You have two parents.
Your parents have two parents each, making the total people in your lineage at that generation four.
Carry on the sequence (2, 4, 8, 16) and you get 2^n.
Now if we go back 2000 years, then n will mostly likely be around 60, because on average generations are just under 30 years apart, and 2000 / 30 ~ 67.
Plug 60 into 2^n and you get 1.1529215e+18.
That means, 2000 years ago, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 people were alive and had offspring to produce you.
Where is the flaw in this?
That means, 2000 years ago, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 people were alive and had offspring to produce US.
you are describing the genepool as a whole
but an individual is only related to a fraction of year 15 population.
also the generation gap should also be a complex number
>>7666376
Look at the heritage tree, 8 generations ago is the top row, how many of your ancestors are alive to eventually make you? Continue 60 generations ago and you get an impossibly large number.
The years and gap isn't important.
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
__|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|
____|____|____|____|____|____|____|
_______|____|____|____|____|____|
__________|____|____|____|____|
_____________|____|____|____|
________________|____|____|
__________________|____|
____________________|
>>7666372
How many of those reproduced?
>>7666376
>you are describing the genepool as a whole
actually that's not the genepool as a whole, rather at that point in time, for a particular individual
Inbreeding
>>7666392
There must have been too much inbreeding for that to happen. Like routine sibling incest.
>>7666376
It discounts the level of kekoldry that happened in your family OP.
>>7666399
LMAO
Cleopatra's family tree.
>>7666396
>here must have been too much inbreeding for that to happen. Like routine sibling incest.
Not necessary at all. But yes, most humans have been the children of parents who were 1st or second cousins.
To me, the more interesting consequence of this is how closely related we all are. It's quite likely, for example, that 99% of all humans are directly descended from ancient Egyptian royalty. Kind of shows how ridiculous it is when people brag about their ancestors from centuries earlier.
>>7666372
Because historically for most of hominid history before monogamy became a social norm, 80% of females reproduced while only 40% of males reproduced.
Even in modern society 87% of women reproduce while 81% of men reproduce.
Present human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
>>7666439
"hey bill, me and the mates are gonna go spear some caribou, you down broski?"
"I'd love to Phil but someone needs to stay back and ...guard... the women and children, spear a big one for though eh buddy?"
"aight bro, catch ya later"
And that's how Phil became a playa.
>>7666439
Nothing to do with OPs question, but ok.
>>7666447
It explains the flaw in his assumed pairing using known statistics? Explain how that's not related.
>>7666372
One child isn't part of 2^n. The entire sequence is dependent upon one as its 'initializer.'
>>7666464
Turns into some paradoxical 2=1 shit.
>>7666372
Your model doesn't account for individuals appearing multiple times in the same tree, congratulations you just proved mathematically that humans (and really all life in general) is inbred as fuck. Something people have known pretty much ever since algebra was invented. Also something that basically everyone on this board has known since they learned algebra in high school.
OP is a Faggot
confirmed for being underage b&
