Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!beamish.news.atl.earthlink.net!guinness.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail
From: "Richard A. Pence" <richardpe...@pipeline.com>
Newsgroups: alt.genealogy
Subject: Re: Oldest Genealogy?
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:10:51 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <b4osrv$sat$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
References: <Y5zba.34756$5l.10441798@twister.midsouth.rr.com> <user-1203030843000001@1.0.0.3> <b4nunm$3tv$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net> <5akv6voflorqm3qt4r2t496tj6cvgm1pre@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 42.a7.91.17
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 13 Mar 2003 03:10:55 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

I guess I don't understand your point. "Pedigree collapse" is the
basis for the "mathematical certainty." Pedigree collapse does
not reduce the number of "slots," what is reduced is the number
of people available to fill them. Remember also, of the many
thousands in a 30 or 40 generation pedigree chart, only 1 person
has to be a descendant of Charlemagne the theory to be reality.
It's almost impossible for their to be none.


 Regards,
Richard

"default" <defa...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:5akv6voflorqm3qt4r2t496tj6cvgm1pre@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:36:00 -0500, "Richard A. Pence"
> <richardpe...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >Ghost gives below a reasoned - and, I think, a correct -
approach
> >to the "royalty" or "back to Adam" genealogical exercises.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The irony, however, is that if you look at the problem
strictly
> >in terms of mathematical probabilities, it can easily be
> >demonstrated that any person with any Northern European
ancestry
> >is almost certainly a descendant of Charlemagne - not only
that,
> >but is likely a descendant of his through several of his many
> >wives! This is true because when you go back 30 or 40
> >generations, the number of "slots" in a pedigree chart at the
> >earliest generation is far greater than the number of people
in
> >the population available to fill those slots!
>
> Well, yeah, but it's fallacious to assume from the comparison
of
> "slots" to number of living people that someone alive today is
"almost
> certainly" descended from Charlemagne - a few well-placed
instances of
> pedigree collapse can really cut down the number of those
"slots".
> Mathematical probability in this instance does not accurately
model
> reality, because of the many factors not included (and very
difficult
> to include, I would think!) in the calculation.
>
> Chuck
>
>