# There are only 2,000 DNA strains in the world



## Caseyboy (Feb 13, 2012)

If you do the research you'll find that every man, woman and child on the earth right now comes from about 2,000 DNA strains. If you know anything about DNA you will see that each strand is an individual just like a fingerprint or a snowflake. There are no two exactly alike. What that tells us is the world did almost end at one time and about 2,000 individuals survived it. They went on to rebuild the human population of the earth. That isn't speculation that is corroborated scientific fact. 

I believe from what I have been able to determine over a period of fifty years as a serious student of history the earth has had catastrophic events numerous times and each time there have been survivors. This last time there were over 2,000 who survived. Some of those who pulled through built mega civilizations and had technology they used which has been lost to the ages. 

People are very resilient and can endure incredible events of nature. It is said that when Mount Thera exploded a once super volcano located in the Mediterranean, it was heard by persons living more than 3,000 miles away. There is also speculation that Thera exploded with a force greater than all the combined nuclear devises of the world put together and add another thirty or forty percent to that figure and then detonate them. The sunsets were colorful as a result of the ash in the ionosphere and lasted for 75 years. 

To this day there are hundreds of towns under the Mediterranean Sea laying on the sea floor. The oceanographers and ocean-archaeologists know about them. The world land masses have been formed and reformed many times throughout our earth's history. Which brings me to my point, will anyone survive if there is another world calamity of mega porportions? I believe they will unless the world literally blows apart. Even if it is fried to a crisp there will be a few individuals who will survive such a cataclysms. While others will die for many innocuous reasons, either trying to get away from what is happening, or huddled together in a group such as those who were killed when Mount Vesuvius exploded. Their remains were found at Pompeii and Herculaneum still huddled together in a group hug.

All we as survivalists can do is make every effort to outlive whatever happens by putting away food, water and anything else we deem we will need later. If we're lucky we will make it but you can be sure not all of us will. It's just the luck of the draw. You can be a little luckier if you pick the right place to be, and with whom. Given enough preparation you have a better than an even chance of making it through whatever is coming our way. Doing nothing and simply standing on the sidelines and scoffing will get you killed without a doubt. You can count on that one. We used to call it taking a DIP, (died in place). A planet that completely vaporizes, it goes without saying, no one escapes that. Floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, plague, drought and famine are all survivable, it's been done many times in the past by many different people. That's why there are 2,000 different DNA strains to this day.

Caseyboy


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

I believe that catastrophe has hit this earth before as well and only one family survived despite their trying to convince their neighbors and countrymen of the coming disaster for many many years. Nobody listened until the waters started rising but by then it was too late. Be prepared!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Caseyboy said:


> If you do the research you'll find that every man, woman and child on the earth right now comes from about 2,000 DNA strains.


What is a "DNA strain?"



> What that tells us is the world did almost end at one time and about 2,000 individuals survived it. They went on to rebuild the human population of the earth. That isn't speculation that is corroborated scientific fact.


Not true. Here's why. If you live your life but you sire no children and 10 years after your die we do genetic sampling on every living person and trace out their lineages, you won't show up. Here's another variation - you do have children, many in fact, and each generation that follows one male line gets extinguished because that man has no children, so the torch passes to male children born to your female descendants, and the same happens the next generation and the next, etc.

Here's the point - this "Mitochondrial Eve" view of ancestral history is flawed in that it pretends that everyone of our ancestors had children.

Here's an ancillary point - more women than men that have lived across time have their descendants alive today. Meaning that far more men die childless than do women. Some men sire many children and quite a few have none, conversely, some women have children by one man while some women have children by many men, while some women have no children. Another example - 1 out of 200 men on the planet can trace ancestry back to Genghis Khan and if a person has ancestral ties to Asia the odds jump up to about 8% of men.

To your point - amongst the people alive today we can trace ancestry back to the bottleneck event to which you're referring but that's different than saying that only 2,000 people were alive at one time.

