Even lost amazonian tribes?

>>18554084
An absurd modelization artefact.

>The two reasoned that a single fertile traveller from one population to another, every century or two, would be enough to ensure that the populations eventually share ancestors. Over thousands of years, even the most isolated communities — remote Polynesian islands, the indigenous peoples of the Andaman Islands — receive enough genetic input from outside to be connected to the global pedigree.
Just because it *could* be enough doesn't mean it happened just so.

>This means that every individual from the ancient world before approximately 3000 BCE — every Sumerian scribe, every Neolithic farmer, every Egyptian who lived before the Old Kingdom — is either an ancestor of every person now living, or an ancestor of no person now living. There is no third option. Most of them, whose lineages survived in any form, are ancestors of everyone.
>The Rohde paper noted this consequence in its closing summary, which the Yale press release quoted directly: “No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu.” The phrasing is not metaphorical. It is the literal mathematical implication of the model.
Now this is even more obviously bullshit. Even IF a particular someone, with a particular background (let's say some ancient Mesopotamian trader) ended up a common ancestor to all mankind, that doesn't mean two rural people on opposite sides of the globe share 100% of their great-great-(...)-grandparents. All it means is they share at least one (that dude and perhaps some of his descendants.) The hypothetical Mesopotamian had no ancestors from Tasmania or Terra del Fuego or the Aleutians.