[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > This is what you said, hence my question.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > My comment was not about technology but about the minimum   
   > > > > > number of individuals needed to perpetuate a species.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Stay on the subject.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > I did according to your definition of all the things that you stated   
   had   
   > > > > to   
   > > > > be part of the picture.   
   > > > > I quoted below the pertinent part I asked you specifically where was   
   there   
   > > > > technology thousands of years before. You were the one that pointed out   
   > > > > that   
   > > > > technology had to be used, I asked where was it,   
   > > > >   
   > > > > It was your assumption that technology had to be a part of it, so if   
   you   
   > > > > were   
   > > > > correct then you would know what technology was used.   
   > > >   
   > > > That was simply the method used to determine the minimum   
   > > > number necessary. That determination was a modern act, not   
   > > > one made thousands of years in the past.   
   > > >   
   > > > Genetic analysis was the basic technique, as the quotation   
   > > > indicated.   
   > >   
   > > Then why make the rule of. Definition that cannot stand the depth of time?   
   >   
   > What "rule of definition" are you talking about? A   
   > definition is a currently accepted meaning of a word.   
      
   ***********************************************   
   > > > > > > > > BTW, While a few individuals can technically reproduce, a   
   > > > > > > > > sustainable human population needs a significant number to   
   > > > > > > > > maintain genetic diversity and long-term health, with   
   > > > > > > > > estimates for a healthy, self-sustaining population ranging   
   > > > > > > > > from 160 to 500 or more, depending on factors like genetic   
   > > > > > > > > diversity, technological intervention, and time scale. The   
   > > > > > > > > 50/500 rule, developed for biological populations, suggests   
   > > > > > > > > 50 individuals are needed to avoid inbreeding and 500 for   
   > > > > > > > > long-term evolutionary adaptation, a benchmark that can be   
   > > > > > > > > adjusted for humans with careful genetic management.   
   ************************************************   
   The above is your defined rules and standards.   
      
   Then later stated that the technology portion did not apply to ancient   
   civilization, :)   
      
   In regards to your few individuals can “technically reproduce” Take these   
   modern times where a shipwreck of ten or more sailors made it to an island   
   with vegetation and all died without on offspring, except maybe the guy that   
   walked the plank and sprung off the ship! LOL.   
      
   And as to time scales?   
      
   You believed all that malarky and it never met your self defined rules of   
   proofs.   
      
   Hate to say it but what reality platform do you dwell on?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > > Why make such blanket statements and then argue to support them without   
   > > thinking and rationalizing the real situations? But thanks for actually   
   > > thinking about it.   
   >   
   > What are you talking about? I posted information on the   
   > minimum number of individuals needed to insure survival of a   
   > species and then you went crazy.   
      
   Anyone that reads these post between us can see that never happened.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > > If you can’t cash the check, then say so.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > > *************************************   
   > > > > > > > > > depending on factors like genetic   
   > > > > > > > > > diversity, technological intervention, and time scale. The   
   > > > > > > > > > 50/500 rule, developed for biological populations,   
   > > > > > > > > > *************************************   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > That is where inbreeding and genetic   
   > > > > > > > > > > > diseases come from.   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > But tell us: How could the   
   > > > > > > > > > > > Noah family reproduce itself   
   > > > > > > > > > > > without a WHOLE lot of incest   
   > > > > > > > > > > > going on?   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > The same factors as existed with the   
   > > > > > > > > > > children of Adam. At that time there   
   > > > > > > > > > > was genetic purity, no defects.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > And the same problems existed, which is an excellent   
   > > > > > > > > > argument against that legend being a myth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)