Where did the Egyptians come from ?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

quote:

---

Disappearance?

---

quote:

---

Another interesting feature of the hominid fossil record is the apparent disappearance of Homo sapiens between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago. From an evolutionary perspective it has been proposed that Homo sapiens populations plummeted to near extinction and then for some unknown reason bounced back in full force about 40,000 years ago.64 This population bottleneck is viewed by evolutionary biologists as being responsible for the high degree of genetic uniformity among modern humans.

---

--Ross, 1993, p. 141The 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.

quote:

---

I'll look at the other thread, but neither scenario makes any sense. In the first place, why do you claim the dates are "arbitrary"? In the second, it seems pretty convenient that all traces of "larger animals" were erased in the Cambrian Flood. If that's the case, and only those animals on the ark left to make fossils after debarking, what's the deal on amphibians in the Ordovician but not Cambrian (i.e., contiguous with the weird beasties that must have been on the ark as well in those layers), the first reptiles in the Pennsylvanian but not the Cambrian, the first mammals in the Triassic but not any of the lower levels. (Creationists really should use the Permian-Triassic extinction instead of the Cambrian radiation). Finally, the whole shebang begs the question of all those pre-Cambrian fossils (especially the Vendian fossilary, and those 3.5 gya stromatoliths).

---

I'm not an anthropologist so don't ask me. You might prefer to read the article: -here
Possibly this quote has the solution to your question on amphibians

quote:

---

Coal - made up of carbonised plant and wood material - provides further evidence that the Flood was coming to an end in the Upper Palaeozoic. Coal first appears in the fossil record in the Upper Devonian, but is most abundant in the Upper Carboniferous on the northern continents, and in the Permian on the southern continents. Scheven J. (1996) has convincingly argued that the Upper Palaeozoic coals were formed from aquatic vegetation that grew in pre- Flood "floating forests". These forests were thick mats of vegetation, covering thousands of square miles, that floated on the margins of the shallow pre-Flood oceans. At the start of the Flood, these mats were dislodged and drifted, probably breaking up into separate parts. As the waters drained off the continents at the end of the Flood, the floating mats were grounded, and came to rest on top of one another. At the same time, sand and mud continued to be deposited with the result that the grounded vegetation mats became interbedded with other sediments, giving rise to successions of coal seams. The grounding of vegetation mats probably continued for some years into the immediate post-Flood period. Significantly, the first appearance of the tetrapod (four-footed) vertebrates in the fossil record coincides with the grounding of these mats. These were essentially aquatic amphibians and reptiles that survived on the floating mats during the Flood and subsequently became the first backboned animals to repopulate the land as the waters receded. As animals associated with an aquatic ecosystem these creatures were not taken on board the Ark and were not wiped out during the Flood with the terrestrial air-breathers. Indeed, some fossilised specimens of these creatures (e.g. Hylonomus and Paleothyris) are found preserved inside the hollow trunks of the lycopod trees that are associated with the Carboniferous coal.

---

quote:

---

Okay, so we're somewhere around three quarters of a million years as the date of your flood? How does this square with the 4000 years the YECs keep babbling about?

---

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]

quote:

---

Incidentally, I'm not sure why biblical literalists seem to prefer the King James version. Is it easier to determine the correct meaning of a version written in a language 400 years old?

---

No, its just that that's the only version I could find on the internet to look at.

quote:

---

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." Genesis 6 KJV

---

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:

---

Or should we read the literal meaning of the verse that the circumference was 30 cubits and the diameter 10 cubits and therefore pi has to be wrong because the bible says so!

---

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]