It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Mathematically you can not exist!

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:47 PM
Mathematically, you can not exist!

Hello ATS, I would like to have a serious conversation, (yes I’m allowed to have one occasionally). This subject has been debated by Carl Sagan, though I would like to get some perspectives and ideas, from all of you regarding this topic and I would like to get as much feedback as possible.

The simple matter is that you had two parents. You had four grandparents, eight great grand parents, sixteen great grandparents and so on. The problem being, if you go back much further, (lets say fifty generations), you have then had 9,007,199,254,740,992 relatives. Which is far more human beings than have ever lived or died on this planet. If you need proof simply grab a calculator, start with two (representing your parents) multiply by two again (for your grandparents) by two again for your (for your great grandparents). Continue down this line fifty times, and you will reach the same number.

If we go by modern day standards that a generation is roughly 30 years, (even though it use to be twenty) you take the aforementioned number of generations (50) and multiply it by the amount of years in a generation (30) you get only 1500 years.

Although according to even modern history they are proving that civilizations’ existed, with society based ,intelligent, tool using, Homo-sapiens at least100,00 years ago.

Carl Sagan disputed this years ago, using a principle where we are all interrelated and therefore the math works if this is the case.

My problem with the Sagan Theory, Is that sociology was completely ignored. If we were all interrelated enough to provide for the six plus billion people on this planet.:

1 There would be no such thing as individual races of human beings, (which there obviously still is)

2. There would be no such thing as individual languages, which there are thousands of , Our common ancestors would have taught us all the same thing.

3. There wouldn’t be the monumental split in human cultures that currently exists.

Until given a logical theory as to why this is the case, I will continue to say, “Mathematically , you, and I can not exist.”

I look forward to your replies-

Dreamwalker 74

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:52 PM
What this idea doesn't take into account is that not everybody had offspring (that survived).

And I'll bet finding a mate to have kids with way back 'when' was a lot harder than it is now.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:52 PM
Seems to me that all of that fails to take into account all the people who had multiple children. One plus one doesn't always equal two when it comes to procreation. Sometimes it equals two and sometimes it equals 12, vastly cutting down the number of ancestors required for all 6 billion of us on the planet.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:59 PM

In order for this to be the case each following generation would have to have more offspring than the current generation to offset the number correct? Doesn't the math get just as weird if you go in that direction?

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:06 AM

Even then, yes I see the logic that one of my distant relatives, could have been the ancestor of many of my more recent relatives. My question is: Is this sound based on the current sociological model of our species, based on the amount of inerbreeding that had to be done, even just over the 1500 years I mentioned. Much less the hundred thousand years that our species has been in sociological groups?

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:08 AM

No clue, math is definitely not my strong suit.
But I wouldn't think so. If each generation had three kids instead of the just the one in the equation from your OP, then each generation will get bigger without future generation requiring more children than the last. Three becomes nine, nine becomes eighteen, etc.

Kinda like the whole 'we all came from Adam and Eve' thing. Two in the beginning, but each generation having two or three kids and those kids having two or three of their own would increase the population at a rather steady rate.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:18 AM

OK lets base it on Adam and Eve. If every family generation had 2 children on average. It would only take 33 generations, to go far past the current six to seven billion people. if you even take that in a 20 year generational context, you're only talking about 660 years. How do we acount for ten's or hundred's of thousands of years, where we retain different races and cultures?

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:42 AM
The problem with this theory, is that yes, i can see that many people existing, but not all at once. these people have existed at different intervals of time.
You have to also add death into the equation.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:47 AM
Well, then I guess, this post doesn't exist either. You didn't write it. I didn't read it. And I didn't post this reply.

Mathematically, of course.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:54 AM

You are right, It is based on different intervals of time. I being one person who exists now (as far as I am aware) had sixteen relatives that were responsible for my creation less than 100 years ago. Death in itself is not necessarily a factor, the only factor is what it took, and how many people it took to create, you, over a period of time. I'm not asking how many people have died. I'm asking how many people, generation, after generation, did it take to create you?

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:56 AM
Is this why wars are essential to our survival?