Here's a modern day example - Ishi:

In late 1908, a group of surveyors came across the camp inhabited by an elderly native woman, a man, and young girl - Ishi's elderly mother, Ishi, and his sister. The latter two fled and the former hid herself in blankets to avoid detection, because she was sick and could not run.
Ishi's quiver of arrows

The surveyors ransacked the camp and took everything. Ishi's mother and other relatives died soon after Ishi's return. Ishi lived three years beyond the raid alone, the last of his tribe.​
All of those "genetic strains" that were long present in his tribe, that survived for countless generations across time, came to an end when Ishi, the last of his tribe, died childless. Wiped out for good. Today, no one claims direct ancestry from that tribe, yet all those people were alive once, they had many children and grandchildren through the generations. That branch has been pruned.


----------



## BasecampUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

Caseyboy said:


> What that tells us is the world did almost end at one time and about 2,000 individuals survived it. They went on to rebuild the human population of the earth. That isn't speculation that is corroborated scientific fact.


How do you know they didn't just arrive here from... "elsewhere" ?


----------



## Caseyboy (Feb 13, 2012)

Okay, I see where you're going with this but it still doesn't explain why there are only 2,000 DNA strains on earth today. Perhaps there were more people that survived whatever the cataclysmic event was. I haven't done enough research on the subject but the paper I read was quite distinct in its assertion of only 2,000 DNA in existence on earth at the present time. DNA is a relative new science but the individualist of it is not in question. People are being let go from Death Row because of it because it is proof positive of a person's individual identity and where their genes came from. 

You make a nice point but I fail to see because some of us die without producing offspring, it has limited how much of a DNA bank we have on earth. I still say we had at least 2,000 survivors once perhaps when the legendary Atlantis came to an end. Who knows the true story? History has only been documented by man for about 10,000 years yet we know man existed on earth much longer than 10,000 years and was able to write about it. Lucy whose bones were found in Africa, dated to more than a million years ago. She was of the genus **** Erectus. There are some who call her the mother of all mankind.

Whether the story is true or simply conjecture, I think the whole of mankind has nearly perished on more than one occasion and I'm betting it will happen again in the not too distant future. It wouldn't take much for this to happen. Perhaps a series of solar flares from our own sun could turn earth into a charcoal ball of ash, or a virulent plague could sweep the earth so quick by the time we realized what it was or its genetic makeup, we would all be dead. How about a huge rock coming at us out of nowhere about a mile long and a half mile wide and hitting the earth? The earth would probably be incinerated in as little as a couple of minutes. The heat would penetrate a mile deep and boil all of the surface water on the planet away. Nothing would survive that. But, perhaps a few would. Maybe a crew of a nuclear submarine might. Remember, they are putting women on our subs today. It will only take a few men and women to populate the world. That is fodder for a book and not my feeble effort here.

Thanks for your input.
Caseyboy


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

Caseyboy;

I agree with everything you posted. I have also read articles or seen scientific documentaries that verify your subject matter on this thread. All of your postings on this site have been very well written and educational. 

Keep posting!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Caseyboy said:


> Okay, I see where you're going with this but it still doesn't explain why there are only 2,000 DNA strains on earth today.


First, there are no such things as DNA strains. What you're referring to are is better described as "most common ancestor." Everyone alive today can trace back their ancestry to 2,000 people at some far point in history but that doesn't mean that only 2,000 people were alive at that one point in time. There were young people alive who died before they could reproduce. There were people alive who did reproduce but their family trees didn't carry on until the present day, meaning that those branches aren't present today so we can't trace a line from someone alive today to someone alive back at the far distant point.

You have genetic similarity to your mother and father but that's different than saying that you're a stain derived from them - which one? You see the problem? If you're a new "strain" that is comprised of components of both of your parents, then you're a NEW "strain" and not one of the 2,000 strains you claim.



> Perhaps there were more people that survived whatever the cataclysmic event was.


The probability of this is extremely high, in fact I'd say that it's a certainty. Here's why. Plenty of Neanderthals and Denisovans coexisted at the same time as **** Sapiens when they were restricted to Africa. All people of who are NOT BLACK have Neanderthal ancestry in their genes, about 2.5% and with the people of Papua New Guinea their Denisovan ancestry comprises about 5% of their genome.

The figures that you're looking at only looked at **** sapien contributions to our genome.



> You make a nice point but I fail to see because some of us die without producing offspring, it has limited how much of a DNA bank we have on earth.


