Well I don't know if it's THAT that makes you a bad person. ;-P

It's just interesting that it's common in various mythologies that people
"way back when" used to live hundreds of years and spawned hundreds of
brats. I don't put much stock in it though. I think it's probably a
mythological simplification of a complicated scientific concept.

-Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: Generational Math

> Confession: I did not know who Methuselah was, so I had to look him up.
Does
> that make me a bad person? ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 3:23 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Generational Math
>
>
> I blame Methuselah.
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:07 PM
> Subject: Generational Math
>
> > Okay doing family history research which by the way can be seen at
> > http://www.netconceptions.com <http://www.netconceptions.com>
> <http://www.netconceptions.com>  , and
> stating
> > to see something odd. I know that the number of ancestors a person has
for
> a
> > particular generation doubles from the previous generation's number. So
at
> > the 4th generation back from me I have 8, and the 5th I have 16 and so
on.
> > Which leads to this. You can tell the number of ancestors you have for a
> > generation by taking 2 to the (generation number minus one) power.
> >
> > This is all fine and dandy, but after a certain point it becomes more
and
> > more improbable that say after 49 generations which is about 1500 years
I
> > would have  562,949,953,421,312 ancestors in that generation.
> >
> > So what gives. Is the math suspect? Is there an inbreeding curve? Even
if
> > you account for like 50% cross-ancestral breeding, that still leaves a
> huge
> > number of people anyone is descended from going back that far. This must
> > take into account the number of people on earth for the whole
generational
> > period in question.
> >
> > Anyone?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>   _____
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to