If of one person today every previous generation ancestral parents only consists of unique pairs then go back 80 generations that’s 280 of people had to exist during that 80th generation back. That’s more than 1.2 septillion so a one with 24 zeros. So that’s impossible that’s more people than have existed in history. Meaning that inbreeding has happened in everyone’s family tree. So lots of distant cousin marriages. But unfortunately also some fucked up shit like some of your ancestor’s parents are brother and sister or father and daughter. So if you follow your paternal line back the number of dads is less than the number of mothers.
You’ve made the assumption that everyone has a unique pair of parents. You’ve not taken into account that parents can have multiple children.
One of the reasons behind the population boom (but not the only reason by any means) is that infant mortality is so low nowadays. Not that long ago, you could have entire families wiped out by diseases that are now functionally eradicated or easily treatable.
If you assume two children per group of parents survive until adulthood, the population line stays stable. It’s because of the massive rise in the number of children reaching adulthood that the population spikes so suddenly.
No that’s not the assumption I made. I said if one living person today had unique parents all the way back. Why would I have to take into account siblings if I’m only looking at the direct lineage.
I also said it’s impossible and inbreeding and pedigree collapse occurred.
If of one person today every previous generation ancestral parents only consists of unique pairs then go back 80 generations that’s 280 of people had to exist during that 80th generation back. That’s more than 1.2 septillion so a one with 24 zeros. So that’s impossible that’s more people than have existed in history. Meaning that inbreeding has happened in everyone’s family tree. So lots of distant cousin marriages. But unfortunately also some fucked up shit like some of your ancestor’s parents are brother and sister or father and daughter. So if you follow your paternal line back the number of dads is less than the number of mothers.
You’ve made the assumption that everyone has a unique pair of parents. You’ve not taken into account that parents can have multiple children.
One of the reasons behind the population boom (but not the only reason by any means) is that infant mortality is so low nowadays. Not that long ago, you could have entire families wiped out by diseases that are now functionally eradicated or easily treatable.
If you assume two children per group of parents survive until adulthood, the population line stays stable. It’s because of the massive rise in the number of children reaching adulthood that the population spikes so suddenly.
No that’s not the assumption I made. I said if one living person today had unique parents all the way back. Why would I have to take into account siblings if I’m only looking at the direct lineage.
I also said it’s impossible and inbreeding and pedigree collapse occurred.