OK - I took a look at the paper. What I understand from my non-science background is that he said, “I’ll try it out and see if it works. And it works pretty deep in the the tree.” Your diagram shows five generation, so it doesn’t work well on a small scale, I see that.
Here’s a quote from the paper. (My bold for emphasis if I’m understanding the different between shallow branches and deep branches.)
"This formula predicts the frequency with which deep-rooting Y chromosome lineages will be discovered in the future, and it derives from the multiplicative relationships among the known historical population sizes. As figs. 3–5 show, the multiplicative relationships among this historical population sizes match the multiplicative relationships among deep and shallow Y chromosome lineages. Thus, historical population sizes can be used to predict the discovery of deep Y chromosome lineages.
And this:
“As another arena of testable predictions, my results predict that the entire tree should reflect the known history of civilization post-1000 B.C.—not just the global history as a whole but also the history for specific subregions. Prior to 1000 B.C., human history is model-dependent, and, therefore, cannot be used as an independent test of my results. However, post- 1000 B.C., YEC and evolution largely agree on the specifics of human history. My results indicate that the Y chromosome tree should be consistent with this.”
Basically, it’s…“you may not like this, but if it keeps coming up with results, then it’s harder to argue it’s wrong.”
Let me know if I’m understanding that wrong.
(I also saw he got male population by dividing the population from sources consulted by 2.)