Your question is mixing apples and oranges. Our "DNA BANK" is the result of different combinations, not variations of a small number of "strains." Think of it this way - there are 52 "Strains" in a deck of playing cards. Anyone who plays poker will tell you that the combinations that can result from the interplay of those cards is immense.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The Human race*

The human race is like a sack of sugar.

You can pour out all the sugar , hold up the sack and shake it and it still rattles.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Here is a real-world example:

If we sample all of the DNA of living people today and trace back through the generations we would neglect this entire family tree:

The Lincoln family comprises all the descendants of Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. *The family line has been extinct since the last living descendant, Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died on December 24, 1985 without any children. *​
Quite clearly Abraham Lincoln once lived and he even had children but there is no one alive today who is carrying his "DNA Strain."


----------



## Caseyboy (Feb 13, 2012)

Okay Bobbb, the Abraham Lincoln gene has been liquidated. I accept that. How does that reduce the initial figure of 2,000 basic DNA.s left on planet earth? Obviously, Abraham Lincoln is dead. We do not know how many offspring he actually produced while he was out and about and growing up. We only know what has been reported but we do not know that is an accurate story. We also don't know with any veracity how many children his surviving son produced eiher. Most of what you say here is conjecture and cannot be verified by anyone. Of course some people die and they don't produce children. However, it is a known fact that there are only 2,000 DNA footprints on the entire earth and that is verified as far as the scientific community understands it. Which leaves me with my original assertion; there was at one time only 2,000 people left alive after the last major calamity that wiped out nearly all humans on earth. Was it 2,001 people or 2,515 people? Nobody can say because there is no way to properly come up with an exact number, but we do know about 2,000 of them. 

I once wrote a story about a farmer and his family. As I told it they lived in a white house with blue trim. A person kept focusing on the color of the house in their rebuttle. They asserted the house was actually Blue with white trim. The story was fiction and it didn't matter what color the house was, it was simply a discription of what the author, (me) said the color was. In that instance I found that no matter what I wrote about that person wanted to debate me and take away from the original storyline simply to be arguing. It matters little to me what the color of the house was, it was a house. It doesn't matter to me what the number of DNA in actuality was either, it is simply a matter of what science knows today and that is, there are only 2,000 DNA of humans on this earth. Which leaves most logical thinking people with one conclusion, there were at least 2,000 survivors left on earth after a major wipe out of humans on the earth. If you chose to believe something different, you are entitled to your own assertions. I'm sure what your think will not change what I have said here earlier in my original statement. We all have the choice to believe what we want to believe. That is why the world is such a wonderful mix of differences of opinions and I accept the fact that everybody isn't going to agree with everything I say. I always value other opinions about most things. I just don't necessarily agree with them.

It was a piece of information I found very interesting and I decided to write a personal view about. Perhaps you could do an in depth research on the subject and tell us about it? I would like to know more. Thanks for your input.

Caseyboy


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Caseyboy said:


> Okay Bobbb, the Abraham Lincoln gene has been liquidated. I accept that. How does that reduce the initial figure of 2,000 basic DNA.s left on planet earth?


1.) You're barking up the wrong tree by framing this as "2,000 basic DNAs left on planet earth." That's just wrong. That 2,000 figure refers to common ancestors, the same thing that is referenced when genealogists track back and find Barack Obama and George W. Bush have a common ancestor 200 years ago. That 2,000 figure means that everyone alive today can trace back their ancestry to 2,000 genotypes in the far mists of time but what it doesn't mean is that there were 2,000 people alive on the planet. Are Obama and Bush using the same "basic DNA"? No, they're not. Are you using the same "basic DNA" as one of your parents and completely ignoring the "basic DNA" of the other parent?

2.) The point about Lincoln was to illustrate the dynamic of what this study is trying to do - it looks at the people alive today and tracks backwards. Lincoln has no descendants alive today, so this study would miss (if we simplify the assumptions) his genetic line entirely. Multiply by millions of pruned family trees across time. Lincoln lived but this type of study would indicate that he didn't BECAUSE no one alive today is descended from him. It's a bit more complicated because ancestry lines criss and cross, but that's the gist of my point.


