Where did the Egyptians come from ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Comparing it to the current age, 367 years ago it was 1635. Is the difference between 1635 and 2002 less than that between Creation and Egypt's golden age?

​

--Percy

---

As it reads to me, the problem isn't with the level of cultural advancement per se, but with the truly massive labor force required to make that civilization possible. I tried a time or two to find good estimate's of Egypt's population at the time, but I haven't found anything and don't have time to look right now. But think about not only the numbers needed to create the monuments but also the labor force needed to feed those workers, and pay them as they seem not to have been slaves after all. This work force also had to provide enough surplus that the purchase of materials was possible, as some of it came from outside Egypt.Egypt also had trades. This is important because you need a work force to feed those as well. They aren't growing their own food, at least not all of it. This type of structure doesn't pop up in three hundred years, four hundred years, or even a thousand.The analogy between the 1600 and now doesn't fit as that change rides upon an existing work force and massive social structure. Sure there is a lot of change but the variables are radically different.John------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hebrew is not a difficult language actually, 'cept for that reading it backwards part. The grammar is simple, in my humble opinion and all, so its just a matter of vocabulary. And I don't know of any online comprehensive resources, but I have a book-- yech! I know they can be useful but I can never get the hyperlinks to work.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

How many generations would it take to gain sufficient population
to support the Egyptian empire(s) which we know, from other
sources, existed ? Anyone ?

---

http://library.thinkquest.org/11771/english/hi/math/calcs/growdeca.htmlI get starting with 4 couples at a rate of 1.7 (this is the current rate of population growth.) percent annually (appr):1) 43 in 100 years
2) 233 in 200
3) 1257 in 300
4) 6783 in 400
5) 36607 in 500The estimated population of Eqypt during the Old Kingdom (2660-2180 BC) is 1-2 million -> http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/peopleWe also need enough people to account for all of the other nations mentioned in the Old Testament. I just don't see it happening....------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
6 kids each and generations of 25 years gives about 19 million people. I'm (the wife actually) about to have my fourth child in 5 years and we use contraceptives (4 will do us I think)! Back in those days people didn't travel the world and sit in uni cafes drinking machiatos. They had families.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]

---

They also had enormous infant mortality rates(including early childhood death due to disease), and very short lifespans-- important because you don't have six kids if you die at 25.The math on that you ask? Lets say you get pregnant at 14. That leaves 11 years of reproduction. Formula didn't exist at the time so women breast fed. This greatly reduces the chances of the mother getting pregnant before that child is weaned. So you lose 3 to 4 years per child. 11/3 is 4 kids.The numbers are further reduced by the fact that birth is dangerous and women die. Dead == no more babies.Food supply is also a factor. Nutrition slows development. Late onset of puberty reduces your childbearing years. Food supply also effects the numbers of children who reach puberty at all. Not to mention that it provides an upper limit on the rate of multiplication. You can feed only a limited number of people. And farming technique expands at a limited rate as well.Which is why you never see population explosions on the scale you describe.In short, back in those days life was very different. What you can manage now with the help of modern technology-- medicine, farming-- does not apply six thousand years ago.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Assuming 25 year generations doesn't mean they all died at 25!!

---

Right. I didn't mean to equate the generations and the lifespan, but merely to point out that death at a young age is a very real factor.

quote:

---

But it is quite likely they had had 6 kids by 25 - these were not bohemian uni students!

---

Quite likely? Based on what? I gave you my reasons for thinking it isn't likely. Now its your turn.For the record, it isn't likely because of :1) Biological constraints such as the length of a woman's reproductive lifespan and the demands of childrearing UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES that would have existed 6000-8000 years ago.
2) Biological constraints such as death prior to reaching reproductive age. This is a major factor, and it has to be taken into account. Every pregnancy removes nine months to a year from a reproductive lifespan even if the child dies at birth. If it dies three years later of dysentry, you've lost even more time.
3) Food supply. Food supply effects the age of sexual maturity, the survival of the mother and child during and after pregnancy, the maximum number of people that can live on the land. Supply must keep up with demand or the population dies of starvation.

quote:

---

I don't know enough about reproduction but there is a breast feeding pill to stop pregnancies during this period so there must be a chance of it happening.

---

What applies to a modern well fed mommie does not apply to a woman living 6000 years ago. Nutrition is a major factor. Feeding a child is a huge strain on a breast-feeding woman, even today with vitamins and supplements etc.

quote:

---

And many families may have been bigger than 6. I'm sure someone here could find out the sort of families that we used to get in the 3rd world pre-pill. My sister's father in law came from a British family of 13 kids in the 20th century!

