radarman wrote:
that could only be from the short-lived logan's run tv series
StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.
(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)
Um, no.
There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).
I know it doesnt mention siblings, thats my point. If going back each generation really doubles the population, you have to think about how at some point it also must taper off to an ancient common ancestor. How would that happen?
[snip]
But that original graphic does NOT double the population. I think that you are confusing the number of slots in a theoretically complete chart of one's ancestors with actual people. If you go back 30 generations (as was done in the original population graphic), then there will be 2^30 or just over 1 billion slots to fill. If you also use the given world population estimate for 1400 CE as being under a half-billion, then by necessity every person who was alive then would have to appear in the chart at least twice on average. This is NOT the same thing as saying that every person must appear twice: I've argued that a overwhelming majority people of 1400 CE will not appear at all and that some individuals will appear thousands if not millions of times (if you allow an extension of my previous arguments to 30 generations instead of the 18 for which I argued).
If one were inclined towards young-Earth creationism then one could go back about 300 generations (by the 5 generations per century reckoning) and have a chart with 2^300 slots which has "Adam" and "Eve" appearing in alternating slots.
TOS wrote:DukeofNuke wrote:TOS wrote:
I see Dave 7 times.
yeah that quite annoyed me ... i thought that surely others could have been found
At least, moar Ripley !
Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky.....
DEyncourt wrote:StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:StaticAge wrote:DEyncourt wrote:I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.
(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)
Um, no.
There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).
I know it doesnt mention siblings, thats my point. If going back each generation really doubles the population, you have to think about how at some point it also must taper off to an ancient common ancestor. How would that happen?
[snip]
But that original graphic does NOT double the population. I think that you are confusing the number of slots in a theoretically complete chart of one's ancestors with actual people. If you go back 30 generations (as was done in the original population graphic), then there will be 2^30 or just over 1 billion slots to fill. If you also use the given world population estimate for 1400 CE as being under a half-billion, then by necessity every person who was alive then would have to appear in the chart at least twice on average. This is NOT the same thing as saying that every person must appear twice: I've argued that a overwhelming majority people of 1400 CE will not appear at all and that some individuals will appear thousands if not millions of times (if you allow an extension of my previous arguments to 30 generations instead of the 18 for which I argued).
If one were inclined towards young-Earth creationism then one could go back about 300 generations (by the 5 generations per century reckoning) and have a chart with 2^300 slots which has "Adam" and "Eve" appearing in alternating slots.
My point is that because people can have, in your words, individuals appearing in several slots, that the implication that the population of 1400 or so are related is false, because families that produce consecutive generations where siblings appear means that sections of the population need not depend on a larger base, instead, the population is sustained and constrained as far back as you like, isolating them from other people alive at whatever point in history you want to say everyone is related to everyone.
The graph isn't presenting a math problem accounting for slots, it's saying that everyone is related because of those "slots."
If you want to have a graph that truly shows everyone related to everyone by number of slots, you'd want to have the bottom number equal to the number if everyone who has ever lived throughout all time.
Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh
rjprice wrote:
Yup, that's how its done. I can't stand those mouth stops (little white piece) and don't use them.
Kirk wrote:rjprice wrote:
Yup, that's how its done. I can't stand those mouth stops (little white piece) and don't use them.
Wait, so that isn't Extreme Tooth Removal™?
Kirk wrote:Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh
that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies
ukimalefu
want, but shouldn't, may anyway
DukeofNuke wrote:Kirk wrote:Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh
that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies
I was going to say that it looks like videogame rag doll physics.
ukimalefu wrote:DukeofNuke wrote:Kirk wrote:Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh
that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies
I was going to say that it looks like videogame rag doll physics.
Yeah.
There are actually videos of gymnastic faceplants all over Youtube. (Olympians, no less.)
That's why there's padding, I guess.
ScifiterX wrote:Séamas wrote:If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looney_Tunes_Show
The description makes it sound dreadful. Is it any good?
Séamas wrote:ScifiterX wrote:Séamas wrote:If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looney_Tunes_Show
The description makes it sound dreadful. Is it any good?
Good enough to be renewed for a second season.
Although given the network it's on, you may have to be a stoner to appreciate it.
flabberghastedpepper wrote:
i can haz?
sure, just work in the groupon building and spend a fortune on a small amount of skittles. or buy giant bags from amazon and do it yourself.
Dont_Mess_With_Canadian_Girls.jpeg
That's a nice pistol range.
Good thing he's wearing that orange hat.
and i'm sure that's near bear on the railing
That's what's he's shooting at - the bear.
whoops i meant to say near beer
I liked it better as near bear
Kirk wrote:I liked it better as near bear
If a bear was near me, I'd probably grab a gun.