I'd say his argument is more akin to "You will always get at least one 5", which, though no less false, describes a more likely occurence.
(1-(5/6)^6) ~ 66.5%; (6/6)(5/6)(4/6)(3/6)(2/6)(1/6) ~ 1.54%
Okay, that name sounds really familiar to me. I'm going to check with my cousins and check if this was the name (I wasn't all that sure about "Joseph" anyways). Keep your fingers crossedStephen Hopkins got in hot water for selling alcohol to the Indians.
Except that other studies have trashed this completely.You've completely missed the point. This is not a matter of degree, but of kind.
The fact of broken pedigrees means that no genetic material has been "inherited" from a specific someone who lived 500 years ago. As genetic researchers and counselors have learned, after a certain point family trees are basically lies.
Roughly ten percent of every generation have a biological father who is different from the father the mother named, different from the father who appears on a birth certificate, different from the father who appears in the parish records, and so on. When enough generations have passed, the chance that any line of descent remains intact enough to be traced in a genetic is nil.