3 ms·
Problem is, The article assume humans mate with uniform distribution, and that they did so generations ago. The 2^n argument is way naive and this level of unif
by shuringai 6y ago
Problem is, The article assume humans mate with uniform distribution, and that they did so generations ago. The 2^n argument is way naive and this level of uniformity assumes every people on earth has the chance to end up with a uniform random other person as their partner, regardless of geographic, cultural etc differences.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoAgreed. There are regions of commonality, that share little or nothing with other regions. This isolation feature means that simple statistics is uninformative.
- delecti 6y agoDoesn't that only support their point? A naively optimistic estimate that ancestors are uniformly distributed will take more generations to hit the limit of 2^n vs the historic population. In reality ancestors are "reused" even faster than that, particularly with examples like geographically isolated villages, etc.