GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1293756547


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] The death of paragroups
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:49:07 -0500
References: <8FB365E1-2876-4664-AA70-3CCD4CEBB9CB@vizachero.com><000501cba78a$0850ce70$c2482dae@Ken1><003b01cba79b$5dbd2f00$19378d00$@dgmweb.net><003101cba7ad$8afe1800$c2482dae@Ken1><005701cba7ba$60e42070$22ac6150$@dgmweb.net><006301cba7bb$82fddfb0$c2482dae@Ken1><005901cba7ca$2913d8b0$7b3b8a10$@dgmweb.net><308BEEC4-A901-4939-B0B7-5BDBE94B7E3A@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <308BEEC4-A901-4939-B0B7-5BDBE94B7E3A@verizon.net> (message fromJim Bartlett on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:44:43 -0500)


Jim wrote:
> Why wouldn't SNPs from living people be pretty evenly divided over the
> historical timeline, rather than being bunched up in recent
> generations?

Because something like a third or more of all the humans who ever
lived are alive now. In other words, a third or more of all SNPs
that ever happened in humans are brand-spanking-new.

John Chandler

This thread: