5 ms·

Thought experiment: after a couple of generations, would we expect a higher or lower percentage using the same calculations Without reading the article, (had r

Thought experiment: after a couple of generations, would we expect a higher or lower percentage using the same calculations Without reading the article, (had read a similar one years back), here are my thoughts: More: 0.5% is a small segment of population and by random selection, they are likely to breed with the 99.5% thus increasing the direct descendants with every generation. Less: they may be locked by geography so they may be inter breeding and not growing (at worst) or slowly growing (at best) but other places such as India quadrupled over the century and they lost percentage as a result.

im3w1l 4y ago
Direct line descendants, that is fathers fathers father etc. While normal descendants increase with every generation as everything is diluted, direct line descendants do not.
- Retric 4y ago
  He didn’t father even 0.005% of all kids when he was alive, which means reaching 0.5% requires an increase vastly faster than simple population growth. That increase comes from ‘father mother father’ lines of decent being included. So, I can only conclude you’re confused about something.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    It's not just about how many sons he himself had (4). It's also about how many sons his sons had (quite a lot) and so on. His high social status not only let him have many sons but also helped his descendants (not forever, but for some time) with that. Consider also the possibility that his Y-chromosome may be genetically superior. As the Y-chromosome does not undergo recombination, the only way for those beneficial mutations to spread is very gradually, outperforming generation after generation until every single human is a direct descendant. On the other hand.... it does seem that the genetical evidence is a bit more murky and questionable than popular sources claim.
    - Retric 4y ago
      There’s zero actual genetic evidence the lineage talked about in the article started with him or even that he had it. As to estimates, going from 4 sons to ~40,000,000 people in ~30 generations is going to take a lot more than slight bias. The original estimate was clearly including both male and female dependents then removing duplicates. But, like so often happens people keep reporting vaguely inaccurate versions of the same idea so it mutates. This genetic group is simply close enough to the old story that it seems to vaguely fit.
    - im3w1l 4y ago
      Oh I forgot to mention a pretty important factor: That he probably sired a bunch of bastard sons.
      - Retric 4y ago
        He could have had 400 sons rather than 4 and it wouldn’t have changed things that much. Again, nobody is actually tracking his children when they make these models.
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]

im3w1l 4y ago

Direct line descendants, that is fathers fathers father etc. While normal descendants increase with every generation as everything is diluted, direct line descendants do not.

Retric 4y ago
He didn’t father even 0.005% of all kids when he was alive, which means reaching 0.5% requires an increase vastly faster than simple population growth. That increase comes from ‘father mother father’ lines of decent being included. So, I can only conclude you’re confused about something.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  It's not just about how many sons he himself had (4). It's also about how many sons his sons had (quite a lot) and so on. His high social status not only let him have many sons but also helped his descendants (not forever, but for some time) with that. Consider also the possibility that his Y-chromosome may be genetically superior. As the Y-chromosome does not undergo recombination, the only way for those beneficial mutations to spread is very gradually, outperforming generation after generation until every single human is a direct descendant. On the other hand.... it does seem that the genetical evidence is a bit more murky and questionable than popular sources claim.
  - Retric 4y ago
    There’s zero actual genetic evidence the lineage talked about in the article started with him or even that he had it. As to estimates, going from 4 sons to ~40,000,000 people in ~30 generations is going to take a lot more than slight bias. The original estimate was clearly including both male and female dependents then removing duplicates. But, like so often happens people keep reporting vaguely inaccurate versions of the same idea so it mutates. This genetic group is simply close enough to the old story that it seems to vaguely fit.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    Oh I forgot to mention a pretty important factor: That he probably sired a bunch of bastard sons.
    - Retric 4y ago
      He could have had 400 sons rather than 4 and it wouldn’t have changed things that much. Again, nobody is actually tracking his children when they make these models.

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]