---

But you don't see families of this size in cultures which can be reasonably compared to the cultures we are discussing.Try to remember that the twentieth century(!) wasn't very long ago. And that by this time you've already had civilizations around for thousands of years, and with them a great deal of foundation to build upon.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I am thinking of nomadic cultures. We need to stop speculating and get some hard data.

---

I agree. I have been trying to do just that, and have had very little luck. I thought this type of info would be easier to find on the web. Ahhh.... well.....------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I've read research results (and I will try to dig them
out) that suggest that maximum human lifespans, in tha
absence of external factros would still not exceed (I think)
about 140 years.

---

I read an article (probably Scientific American or Discover) suggesting that if all disease where eliminated and aging stopped cold, we'd have very little chance of living past 600 without suffering a fatal injury.

quote:

---

Doesn't prove anything but its interesting.

---

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I am thinking of nomadic cultures. We need to stop speculating and get some hard data.

---

ok... some data http://www.ivillage.co.uk/pregnancyandbaby/fertility/conception/qas/0,9583,4_161470,00.html -> Here is a connection between food supply and conception. The article is about body fat, which is an indicator of food supply. My argument is that after the assumed Flood, food supply would be at an all time low as everything was destroyed; and that population growth at the rate suggested to go from 8 to 19 million (post #21) would put further severe strains on that food supply. http://www.webdesk.com/preteen-girls-puberty-weight-link/ -> a connection between environmental stress and puberty. I argue that the Post Flood environment would be quite stressful. http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Papers/bartz2.html -> another link along the same lines as the previous. http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/fertility.html -> and another... http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/ -> this covers ancient Egyptian population, nutrition, life span, epidemics, etc. It should set the tone for the conditions one would during the debated population explosion. http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/ancient.htm -> Important to my argument, so...

quote:

---

"Statistics do not exist for antiquity, so the comparison must be to 18th century European data; nonetheless, some information of interest emerges. At the moment, crude birth rates in industrialized nations are in the range of 15 to 25 births per 1000 total population; death rates on the order of 10 per 1000. Two centuries ago, both numbers would have been doubled. Infant mortality rates (deaths under one year) are about 10 to 20 per 1000 in the Western world even a century ago the figure was 150 to 200 per 1000. Life expectancy in modern societies is about 70 years; before 1875, near 40. (Morris and Irwin 1970: 873-881)

---

That works out to .025 percent crude birth rate, yes? Two centuries ago it would have been .05 percent. Far from the needed rates. Someone check my math. I never trust it. The mortality rates are important as well.TB: When you calculated your 19 million what mortality rates did you use?Of course, these are stable populations. I realize that has to be considered. http://homodiet.netfirms.com/otherssay/vegetarianism.htm -> diet and disease. Important because the few animals on the ark couldn't have supplied meat enough to be significant to a population expanding at the rate of 6 per woman per generation. Hence we have to assume a high vegetable diet. http://www.muc.edu/~oelfketl/papers/india_vs_kerala.htm -> TB: You'll like this one because it shows a 1970 growth rate in China of 5.8 per woman. I don't think it can be applied to the post-flood environment, but here it is. Such growth is possible.I haven't found anything that nails to specific questions but I think this data is at least applicable.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Since you mention food supply, this doesn't have to do with human populations, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

​

A while back someone pointed out that after the flood the predator/prey ratios would be way out of whack. The usual situation is that prey far outnumber predators. But after the flood, for unclean species there would be just one pair of each predator species and one pair of each prey species. The predators have to eat, and each they did they'd wipe out a prey species.

​

--Percy

---

This is an interesting point.But wouldn't the prey species in the case of the flood end up being anything the predators could catch? The stereotypical case is that of wolves preying on domestic livestock when the poulations of their wild prey shrink. This being the case, it does effect human populations. The predators would rapidly eat everything-- cattle, sheep, whatever... then starve to death. I doubt the handful of humans could prevent it.This latter bit is complicated by the fact that Moses et al. couldn't have killed the predators, or wouldn't have them with us today. The problem is keeping everything alive.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Lets say that maybe each generation produced 10 offspring over a 30 yr span. Then That would be a reproduction rate of 5* per generation. There would be ~12 reproductive generations. That could make a population of 244 million.

---

But human populations just do not expand at that rate. There are other factors involved-- primarily food supply and disease-- that limit the growth.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
But with a small population there wouldn't be much of a food supply problem

---

After a global flood you are going to have an enormous food supply problem. Everything is DEAD.Not only do you have to feed the people but the thousands of critters on the ark as well. No ecosystem existed to make this possible.

quote:

---

and as for disease-if you live past infancy, you have a good chance of living past 70.

---

Today, perhaps, in industrialized nations but not 4000 years ago without technology, medicine, sanitation.

quote:

---

I don't think they named still-born children, and anyway, lets say that they produced only 6 offspring. That would result in a population around 1.6 million.

---

Assuming no one died. How did you make this calculation anyway? Did you remember to kill off the old every 60 or so years?If you start with two people at age 18 lets say. Every two years (very generous actually) for twenty years (also very generous) they have a child. At this point you've got 10 children, and our two no longer breeding originals. Of those ten kids only two pairs (just barely) will be breeding. Ten years later all of this first batch will be breeding. So in thirty years we go from one breeding couple to five. This is 2.5 breeding couples per generation.In another thirty years you get 12.5, lets say 13 couples to keep it even. We are 60 years post flood. Total population in the area of 30 or so.plus 30 years....33 couples. 90- years post flood.plus 30 years....83 couples. 120 years post flood.plus 30 years....208 couples. 150 years post flood.plus 30 years...520 couples. 180 years post flood.plus thirty years....1300 couples. 210 yeqrs post flood.plus thirty years....3250 couples. 240 years post flood.plus thirty years....8125 couples. 270 years post flood.plus thirty years....20313 couples. 300 years post flood.plus thirty years....50781 couples. 330 years post flood.plus thirty years....126953 couples. 360 years post flood.plus thirty years...317382 couples. 390 years post floodplus thirty years....793457 couples. 420 years post flood.Now we are in the range where Egypt should be populated by millions of people. But there are countless other cultures mentioned that also have to be popuated-- the Sumerians, Babylonians, the Israelites themselves. And all out of this nearly 800,000.Note also that my calculations assume zero infant deaths, zero child mortality, zero deaths during childbirth(of the mother), zero accidental deaths, zero sterility...See the problem?

quote:

---

Also, with smaller populations there is a smaller chance of disease-not much pollution (if any!), clean water (no farming fertilizer).

---

But the ecosystem was a mess. Think about it. Everything is dead and decayed/decaying.

quote:

---

I'm sure they produced many more children then 6 anyway, and as for the genealogies, I suppose that maybe they only talked about those who reproduced and had children. I mean, my mother's parents had 13 children! And all of them are still alive...

---

Yes, but not 4000 years ago when there was nothing to eat.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Didn't they stockpile a lot of food on the ark?

---

Where on the ark do you store food sifficient for one year afloat for humans and animals as well as enough food for an additional six months to a year (very generous) while the ecosystem stabilizes ebough to allow farming?Of course, you missed the blatantly obvious criticism of my argument. I started with one couple not eight. Of course, add into the equation everything that I left out and the numbers come out about the same. 2.5 is a pretty high population growth rate in the real world.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Actually, you forgot one problem. The age until the offspring start reproducing. You have assumed that the offspring do not reproduce until the parents have gotten older by 30 yrs. If you use a generation time of say 20 yrs instead, it allows a population of - from a starting population of 1 couple- 227 million.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

---

No. That is not what I assumed. I assumed that the generations cycle around thirty years, which is reasonable if on the short side. I calculated an average and extrapolated. For a quick illustration, I think I did pretty well.A quick review of what I left out:1) nutrition-- after the flood, very very badPoor nutrition will increase the infant mortality rate, decrease survival to adulthood of those infants that do survive, delay the onset of puberty and thus reproduction, increase the chance of miscarriage, increase the chances the mother will die in childbirth or shortly thereafter due to general physiological weakness associated with malnutrition(reducing her reproductive potential), increase the time lag between pregnancies2) freshwater--- also very bad after the floodMuch the same as poor nutrition3) accidental death and disease not associated with nutritionWell, pretty self explainatoryTake a look at around prb.org------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
To wit: if the current world population is derived from four breeding pairs

---

oops... it is four pairs isn't it? I said eight in a previous post.

quote:

---

I mean, given the relatively short time span (4000 years or so), there should be evidence of a gigantic bottleneck in at least those species represented as "kinds" on the ark, no?

---

... which in fact should be every extant species, no?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Disappearance?

---

I knew I wasn't supposed to be here!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com