----------



## Caseyboy (Feb 13, 2012)

Bobbb,

I am not missing the gist of what you're saying, the study I read says there are only 2,000 DNA's in all of the world. I accept that figure since I cannot prove it invalid one way or the other. It isn't my intent to be right or wrong, I'm merely stating what I read. If you have other data, let's see it. I didn't make up the stats, I simply reported them. In any case, I don't really care one way or the other if it's 2,000 DNA or 2001. The actual number is irrevelant because if the researchers cannot narrow it down with any specificity, who really cares? We simply know that if all of the millions of people who have lived their lives on ths planet at one time or another and have died, and we can only narrow that down to a small number of 2,000 it should be obvious to anyone something happened at one time. That was my point. Whatever happened, we can guess that it was very large, and it killed almost everyone on the planet fairly quickly or there would be more DNA than only 2,000. There again it's a guess because no one is alive who witnesses what happened and no one wrote about it either. We can only go by what scientists have determined after years of research on the subject.

I also think if you're saying millions and millions died out before their DNA could propogate beyond a few generations is what happened, leaving us with merely 2,000 DNA, then I would have to think that was a near impossibility because the millions before those surviving 2,000 is a number too large to have all of a sudden died off without some sort of an explanation because of the abrutness of their disappearance. Surely there would be more DNA than only 2,000. We make up our minds about what we study and learn from every avenue of our lives. It isn't just school it is life happenings as well. I chose to believe that which is logical in lieu of evidense that can absolutely substantiate something as fact. In this case it makes perfect sense to me that because there are only 2,000 DNA on earth, something must have happened to the other millions that once existed. I say it was something that ended life on earth in as little as a year (one growing season) or perhaps it happened in a micro-second.

There are geologist right now that are saying there is a piece of land on one of the Canary Islands located in the Atlantic Ocean. That piece of land is about three miles wide by about twenty miles long. The Canary Islands are situated as part of a large volcanic build up and it is very active. There is a large crack in that piece of land that is getting wider by the day. It is monitored by volcanoligists and geologists. They have recording machines and seismic recorders that are recording what is happening on a minute per minute basis. Scientist who have a working math ability way beyond my rudimentary skills have calculated that if that the crack gets wide enough and there is an eruption or earthquake, and that chunk of land falls away from that Canary Island and hits the Atlantic ocean waters there will be a Tsunami that will spread out along the eastern seacoasts of North America, Central America, and South America. It will rise to about 1,500 feet in altitude and hit the land masses traveling at a speed that will be greater than the sound barrier, about 750 miles an hour. It will hit the land masses and will travel inland several miles before it recedes, and there won't be just one wave, they say it will be a series of waves. Not only that, but it will hit the west coast of Africa, go all the way around England and wind up in the Netherlands. It will also go around Africa and hit India and the coasts of Japan, and all the rest of the land masses that touch the ocean waters all over the world. If that happens, do you think many people will be killed? Do you think we have never experienced such disasters before on earth? Has the earth never been struck by a large body from outer space traveling around 65,000 miles an hour?

When the death toll rises from such a disaster, numbers become meaningless. How big a number is several billion people? How many of them live on the coasts of the continents? Along side riverbanks all over the world? The only one that will have any real meaning to me will be myself and my family and friends. That doesn't mean there will be plenty of people who have no meaning to so many others because they do and I wonder if such a disaster happens how many DNA will still be left if we have 2,000 right now? Or better yet, how many ancestral strains will there be left? The main point is this after all is said and done, 2,000 DNA strains, or ancestral families is a very small number when we compare it to the billions who inhabit this earth right now. The numbers hardly calculate out from 2,000 to billions. Not to say it isn't possible, but I think improbable. People a lot smarter than me have said modern man has only been around for 25,000 years. When I say modern I mean people who walked upright and used tools. We don't know about what happened before that period. Some say Atlantis existed somewhere in the era about 12,000 to 15,000 years ago and they were the survivors who taught the ancient Egyptians how to build with stone when their city continent disappeared.

Caseyboy


----------



## JSMcTilty (Feb 26, 2012)

OK Caseyboy, I think the point that Bobbb is trying to make is that when you say there are 2000 "DNA strands" or "DNAs," you are being unclear because that is not how DNA is described. DNA is made up of thousands of genes, each of which is made up of 100+ nucleic acids. So when you say a DNA strand, I assume you are referring to the entire genotype of an individual? 

