Have you ever done the math?

Some of the people in your mathematics may have (should probably read were) related to each other.

Can you work out what is the minimum amount of people required to produce you without having inbred genetic defects?

I guess if you disregard genetic defects the number is two people (one of each biological sex, sheesh!)

a reply to: stellawayten

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: stellawayten


Therefore, it would have taken approximately 1.20892582 × 10^24 individuals to create you in the year 1 AD.

Unless your last name is Usher, then it may have only taken 2.

For those who may not get that reference, watch or read The Fall of the House of Usher.

You have to take inbreeding into account.

Freddy Krueger had a thousand Dads.....

a reply to: stellawayten

Have you ever done the math on how many people there would have had to be to create you? The numbers just don't add up. Think back to the year 1 AD. How many people on earth would there have to be to create you?

The reason the population doesn't add up is inbreeding. TONS AND TONS OF INBREEDING. Epic amounts of inbreeding over the course of human history.

The video I learned that from.

a reply to: stellawayten

You might enjoy this:

wait but why article

a reply to: stellawayten

I see perfectly...but itll be interesting to see how your thoughts pan out! Thnx

PS You did the figures and it just...hurts my head! Standing by...................

Hahaha! This can of worms is a hydra. Lovecraft's ghost fainted again.

Lol... math.

a reply to: stellawayten


The estimated number that most think is accurate is a world population between 200 and 300 million people.

This takes into consideration that most couples had more then two children. Much more (the more sons the better). A lot of households were combined households, soon as one of the parents died, the other would seek a new one. Some people lived to old age (depending a lot on social status), others died young. There was also a lot of child death (another reason why most had a lot more children then two).
And, infidelity, bastard children, inbred,... people marrying their siblings and cousins.

Towns and villages were smaller and located further apart, so most married local and that kept the gene-pool local as well... population growth was much slower then these days.

And then there are the deaths, with lack of medical care, the chance for a mother and baby dying in childbirth is thought to be 3%. There are natural and environmental factors to keep in mind as well.

and you think it's as easy as that to do the math? We are biological creatures, not robots... math is kinda useless here....

a reply to: KindraLabelle2

I just don't believe the numbers that (((they))) give us. Ofc I usually don't believe the official story. I question everything.

I think a better way to explain the error:- according to DNA/Hereditary the archaeologists say we are all related to a single female who they claim is Lucy a hybrid from Africa. But, think on this one, now Lucy is supposed to be the first one discovered with the "human" spark. She was supposed to be part "human" part ape. That's OK but who did Lucy have offspring with as there were only other apes. Give the benefit of doubt and say there was a part "human" part ape male, their off spring would have to breed within their circle to keep the "human" gene dominant. Anyone else would dilute the gene pool. And it gets more complicated through the next breeding cycles. Go figure.