Timeline for After how many generations descendant is not more related to ancestor, than to a random individual in an ancestral population?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 27, 2015 at 15:48 | history | suggested | Leon Avery |
Tagged as a population genetics questions, removed some essentially irrelevant tags.
|
|
| Jan 27, 2015 at 15:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 27, 2015 at 15:48 | |||||
| Jan 27, 2015 at 15:18 | answer | added | Leon Avery | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 13:28 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackBiology/status/559704544255688704 | ||
| Jan 26, 2015 at 8:13 | comment | added | user3274476 | Thank you. Answer will likely depend on effective population size. logically mutations will decrease value of n and selection will increase or decrease depending how it favors certain DNA. I just did not thought about this and wanted to know if this is even possible, that descendant is no more related to ancestor than to random individual from an ancestral population. | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 7:33 | comment | added | Remi.b | Welcome to Biology.SE. Your question sounds like a Coalescent theory question. Do you assume that no mutations and no selection in your model? The answer will very likely depend on the population size. | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 7:31 | history | edited | WYSIWYG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2015 at 7:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 26, 2015 at 7:32 | |||||
| Jan 26, 2015 at 7:16 | history | asked | user3274476 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |