry. I didn't notice you are a moderator telling me to shut up on my own thread. My mistake.

But sites which sell books which "teaches children the truth about the co-existence on Earth of humans and dinosaurs. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/2_3/products_id/2)" areconvincing sources of scientific information?

You've been lied to for too long, Radrook. Take a stand. Learn the truth.

[Cleon]

Sending me to a atheistic sites to hear atheistic propaganda by atheistic scientists isn't very convincing.

Because unless it's explicitly Christian, it's explicitly atheist. :rolleyes:


Ooops, sorry. I didn't notice you are a moderator telling me to shut up on my own thread. My mistake.

I didn't tell you to shut up. I told you that if you want to start a thread on a scientific issue, it belongs in the Science forum.

[Darth Rotor]

..
If you and Radrook want to start a thread
How about you answer my question?

You and Radrook take an opposite side on the Eve bit that I became familiar with in 1987. PBS, IIRC. Radrook says "It's been overcome" and gives a link. (It's authority is not guaranteed.) You say "no it hasn't" and provide nothing else. So, having read his link, and been a bit skeptical as to its content, I ask you for more since one of the points in the link is that science has found out more about DNA since 1987. You very rudely ignore my quesiton, and then in a mild case of ad hom or dishonest pigeonhole, you attempt to depict me as "on Radrook's" side.

Knock it off with the horsecrap, if you please, Cleon.

@ Volatile: I can read very well the name of the site. That some of what they post is wrong, or dubious, is not guarantee that everything their posters present is wrong. Your attempt to dismiss is a mild case of ad hom.

Did You Bother To Read The Article Linked, YES OR NO?

@ Cleon: yes, this may be better suited to a SMM& T discusion, which means your "no it's not" is completely unsupported.

See you there, if Radrook chooses to continue.

DR

[volatile]

@ Volatile: I can read very well the name of the site. That some of what they post is wrong, or dubious, is not guarantee that everything their posters present is wrong. Your attempt to dismiss is a mild case of ad hom.

Not all, Darth. If you were following the discussion rather than , as usual, angrily hunting for snark material, you will have noticed that Radrook explicitly decried "atheistic" sites as poor sources for scientific knowledge. I was just pointing out, by analogy, the absurdity of his position.

That said, if you are willing to treat as even mildly credible a pseudo-scientific, agenda-laden article from a site whose owners actually believe that not only did dinosaurs and humans share the earth, but that this should be taught to pre-schoolers, then your priorities are far more out of whack than I had even dared to suspect.

Did You Bother To Read The Article Linked, YES OR NO?Yes.

I realise you have a horse in this race, but that is your cross to bear, I'm afraid. Perhaps you should take a look at Radrook and examine the kind of intellectual company you keep, especially given the temerity you had earlier in the week in accusing others here of not being sufficiently sceptical because of their political beliefs!

[Radrook]

Because unless it's explicitly Christian, it's explicitly atheist. :rolleyes:

If indeed creationist sites are to be mistrusted because thgey are creationist-then the same holds for godless evolutionist sites.



I didn't tell you to shut up. I told you that if you want to start a thread on a scientific issue, it belongs in the Science forum.

If someome makes an off topic comment on my thread and I respond to it in an off-topic way that doesn't mean I want to start a thread a based on my response to his off-topic comment.

[Thunder]

Everyone knows Obama is really Jewish.

:)