GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1221690249


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:24:09 -0400
References: <mailman.6170.1221611606.2567.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><000d01c9186a$a93829c0$6401a8c0@alfap43400ak><REME20080916225634@alum.mit.edu><f3f05ce80809170322k3a5a5710ve413dde9da0a5669@mail.gmail.com><REME20080917142424@alum.mit.edu><f3f05ce80809171219q5f55d3cawa5dcde5f342fd9af@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3f05ce80809171219q5f55d3cawa5dcde5f342fd9af@mail.gmail.com>(dienekes.pontikos@gmail.com)


Dienekes wrote:
> Incorrect, I didn't say that every man has one son

I am well aware of what you said, and also what you did NOT say. In
particular, you didn't mention that you were assuming a very specific
and oversimplified distribution of the number of sons per man.
Admittedly, it is very convenient (for you) to assume a simplified,
one-parameter model of procreation, but that is no way to understand
how a real population might evolve. The fact is that some aspects of
population history are acutely sensitive to the actual details of how
many sons each man has, while other aspects are not. Your model is
fine for the latter, but useless for the former. The time gap
between founder and MRCA is very definitely one of the former, as I
already demonstrated.

John Chandler

This thread: