It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rumpelstiltskin
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
...by looking at "only you", and working back, you ignore the heavy degree of merging of family trees as you go back.
Incest, if that's what you mean by “merging”, was raised before in this thread, but I'm not sure why it should make a difference. Isn't the opposite true? That is, wouldn't merging or incest make a difference only to counting back from 6 billion and not from one?
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The population of the world at any one time is dependent upon the following factors:
-average life expectancy of males
-average life expectancy of females
-average number of children per woman
-percentage of population that are women
-average growth rate
-death rate expressed as number of deaths/given fixed number
All of these points seem (please note “seem”) like they fall into the same trap that everyone else who misunderstood the question did. In counting back from just one, are we not just counting the number of progenitors (not whole population) needed in the past for one person to be present today?
Why should any of the above factors impede the progress of counting the number of progenitors needed for one person to be alive today?
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Another faulty assumption that you are implicitly making (probably without realizing it)...
Why do you say “probably” without realizing it? Why would anyone want to make a 'conscious' faulty assumption about a subject like this?
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
...another faulty assumption that your logic makes(again, probably without you realizing it) is that this is one homogeneous group of people, all available to each other, for procreation. In reality, population groups are isolated from each other, and thus, the starting numbers for any group remain small for a much longer time interval. With many smaller subgroups(as opposed to one large group), plagues, inbreeding, wars, etc have a much greater influence on the rate of growth, than do those factors for one large group.
I think most of the above was granted before your post, and the question of how long did we have to interbreed was posed, although I guess the second question would be a lot harder to answer than the first, if possible at all.
War, natural disaster, life expectancy, birth rate, famine, plague, pestilence, etc, none of these things should impede counting progenitors needed for one, as far as I can tell. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but please allow that no one in this thread should have any reason to make a faulty assumption, consciously.
[edit on 17-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]
[edit on 17-1-2009 by Rumpelstiltskin]
I am the only one I am concerned with reconciling, or you or any one person in reference to the number of like descendent's it took to make 1.
Originally posted by slackerwire
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.
Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.
I'm not talking about ANY of that. I am speaking in ratio, using only 1 individual reproduction of two individuals. 2 parents to 1 child. It is all hypothetical. I'm not trying to break science, I am just doing simple math based on a 2 to 1 ratio. So do you have more golf balls or not? if you came in a pace, and I didn't move being fixed you now have 256. Still way more then my 1. Do you understand your logic? The only way what you are talking about would work is if you fictionalized the people going backwards to make less, but they were whole people not percentages or fractions.
So just going back 10 generations, there HAD to be 512 people to get to my 1
numAncestors(descendant, n)
if descendant.visited == true return 0
descendant.visited = true
if n == 1 return 1
return numAncestors(descendant->mother, n-1) + numAncestors(descendant->father, n-1)
Originally posted by slackerwire
The planet is already overpopulated, a reduction is needed.
Not a pleasant thought, but its called reality.