If so, it would be impossible for there to only be 2000 genotypes in existence today. This is because each person is made up of genes from both their mother and father, creating a unique individual and thus a unique genotype. Factor in crossing-over events and mutations, and you'll see why it is impossible to have only 2000 DNA "strands."

To use Bobbb's poker example, you play with a deck of 52 cards, which we can use to represent genes. Now when you consider all of the differenet possible hand combinations, or genotypes, you will find that there is 2,598,960 combinations. So if you do that with DNA consisting of almost 20,000 genes, there is a seemingly infinite number of genotypes. Basically since there are 6.8 billion people in the world, there are 6.8 genotypes currently in existence. Of course, theoretically there is the possibility of two people having identical genotypes, but that chances of that are so remote that its not worth considering. 

Of course as you go further back into history there are going to be fewer and fewer genotypes because the population size has been getting bigger throughout history. So yes, at one point there would have 2,000 individuals in existence, but I dont see how that proves any sort of mass die off.

Can tell us where you saw this study so we can clarify?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

JSMcTilty said:


> OK Caseyboy, I think the point that Bobbb is trying to make is that when you say there are 2000 "DNA strands" or "DNAs," you are being unclear because that is not how DNA is described. DNA is made up of thousands of genes, each of which is made up of 100+ nucleic acids. So when you say a DNA strand, I assume you are referring to the entire genotype of an individual?
> 
> If so, it would be impossible for there to only be 2000 genotypes in existence today. This is because each person is made up of genes from both their mother and father, creating a unique individual and thus a unique genotype. Factor in crossing-over events and mutations, and you'll see why it is impossible to have only 2000 DNA "strands."
> 
> ...


I know what Caseyboy is referring to but there was a slip betwixt cup and lip from his reading of the material and his synopsis of the material.

In population genetics what he is referring to is a bottleneck event and the resultant population is the founder group and their influence is called their founder effect. We see them all over the place. Native Americans alive today are the products of a bottleneck event in that of all the people in the world at the time of the Bering Land Bridge migration only a small number migrated over Beringia and settled and had children in the Americas. The founder effect for Native Americans is on the order of 70-80 individuals.

The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals, approximately 1% of the effective size of the estimated ancestral Asian population.​
That doesn't mean though that only 80 people crossed the land bridge. There were people who crossed and died without having children. There were people who crossed and had children and those children died before they could have children, thus erasing their genetic influence on present day Native Americans.

These findings are interesting in and of themselves but they're not telling us what CaseyBoy thought they were telling us. As I noted earlier, every person alive today who isn't of African descent has about 3%, give or take a bit, of Neanderthal genetics in us while those of African descent hardly have any and in many case none at all. That study on founder effect/bottlenecks completely bypasses that point and doesn't even look at how many Neanderthals were alive and how many mating events took place between **** Sapiens and Neanderthals. Clearly Neanderthals were alive at some point but this study presumes that they didn't even exist and that all of humanity is descended from ONLY those 2,000 common ancestors.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*We are*

We are the decendants of millions of people but are represented by the 2000 surviving DNA strains. The survival of these DNA strains is due to natural selection,luck ,the escape from genocide ,war and natural disasters.

It dosen't mean that only 2000 people were left alive at any one point but that the DNA strains of 2000 people still survive today.


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

so explain to me how we got the white people,red people, black people and yellow people, or were there 500 left of every race?.


----------



## Jason (Jul 25, 2009)

lotsoflead said:


> so explain to me how we got the white people,red people, black people and yellow people, or were there 500 left of every race?.


I'd guess evolution. People, who are simply mammals like mammoths and giraffes and mice, evolved over long spans of time to adapt to their environments. Africans are dark and slender to deal with their hot climate, natives of the far north in Canada and Alaska are short and squat to retain body heat, etc.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The divideing point*



lotsoflead said:


> so explain to me how we got the white people,red people, black people and yellow people, or were there 500 left of every race?.


