|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1806 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the Egyptians come from ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
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.
If you want some information on the genealogies and where they settled, this is one article. It says that Cush, a son of Ham, possibly settled the upper Nile region, south of Egypt.Mizraim, Upper and Lower Egypt (Mizraim means "Two Egypts). Put probably settled Libya. Nimrod seems to have founded Babylonia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
But with a small population there wouldn't be much of a food supply problem and as for disease-if you live past infancy, you have a good chance of living past 70. 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. Also, with smaller populations there is a smaller chance of disease-not much pollution (if any!), clean water (no farming fertilizer). 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...
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Didn't they stockpile a lot of food on the ark? Anyway, let me quote the bible: -
"21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." --KJV, Genesis Ch 6. And after the flood-"1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." --JKB, Genesis Ch 9. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
So you expect the bible to have pi to whatever number of digits? Anyway, we ourselves use just 1 letter- pi! Whatever happened to rounding off anyway-scientists use rounding off a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
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.
BTW, notice that countries with the worst sanitation have the biggest population growth-Eg, India and Africa. Some countries have net growth rates over 3% per year-and 8 people can produce over 6 billion people in 4300 years on a 0.477% per year net growth rate. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Would you be talking about genetic diversity bottleneck or geological evidence for the bottleneck? Changes by microevolution occur rapidly in small populations, as you yourself should know. In large populations, diversification is a lot slower.
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 (the dates are arbitrary.)? Incidentally, the other article I mentioned in "reordering of fossils" topic could use the Cambrian explosion as an example. The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood. Thus, after they get off the ark, there is then fossil evidence for them. Mitochondrial studies of women from around the world suggested that the last common ancestor of modern man (actually women) appeared within the last 200,000 years, which is much more recent than previously thought. From the perspective of male genetics, scientists have examined a gene (ZFY), which being on the Y chromosome, is passed down only from father to son. 38 men were chosen from around the world. Scientists determined the actual genetic sequence in each man for this gene, which is 729 base pairs long. To their surprise, all men had identical genetic sequences (over 27,000 base pairs analyzed). Scientists have calculated the most probable date for the last common ancestor of modern man, given the sequence diversity from modern apes. Using two different models this date is either 270,000 or 27,000 years ago (note that these dates are the suggested maximum figures). [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: quote: --Ross, 1993, p. 141 The information I posted to you before with those large dates were from evolutionist sources-so of course they would use those dates. I could have used creationist interpretations which would put them at a much younger date, but I didn't, because most likely you would put them off as balderdash. And also, you didn't read what I wrote. It is the suggested MAXIMUM date. Since all of those thousands of bases are the same, it could mean a date of 5000 yrs ago there was a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: I'm not an anthropologist so don't ask me. You might prefer to read the article: -herePossibly this quote has the solution to your question on amphibians quote: quote: No those years are the statistical MAXIMUM, as those thousands of bases were identical. Since those dates are the maximum, it could easily be 5000 yrs. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: No, its just that that's the only version I could find on the internet to look at.
quote: Everything can't be rounded off can it? It's not a number, it's fuzzy logic. Otherwise wouldn't they say almost everything instead of everything?
quote: If you gave pi as a number, what would you say? 3.14 or 22/7 or another approximation? It is an irrational number, you can't rationalize it. If they said 3.14 in there, would you still be arguing the same thing? But then, I don't think they had invented the decimal point back then. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-08-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025