Lucien Carroll wrote:
>
> I don't think its that difficult to see why only one Y-chromosome
> lineage would eventually be left. Consider the simplified case of
> 100,000 men and 100,000 women, and let each of them have two children.
> That next generation, only 75000 of the 100000 original Y-chromosome
> lineages will be represented. Each generation, you lose another quarter
> of the contemporary lineages, until after some N generations, 100000 *
> (3/4)^N =~1 . If you assume a higher birth rate, and let the rate vary
> stochastically across the population, you will still have lineages
> dropping out, just at a much slower rate. On a smaller scale, we have
> the case of last names on Pitcairn island, where the survivors of the
> Bounty settled. Out of several dozen men, only a handful of last names
> are now represented. Similarly in China, where family names have been
> relatively stable for a couple millenia, 200 family names account for
> 96% of the population.
This is another example of a severely population limited situation. If I
were not talking of a "species that expanded form for (say) 100,000 to
over 1,000,000,000 then my comments would make no sense whatsoever. The
whole point is that we have a situation wherein one particular gene
expanded to over 10,000 times (with no population limit) in size while
the others contracted to zippo. That is not at all the situation that
you discussed.
But thanks anyhow,
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 23:08:08 EDT