I believe the dividing point in human history that allowed differing characteristics which we refer to as races , occurred when a single event took place causing mankind to separate into clans of closely related families who then migrated unto the four corners of the Earth.
Once this happened and they began to multiply, dominate gene characteristics developed through natural selection which is influenced by environment and disease.
Over an extended period of time these descendants became what we now refer to as races of people.
If you want to read about just such an event, read about the "Tower of Babel" in the Bible.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

lotsoflead said:


> so explain to me how we got the white people,red people, black people and yellow people, or were there 500 left of every race?.


Look at the members of your family. Are you looking at them? Do you see a resemblance between the different people? Well, in a sense your immediate family is a super-mini-race that is different from the super-mini-race of the family next door.

Now extrapolate to your extended family of cousins, uncles and aunts, but start allowing for cousin marriage, be it 1st cousin or 4th cousin. Shake and bake and allow this to go on for a few generations and then take a fresh look at the people in this extended family and you'll start to see familial characteristics becoming dominant which help identify you as family members.

That's what race is - large groups of people who partially inbreed and don't have much overlap with neighboring races. Remember that only until recently most people lived their entire lives within 50 miles of where they were born.

So what happened back in the mists of time is a band of travelers emerged out of Africa and took a very long walk about. They walked, over many generations, along the coast of the Middle East, along the coast of India, and down into Australia and then sea levels rose and cut off that band. Meanwhile, all along that journey people stayed behind rather than go on the walkabout.

Then, thousands of years later another band left Africa and went north and then West into Europe. As they moved North, over thousands of years, one person in the group developed a mutation for one thing and another person developed a mutation for another thing, and when the mutation allowed for the person to survive just a bit easier and when the mutation was passed on and the children survived a bit easier, then these mutations started to differentiate these descendants away from the descendants of the founding group . Because the mutations gave better results in terms of reproductive success the ratio of "new people" versus "old people" started to shift towards "new people." An example of this would be how people with lighter skin can process sunlight better than people with darker skin and by doing so create vitamin D inside their bodies. Another example would be how people with stockier builds can conserve body heat better than people who are long and thin. Both of these features grant greater survival odds in colder environments characterized with less sunlight than is experienced in Africa. The upshot here is that these "new people" survived at a higher rate into their child bearing years and their children survived better and so on.

Meanwhile, these new travelers into Europe and Asia met up with Neanderthals at various times. It's almost a certainty that on a number of occasions some of the male Neanderthals raped some of these human women and impregnated them. The hybrid child, 50% Neanderthal and 50% Human had some distinct advantages over humans and was also saddled with some disadvantages. However, the advantages were significant enough that they were carried forward in the offspring and the disadvantages weren't strong enough to weed these hybrid children out of the mating game. It's quite likely that some of the diseases we deal with today are the result of this Neanderthal introgression. Now in terms of racial differentiation that Neanderthal contribution is present today, in us, the children of these long ago travelers, and every person who is of Caucasian, Asian, Native American ancestry is about 3% Neanderthal. People who are Papua New Guinea Aborigine have about a 5% contribution from Neanderthal and another offshoot species, Denisovan Man. People who are of African ancestry have very little, or none at all, contribution from the Neanderthal genome.

So, over time, over many many generations, parents had children, and their choice of mate was pretty restricted by geography. The people who traveled and settled in China would never, in hundreds of generations, ever meet a person who had settled in Denmark. So, like I described above, the mating choices for these people were mostly restricted and whatever mutations and characteristics developed in these groups couldn't flow outwards to other groups and so these new features gained ground within the groups in which they developed and when those features gave a reproductive boost compared to the people without those features, their rate of spread increased and this led to even more differentiation from far distant other groups.

And there is how races developed.


----------



## Caseyboy (Feb 13, 2012)

After reading the posted comments here I have to agree I was wrong in my assertions and you were right. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Caseyboy


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

I have been told that many (most?) folks believe there are more folks ALIVE NOW than have EVER LIVED .... TOGETHER. In other words, of all humans who have ever existed most of them are ALIVE NOW. So were there 2000 at SOME point? Sure! Absolutely! Was it because of some calamity that befell them? No, probably not. If you were able to follow genetics far enough back you would eventually get to one person whom you could find no parents for... strange!


----------

