Once again, I meant to send this to the list the first time -- sorry, Chris, for the duplicate response. ____________________ Hi Chris, Yes, I think that's the general idea (that half of Europe would have the same surname if surnames had been in use 4,000 years ago).  Of course there would also have been 4,000 years of linguistic variation on "Fluxatroyd."   :^)  With regard to surnames, a general implication of random walk theory is this: That in a population of fixed size one can expect a consolidation to occur as less-well-represented surnames tend to die out over time.  When populations contract (as in times of plague and war), the consolidaton will tend to occur more quickly; when populations expand, there will likely be opportunities for less-well-represented surnames to move up the list.  When populations expand rapidly (as in colonization of new, relatively unpopulated territories) the field tends to be leveled -- whichever surnames arrive earliest and have the earliest success tend to be better represented in later generations. Of course, this is all based on a number of general assumptions (such as that there not be a constant, significant addition of newly minted surnames to the mix). This whole idea seems like fertile ground for science fiction -- perhaps a future world in which the last two remaining surname factions battle it out for global domination...  -Mark Bunch (6223)  ---------------------------------------- > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:43:15 +0100 > Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? > From: [email protected] > > I am trying to "get my head around" this. So - if this person 4,000 years > ago had the surname "Fluxatroyd" (and I know that surnames don't go that far > back) - would half the population of Europe now have that surname? > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Stephanie Ray via > Sent: 28 April 2016 15:04 > To: Barbara Bush; GOONStgll > Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? > > This is how lines get "daughtered out", and why apparently all living men > can trace their DNA back to one single ancestor "Y-Adam". > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Barbara Bush via <[email protected]> > wrote: >> You are not alone Liz. I was adopted by a wonderful man, who married >> my Mom in 1967. There are three of us girls and we are all adopted. >> He had one brother, who died last year with no children and a sister, >> who died at age 16. I would venture to say that line is "dead" as >> well. His Dad had a brother and two sisters. The brother had a son, >> who only has daughters, so the entire male line from my Grandfather >> (adopted) will not go on. As well, my Grandfather had only one >> brother and two sisters. His brother had a son, who only has daughters, > so that line will also be "dead" >> from the male side. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Liz Phillips via >> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:25 AM >> To: Derek Bandy <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? >> >> I thought my direct line was fairly healthy until I thought about it, >> half brother (different father), who has two daughters and one son, so >> only has three daughter's, girls obviously different surnames, but one >> had four daughters anyway and the other only one son. Male cousin who >> has no children, uncle with only one girl! So, this family line is now > dead! >> >> best wishes, from another girl of the only girl! >> Liz >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Derek Bandy via <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Don't forget over extended periods of time many DNA lines simply die >>> out, people with no children, no male children (y-dna). It doesn't >>> have to be natural disasters or massacres. There was a study on it >>> some time ago but I have lost the details. >>> >>> with kind regards >>> Derek Bandy >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> On Behalf Of JANETHESKI via >>> Sent: 27 April 2016 12:00 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [G] DNA conclusions? >>> >>> And the Black Death... >>> >>> And the plague of 1665... >>> >>> Janet [2281] >>> >>> >>> >>> In a message dated 27/04/2016 11:58:02 GMT Daylight Time, >>> [email protected] writes: >>> Well, the last ice age would have killed many but even so ... >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> On Behalf Of Christopher Gray via >>> Sent: 2016 April 27 08:19 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [G] DNA conclusions? >>> >>> A recent claim in the UK's Daily Telegraph - as pointed to by >>> today's "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" - was that half of >>> today's European men are descended from a single man who lived some >>> 4,000 years ago. >>> Leaving >>> aside what happened to all the boys descended from the many >>> thousands of other men alive at that time - let alone this man's >>> close relations (mass >>> genocide?) - how can people make such sweeping generalisations based >>> on the DNA of just 1,200 people? I could better understand if the >>> study was of a few million people. >>> >>> The same goes for this "Eve" person we are all meant to be descended >> from. >>> Was she the only female alive at the time? Did she wonder around >>> Africa killing off all the others? >>> >>> Chris >>> > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message