Sunday, 18 December 2016

Strange numbers


We all had two parents involved in the act of creation, yes?
They had two parents each, in order for procreation to happen.
Assume each generation procreated at age 33.33, to make the maths simple.
Stick with me, it's worth it.
2 parents, let's call them generation one.
4 grandparents, generation two.
8 great grandparents
1024 (generation 10)
1048576 (generation 20)
With me so far?
2097152 generation 21, at 33.33 years a generation, 700 years. It gets weird as the maths progresses!

What that means is that 700 years ago there were 1048576 women, that bred with 1048576 men, both at aged 33.33 years and, in this particular case, each partnership produced just one child, generation 20, of 1048576 people.

Is your head around that?

They each had a Mom and Dad, of course, at the point of procreation. Yes?
16772216 (800 years ago)
134217728 (900)
1,073,741,824 ….......
Now we've gone back a thousand years, and two by two simple maths tells you that you have to be a genetic mix of over a billion people. No escaping that.
Still think you are a 'pure breed', racially pure, that there was no mixing somewhere? In a thousand years, involving a billion people?

Now it gets strange.
Each of those 1,073, 741, 824 antecedents of yours had a Ma and Pa too.
They had to. Can't be done otherwise.
So their column of numbers would match your own, right?
They had four grandparents.
Eight great grandparents.
And so on.
Just like you or I did.
After another thousand years (total 2,000), back in the time of Christ, the numbers hit, wait for it:
One hundred and fifteen billion people.

Problem is, there haven't been that many people alive in the history of humanity.
They say there were 300 million alive back then.
But you NEED 115 billion.
Otherwise it doesn't work.
Some people explain this weirdness by saying people married their siblings and cousins.
No doubt a lot of that went on.

Look at it the other way around.
Imagine there was an Adam and Eve.
They had six kids, three of each sex, who interbred.
No choice.
Each couple had six kids, so now there's eighteen of them (kids).
Let's say they interbred. No choice, really.
Let's say they had six kids per couple.
Now there's 54 kids.

Your antecedents grow in number, in a V shape, two by two.
But those 54? Their antecedents decrease in a V shape back to two.

Is this a mathematical conundrum?
Or is history just a story?

I'm “British”.
They say that when the Romans invaded, 2,000 years ago, there were probably 4 million Brits.
But I need 115 billion.
The answer, then, is that for much of history families inbred.
We know what that means, genetically speaking.
There were 10.5 million Brits back in 1800.
Now there are 64 million (with an immigrant population of a few million).
So even in these more modern times, there must have been an awful lot of cousin marrying, the V getting smaller rather than larger.

Does it happen these days, in the West, this family inbreeding?
Generally not.
Interestingly, we get cleverer as a species.
Is this why?

There are only two.
The first is that we are an inbred species, seriously inbred, only now coming out of the effects of such behaviour, and it shows.

(Even so, the maths just doesn't seem to work).
The creation “came into being” a much shorter time ago, and 'history' is just a part of the programme.

You decide.
With Love,
Aktina Pempti
xxx xxx xxx

Comment, share, follow.

No comments:

Post a Comment