Where did the Egyptians come from ?

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

Hmm ... to summarise (for my benefit mainly)I started by suggesting that 367 years was insufficient for
the foundation of a culture in Egypt that included the
concept of Kingship in the form of Pharoah.First line of objection was the time-span. Genealogies being
particularly toublesome in the different versions of the Bible.According to data posted, the longest amount of time available
for this cultural revolution was 1200 years.Debate on population growth ensues.End of summary.A particular limiting factor to the population growth calculations
is that Shem, Ham, An Japheth didn't stay in the vicinity of
Noah, nor of each other. They each left to found their own
lines.This would mean that any individual population had only 1 breeding
couple.Food resources would be extremely limited. There were six (possibly
six pairs) of all clean animals on the Ark, which presumably includes
cattle ... so one breeding pair of cattle (etc.) per line, plus grain
to feed them, and for the couples to survive on until their own
food began to grow.And that doesn't leave much for Noah. So perhaps we must assume that
agriculture, and the herds were replenished BEFORE the sons left to
found their own lines.Still the herds had to be split, and food WOULD severly limit
population growth.But even assuming we can get the population figures up high
enough (and you have not convinced me of this) From which line did the Egyptians stem ?

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

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

I guess a predator would try to eat anything it could
get its teeth into, but even then, with only a single pair
of the unclean animals, every kill would wipe out an entire
species (or could at least).Perhaps they could all eat grass in those days except that after
a year of flood I don't think there'd be any grass.IF the flood story is accurate, I think it would REQUIRE the
theory of evolution to make it possible.After a month or two there would be very few species left, and some
lines would be wiped out entirely ... so for current diversity
we would need some form of rapid-evolution

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.

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

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]

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

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]

Well that's one way to settle an argument. Ignore evidence. Ignore logic. Ignore analysis of comparable examples. Just refer to some biblical quotes!If it can't be relied on to provide an accurate value of pi, why should it be trusted as reliable on any issue?

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

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]