[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > > > > > Where was there technology 3, 4 or t thousand years ago?   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > What technology was involved?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > 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.   
      
   Not mine.  That is the standard as determined by   
   professionals in the field.   
      
   >   
   >Then later stated that the technology portion did not apply to ancient   
   >civilization, :)   
      
   The information was compiled by using modern technological   
   processes of course.  No other "technology" was required   
   anywhere in the process.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
      
   What does that have to d with the minimum number of   
   individuals needed to insure species survival?   
      
   >   
   >And as to time scales?   
      
   Which is not a factor.   
      
   >   
   >You believed all that malarky and it never met your self defined rules of   
   >proofs.   
      
   The number ws determined by defined operation of the   
   required sciences.  I trust the process.   
      
   I do not trust unlikely assertions and claims based upon   
   2000 year old data that has no supporting evidence.   
      
   >   
   >Hate to say it but what reality platform do you dwell on?   
      
   That of reality supported by fact.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > 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.   
      
   That is exactly what happened.  What is your reason for   
   attacking every point you can find in a determination made   
   by science?   
      
      
   --   
      
      
   Every person in the US is here either   
   legally or illegally. Those that are   
   here illegally should be afraid.   
   Be very afraid.  It does not matter   
   how long you have been here.  It does   
   not matter why you are here. It does not   
   matter what you have done legally while you   
   were here. It does not matter what any   
   relative may have done while you were here.   
   It only matters that you are here illegally.   
   It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer   
   but we will find you and we will deport you.   
   Be prepared.   
      
   Deport them all.   
      
   All politicians are trained to lie   
   and make those lies sound like   
   the truth.  They start with the biggest   
   lie of all: Politicians are public   
   servants.   
      
   The Dims have an appropriate party   
   symbol: A jackass.   
      
   National Socialist American Workers Party   
   (NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party   
      
   Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting   
   and abhorrent.   
   Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.   
      
   I support:   
      
   A Constitional Amendment establishing   
   the Freedom of Choice.   
      
   The elimination of public expression,   
   display or support of religion or   
   religious positions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)