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:03 AM

You may be right. Maybe I'm part of your dream, which creates your reality, which is the only reason you read the post and then replied. I hate to think that I'm only a part of your reality, and truly hoping you are simply a part of mine. Although who knows at this point? Reality is in the eye of the beholder. One day, maybe not you or me, but somebody, will wake up, and neither of us will continue to exist. Till then I will do my damdest to make sense of everything I can.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

If this is actually the case, It would take a lot more than war. 99% of civilization would have to be wiped out every few thousand years, just for the earth to sustain us. War would be just a "maybe a decade", stalling factor. Assuming the war wiped out A LOT of people.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:23 AM
The math is wrong. Go back fifty generations following the lineage of the
father. Now add one mother = 100.

The difference in culture and race was the lack of global transportation in
the past. If we had a borderless world right now, it would only take a
few centuries and the world would be dominated by a new
majority, races with discernible racial traits will be the minority.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by dreamwalker74

OK lets base it on Adam and Eve. If every family generation had 2 children on average. It would only take 33 generations, to go far past the current six to seven billion people. if you even take that in a 20 year generational context, you're only talking about 660 years. How do we acount for ten's or hundred's of thousands of years, where we retain different races and cultures?

This is not true. If every generation had 2 children on average, then the number of people does not grow at all.

Adam Marries Eve. Have two kids: Jane & Joe. They then die.
Jane Marries Joe. Have two kids: Jenny & Jack. They then die.
Etc.

So, it takes four children for each family to accomplish the current population in 33 generations.

Also, please check your U2U. Did you get it? I asked on another thread of yours and you didn't seem to get the message.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:37 AM
I'll give you an S&F for this in the absence of Carl Sagan! It's so monumentally obvious it's ridiculous. The numbers make you wonder if history is a total fabrication. Personally, I've always thought that the history we are spoon fed is a joke anyway, but this kind of solidifies the rationale that things are never what they seem.

Maybe someone out there should look at the data based on an average of two children per family. It seems that number of 9 quad plus doubles again, making it an even more ridiculous number for 1500 years. Taking it back 2000 years or 69 generations, you have 2e69 people or 295,147,905,179,353,000,000 (based on 30 year generations) that have been born and died.

The Earth has a land surface area of 57,500,000 square miles or 1,603,008,000,000,000 square feet. Presuming an area of 21 square feet for coffins in a burial plot, 76,333,714,285,714 could be buried 1 level deep in the available land mass.

So a question, where did the other 295,147,828,845,639,000,000 people go? Numbers might be a little off since I am using Quattro...LOL.

Wow, somethings not right!

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 7/24.2010 by bobs_uruncle]

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:38 AM

I'm sorry Jenna, honestly I have not checked my U2U period, I get on here when I can. I will check it now. Still do you believe in the "Origin country" theory that we came out of a base homo sapien in africa, either during the time of Pangea, or a time when land bridges were prevalent? Did the seperation of the continents before the intelligent evolution of man split us up this much? It is absolutely crazy to me that after 100k plus years we are not speaking the same language world wide as a species. I realize the part that regional dominenses can play. but after 100,000 years? Will we be the same way in another 100 thousand years? I honestly believe that if thier wasn't a mass extinction event every 18,000 years or so, that this is the only way the current way of life could be possible, I believe we would have litterally run out of space tens of thousands of years ago.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:42 AM
have to take into account wars, plagues, natural disaters, etc. that could account for why there arent a sextillion people alive today. Hell the whole reason the population is growing so damn much is the lack of disease and all the help given to 3rd world countries who then have a population explosion. I once read that in some parts of Africa the average 60 yr old woman has like over 100 offspring. compare that to my 59 yr old mothers 2 (no grandkids) and its crazy.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:44 AM
This post does not exist.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Totalstranger
have to take into account wars, plagues, natural disaters, etc. that could account for why there arent a sextillion people alive today. Hell the whole reason the population is growing so damn much is the lack of disease and all the help given to 3rd world countries who then have a population explosion. I once read that in some parts of Africa the average 60 yr old woman has like over 100 offspring. compare that to my 59 yr old mothers 2 (no grandkids) and its crazy.

Wars, plague, famine, stillbirth, etc. are all controlling factors of the total population and the potential for population growth at any given time.

I think the point Sagan made was that a living person now, had to have living parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. in their chain of life. That being the case, they must have had 2e69 ancestors over a 2000 year period. Unless there is a whole lot of inbreeding going on, say 99.99%.

I haven't checked it, but number of ancestors might be more mass than the entire planet based on 175 pounds per body even if divided by the number of years (2000).

Cheers - Dave

top topics

7