@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 21 hours agomoms rulemander.xyzimagemessage-square62fedilinkarrow-up1728arrow-down110cross-posted to: showerthoughts
arrow-up1718arrow-down1imagemoms rulemander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 21 hours agomessage-square62fedilinkcross-posted to: showerthoughts
minus-squareIllecorslinkfedilinkEnglish1•6 hours agoThis assumes a single child per set of parents, doesn’t it?
minus-square@SkunkWorkzlinkEnglish4•edit-26 hours agoNo I’m talking about the amount of ancestors in the 80th generation back not the total amount of ancestors. It doesn’t matter how many children each set of parents had for that number.
This assumes a single child per set of parents, doesn’t it?
No I’m talking about the amount of ancestors in the 80th generation back not the total amount of ancestors. It doesn’t matter how many children each set of parents had for that number.