Is Our Ancestral Math Overestimating Family Trees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dremmer
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the mathematical implications of family trees and the concept of incest in genealogical contexts. It highlights that while theoretically, one could have 281 trillion ancestors by the time of Charlemagne, this is statistically impossible due to the reality of shared ancestry and incest. Participants debate the biological implications of incest, suggesting that the risks diminish significantly beyond second cousins, and humorously propose the idea of sex robots as a solution to genetic issues, which is met with skepticism and confusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of genealogical concepts and ancestry calculations
  • Basic knowledge of genetics and the implications of incest
  • Familiarity with historical figures such as Charlemagne
  • Awareness of cultural references in media related to incest and reproduction
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the genetic implications of cousin marriages and incest
  • Explore genealogical software for calculating family trees
  • Investigate historical population genetics and its effects on ancestry
  • Examine ethical discussions surrounding artificial reproductive technologies
USEFUL FOR

Genealogists, geneticists, sociologists, and anyone interested in the implications of ancestry and reproduction in human populations.

Dremmer
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
If we double the number of ancestors in each generation, 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on, we can see that by the time we are back 10 generations, we have the potential for 1024 ancestors. But is this true? If we were to go back to the time of Charlemagne, we would find we had the potential for 281 trillion (YES!) ancestors all living at that one moment in history. This is statistically impossible! So where did our ancestors go?

Incest. We still commit incest to this day and don't realize it.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Incest is sex with close relatives. I hardly thing sharing an ancestor 10 generations ago is close relative, by that logic all sex is incest and we have to now come up with a new term to describe sex with close relatives. pointless
 
ryan_m_b said:
Incest is sex with close relatives. I hardly thing sharing an ancestor 10 generations ago is close relative, by that logic all sex is incest and we have to now come up with a new term to describe sex with close relatives. pointless

It's interesting that the Genesis account appears to require incest between siblings for the propagation of the human race. I pointed this out to my parents at a young age (11) and they looked at me like I was Rosemary's Baby (look it up if you're too young to remember this movie.)
 
Last edited:
Incest only has grave biological implications (you know deformed babies and the such) till at the most a second cousin. By the time you reach a third or fourth cousin the shared percentage of genes becomes very less and mostly won't result in retarded offspring.
 
This is why the world needs sex robots.
 
Perfection said:
This is why the world needs sex robots.

Yes, because sex robots would be the perfect aid to reproduction and remove the whole problem of shared genes once and for all. In fact, once the current population dies off there wouldn't be much in the way of genes left at all... :rolleyes:
 
jarednjames said:
Yes, because sex robots would be the perfect aid to reproduction and remove the whole problem of shared genes once and for all. In fact, once the current population dies off there wouldn't be much in the way of genes left at all... :rolleyes:

uh...what?
 
mishrashubham said:
uh...what?

Introducing "sex robots" doesn't solve the supposed issue of incest. It could even make it worse.

Personally, I don't see there being a problem. As per previous posts, it's not that much of an issue unless they are close relatives. So said robots won't do anything.
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
Introducing "sex robots" doesn't solve the supposed issue of incest. It could even make it worse.

Personally, I don't see there being a problem. As per previous posts, it's not that much of an issue unless they are close relatives. So said robots won't do anything.

You took that post seriously? I thought that was just a random and stupid joke.
 
  • #11
mishrashubham said:
You took that post seriously? I thought that was just a random and stupid joke.

It wasn't serious, it was a reference to a film which has this exact issue in a comedic sense. However, as you were confused I explained it.
 
  • #12
Well okay
 
  • #13
jarednjames said:
it was a reference to a film which has this exact issue in a comedic sense.
No it wasn't.

The key is to make cyborg children.
 
  • #14
Perfection said:
No it wasn't.

The key is to make cyborg children.

The key to what? Since you seem pretty serious about this, tell me how would this help? And how do you hope to accomplish this? I am still assuming this isn't spam or a joke.
 
  • #15
Perfection said:
No it wasn't.

Ah, so you know what I was referencing and I don't.
 

Similar threads

Human evolution - From sperm to ape
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Understanding Genetic Similarity: Dawkin's Perspective on Family Lines
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Hypothetical number of ancestors in 399 BC
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Not Linear counting, 3D counting billions of billionths
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Courses What math would I need? (physics-math double major interested in THEP)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Time: What is it? How do We Know it?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
History Most Lucrative Criminal Act Of All Time
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
379
Can I Catch Up on Years of Math in Two Years for a High School Exam?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Share about Our Moms This Mother's Day Weekend
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K