4 ms·
Not necessarily from this particular set of people though. Reich: In Europe where we have the best data currently—although that will change over the coming yea
by adolph 5y ago
Not necessarily from this particular set of people though.
Reich: In Europe where we have the best data currently—although that will change over the coming years—we know a lot about how people have migrated. We know of multiple layers of population replacement over the last 50,000 years.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/ancient-dna-history/554798/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/ancient-...
- ema 5y agoI wouldn't bet on everyone alive today being descended from them, but at least 90% is pretty likely.
- OJFord 5y agoWhy? Related to them, sure, but not descended directly from that 'set of people' versus a different branch from common ancestors, i.e. their cousins.
- ema 5y agoThere are about 200 generations between now and then. Your ancestor set needs to only grow by about 10% each generation to include everyone who was alive back then and therefore also them. In a perfectly mixed population your ancestor set grows 100% each generation until it includes everyone. Now humans aren't a perfectly mixed population but you only need a few migrants each century between different societies to reach 10% because in each society it's much closer to 100% (until it includes ~everyone in that society).