GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-05 > 1147747343


From: Rebekah <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] RE: Amazing article about genetics -- please help
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:42:23 -0500
References: <032301c67833$c3395ee0$6401a8c0@Precision360> <000f01c67839$5f71cb80$bec79045@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c67839$5f71cb80$bec79045@Ken1>


Then there is the size of the particular gene pool any one of our
ancestors was in fifteen generations ago. I am sure that for some of My
ancestors it was a tiny little puddle.;-)

Rebekah

Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
> Lawrence,
>
> Your first point is even more powerful when it is realized that each
> chromosome just breaks up into a small number of pieces (I heard about
> 3), and then those pieces recombine as a whole each generation. I
> estimated that further back than about 10 generations, because the
> number of ancestors contributing to our actual genes only grows
> arthimetically rather than exponentially, more and more of those
> "ancestors" are only behavioral ancestors via their matings, and they
> actually contribute to none of our genes.
>
> I think that's why as we go back in time my interests divert to
> following the history of the contributory tribes to my being, since it
> is those tribal gene pools which become relevant in deep ancestry.

This thread: