0
   

Is my theory of probability and ancestors valid?

 
 
bejee44
 
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:05 am
I am an anthropology student from Michigan. I am researching the inter-relatedness of most if not all humans as part of my studies. I personally have an interest in statistics and probability theory and I have used it in regards to this topic. Before I explain my theory, I received the following from a computer scientist that I wish to share to better give a background idea of what I’m trying to put forward:
If there were random intermixing, then we would each have ~1 million ancestors living in 1500 AD, out of a world population of ~500 million.
So the fractional overlap between two people would be about 1/500th.

But the probability that two people share at least one common ancestor would be essentially 100%. Basically, you are choosing a random number between 1 and 500 a million times and you're asking whether you ever choose number 500. In a million trials, we expect this to happen 2000 times. So that it happens at least once is guaranteed.

If we get rid of the random intermixing, the fractional overlap will drop to much less than 1/500th. But I suspect that the probability of at least one overlap will remain very high.
If the population in 1500 was 500 million, and it is 6 billion today (12x larger).
If the average generation length is 30 years, there are 17 generations in 500 years.
So the average number of surviving children per mother is exp((log 12)/17) = 1.157
Since a child has two parent, the average number of surviving children per person is 2 * 1.157 = 2.315
So this is the average growth rate per generation for the descendants of a person in 1500.
2.315^17 = 1.575 million. So an average person in 1500 has about 1.5 million offspring alive today. Sampling from the whole world, the probability that a random person from 1500 is an ancestor of a random person in 2000 would be 1.5 million / 6 billion = 0.025%.
If you were only considering people in a region like Europe, it would probably be something like 1.4 million / 700 million = 0.2%.

As I have said above, this is from a computer scientist. Next, is my own theory. From a probabilistic standpoint, due to the Law of Large Numbers, me, you or *almost anyone alive today had an ancestor in like say China or almost anywhere in Asia in 1500 CE. I chose the year 1500 because of each person had in theory about a million ancestors- lower than that because of inbreeding but still a sizable number nonetheless. I have shared this theory with several of my colleagues and they are intrigued by it yet I have not yet shared it with an actual statistician. I know it seems unlikely, but from a strictly statistical standpoint, what do you think of it?

*please note, this excludes populations that have not have had contact.
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:24 am
@bejee44,
I have read through this only once.
I am not good at maths. But it is something I would accept for a certain amount of time as truth before absolutely questioning it all. Albeit in a kind of fudged and broad way.

I will however state that the average generation length of 3o years appears too low to me. Particularly if 1500 is where you start from.
I base this on the belief that you pulled that figure out as a random gesture of attempt. I think perhaps the weight of 'bad V good' information has swayed your choice of test figure. I mean I think perhaps 30 seems accurate, because we hear of death and disease more than people living to fairly old ages, it is common practice to focus on the upsetting.

Either I am wrong, or real statistics are not in your grasp as yet.
I would be interested to know, is it really so? I know that death and disease was very bad, but really? 30?, as an average?, including 1800 to 2k?.
Medical science certainly has come a long way if that is so, given people can face multiple environmental variables these days and live til 70.

That you postulate we have an ancestral relation in China is of high interest to me. In fact I would be somewhat happy.. Perhaps surprisingly.

Thank you for this post, I will be keeping tabs on it..
To see if anyone has anything to add.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:53 am
I don't think you're considering the fact that in each generation your ancestors are marrying someone who is not related to them (assuming exogamous pmarriage rules), who has a million different ancestors five hundred years ago too), and that that million new ancestors introduced into the lineage from EACH marriage in each generation are now part of your ancestor pool too. So pretty soon you are in fact related to six billion people.

(Ignoring the fact that there was a severe population crunch about 160,000 years ago, near the time when homo sap.sap started, which is why humans have so little genetic variability, comparatively speaking, and some have calculated that there may nave been as few as 300 breeding pairs in the entire human stream that became us, which makes it a virtual certainty that you're related to everybody else in the world today.

(Nothing to Do: generation length is based on how long females are producing offspring, not how long people live. After 30 years those kids are having kids, and there's a new generation (actually we're having kids comparatively late, historically speaking. Other calculations consider a generation as being as little as 20 years).
nothingtodo
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:56 am
@MontereyJack,
I think your facts are shot to bits in entirety there bud.
Or at least in majority.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 12:59 am
@nothingtodo,
Nothingtodo. No. Your idea of a generation is not what demographers consider a generation and make calculations based on.
nothingtodo
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 01:04 am
@MontereyJack,
OK, you may be right about that, but is your statement about the age of man accurate at this time?.

I had believed that figure was off. But it is more your area than mine quite clearly, please excuse my ignorance.

In case you are wondering I am doing a kind of test on myself, to see what happens if I do zero research.

Can an empty soul survive as me? Politely and reasonably?.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 01:11 am
@nothingtodo,
It's the age of reproduction that what counts, and as far as we can tell that hasn't varied much, roughly between 15 and 35 over human history. (women can have kids later than that, but it tails off), so somewhere between 20 and 30 as an average length.
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 01:12 am
@MontereyJack,
Ahh, thank you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is my theory of probability and ancestors valid?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 05:42:40