Math / Geneaology Question

So when Jesus was perambulating around Galilee you had

1,180,591,620,717,411,303,424 ancesters.

That result tends to conflict with observations, :wink:

aka-

Is that number 2 to the power of 70?

If I counted right it is.

The figure assumes no rumpy-pumpy between persons related to each other to any possible degree.

Glad you noticed.

Actually I think the number of possible ancesters exceeds the human population of the world sometime around 1400AD but I don't feel like doing the arithmetic tonight.

OOPs

Unrelated ancestors

It's only about 2 to the 28

Which is 2 to the 10 which everybody knows is 1024 times 1024 times 256 which is 268,435,456. I think.

If evolution is driven by mutations and mutations might be driven by incest then what?

Can animals recognise their immediate relatives when they mature?

For those fools who spend time and money tracing their family tree there's a lot to choose from in order to prove they have aristocratic blood and that's assuming no skullrummpy.

Of course they do but there are other methods in place to keep inbreeding to a point that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs.

The European Royal families are a case in point for humans.

The Wanderlust of adolescent male beavers, and the male struggles for dominance works for deer.

Whales use sex segregated pods. Humans use so many methods, the failure of any one would probably not be catastrophic.

That's very reassuring.

Hey aka-- you could get a job at the Prince Charles Intellectual Justification Unit if you are quick. Can you imagine doing what he's done and having a bunch of happily married men, or skilled musicians, doing all your publicity work.

Do you really think that it "works for deer". What- locking horns everytime a certain odour permeates the forest glade rather than leather upholstery, orderly swathes across the lawn, polished toecaps and three nights a week all year round during the "let's get it together phase" with Chopin on the DVD and the smokey sticks.... well... smoking I suppose.

Suit yourself.

The way I see it is that if they went on sex strike we would have them tied down in a police station and made to have it. And there's plenty of feminists promoting a sex strike. Playing hard to get might be a bit anti-Darwinian selection under some circumstances. If it got out of hand say.

Spendi,

As I understand your argument you think that if it were not for religion then humans would act like animals.

Whereas I maintain that any intelligent (imaginative) animal would invent religion as a society which could then impart some real (and imagined) benefits to its members. This would normally be to the detriment of those who are not members of the society. (only Christians go to heaven) (or Muslims)

Male dominance is one benefit (?) that is aided and abetted by religion. However deer have the same behavior albeit with different equipment. Nobody has accused deer of excessive religiosity or intelligence. And apparently inbreeding isn't much of a problem in open deer society

Prince Charles is a product of comparatively closely held bloodlines. Definitely incestuous in China anyhow. (closer than fifth cousins is taboo) However he was out crossed with Diana. This seems to have resulted in some fairly normal specimens of humans. This is probably the human equivlent of the three breed cross favored by beef farmers. :wink:.

My point being that when we form societies they take on an existence of thier own in which the interests of humanity is subordinated to the interests of those who think that they are controlling the society. They are wrong The society which they formed now has it's own interests They are dictated by evolutionary pressures just as much as an amoeba.

You don't need examples, regrettably We could do better but we don't