Your ancestor tree also expands exponentially (almost doubling with every generation), so everyone alive around the year 1250 AD is either one of your ancestors or no-one-around-today’s ancestor (because their line died out).
Yeah. I had thought about that, although I realized that it’s probably a little more complex due to genetic isolation; that is, you’ve got inbreeding several generations back, even more so if your ancestors were really quite homogeneous like the Japanese. Like, instead of it being 30 mothers out, it might only be 15 or less within your region.
Just a tip: the term “Aborigine” (that’s how it’s spelt, fwiw) is no longer preferred, and is often regarded as offensive. “Aboriginal Australian” or “Indigenous” are preferred instead.
Your ancestor tree also expands exponentially (almost doubling with every generation), so everyone alive around the year 1250 AD is either one of your ancestors or no-one-around-today’s ancestor (because their line died out).
We are all related about 30 mothers out.
Yeah. I had thought about that, although I realized that it’s probably a little more complex due to genetic isolation; that is, you’ve got inbreeding several generations back, even more so if your ancestors were really quite homogeneous like the Japanese. Like, instead of it being 30 mothers out, it might only be 15 or less within your region.
And a pure Native American must have a common mother with a pure Aboriginal Australian about 1600 mothers ago.
Does that take into account the relative lack of mixing among populations in different continents until recently?
Yea, a pure Native American doesn’t share a mother with an Aboriginal Australian in 1250 AD lol.
Happy cake day!
Just a tip: the term “Aborigine” (that’s how it’s spelt, fwiw) is no longer preferred, and is often regarded as offensive. “Aboriginal Australian” or “Indigenous” are preferred instead.
Thanks, fixed.