Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ancestor Paradox

Expand Messages
  • Marc Cooper
    The common sense notion that each of us must have millions of ancestors 80 or 100 generations ago is called the Ancestor Paradox. For an explanation see
    Message 1 of 103 , Feb 29, 2008
      The common sense notion that each of us must have millions of
      ancestors 80 or 100 generations ago is called the Ancestor Paradox.
      For an explanation see


      Marc Cooper
      Missouri State University

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Dierk van den Berg" <haGalil@...>
      > Jack,
      > you have missed the convergence criterion, i.e. based upon a total
      > population of millions of people at the outset of the calculation,
      > the genetic relationship after some 65 generations between you and
      > Jesus is as high as between you and a standard baker's yeast - it
      > converges against zero (though without reaching the value zero).
      > And btw - if Jesus is just a symbol, then we should handle the
      > with more respect, next time, I fear - it could be one of our
      > ancestors.
      > Dierk van den Berg
      > Nijmegen - Holland
      > -- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@> wrote:
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Dierk van den Berg" <haGalil@>
      > > To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:51 AM
      > > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: More 'Ark of the Covenant' mystery the 'show
      > goes on
      > > and on and on
      > >
      > >
      > > > --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@> wrote:
      > > >>
      > > >
      > > >> If Jesus had direct descendents, they include Osama bin Ladin,
      > you,
      > > > me, Jim West as well as Mother Theresa.
      > > >>
      > > >> Jack Kilmon
      > > >>
      > > >
      > > > Things have to come a pretty pass that I should ever reckon
      > legendary
      > > > figures of foreign myths to my ancestors, for in those early
      > of
      > > > the Second Age my clan doubtlessly lived far away in the cold
      > zone of
      > > > midgard, some say - still busy with the quest of Loki's fire,
      > when the
      > > > first chosen one above in line has burnt his fingers as a
      > hint.
      > > >
      > > > No - the above conclusion is based upon the axiom of Jesus as
      > > > primal Adam, father of all of us, and that's rubbish for sure.
      > > >
      > > > _Dierk
      > >
      > > No Dierk. It is based on simple math without any bias as to who
      > is, or is
      > > not, mythological. The Historical Jesus, even if he had no
      > progeny, would
      > > appear on your 80 generation ahnentafel chart/family tree as an
      > ancestor or
      > > a cousin. If you are uncomfortable with Jesus...certainly Herod
      > the Great.
      > > If you want to deny Herod as your 80X great-grandfather, there is
      > always
      > > that pot merchant in Jericho who made the Qumran jars. What was
      > his name
      > > now?
      > >
      > > There are few places on earth where gene flow has not reached
      > of
      > > course, "Midgard" in Norse mythology is those places on earth
      > humans
      > > live and the spreading fire of Loki are genes.
      > >
      > > Jack Kilmon
      > >
    • David Hall
      Good point about the apple. Similarly a description of hell brought forth by Milton (Paradise Lost) was accepted by some in the way they accepted Biblical
      Message 103 of 103 , Mar 10, 2008
        Good point about the apple. Similarly a description of hell brought forth by Milton (Paradise Lost) was accepted by some in the way they accepted Biblical myths.

        If the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden could give knowledge of good or evil or both it has no known parallel in the natural world, and is mythological. While fruits offered nutrients we cannot find a piece of fruit in the fruit section of the supermarket that will give us knowledge without studying. I suppose if you could change the meanings of the worlds you might be able to resolve it, but then it would be difficult to get the correct meanings back again.

        Suppose you could get barnyard animals to talk, what would they say? A talking serpent is beyond the realm of the rational and into the surreal. It was a common morphology of some authors of fairy tales to have animals talking. Aesop had a story of the fox trying to steal the grapes from a vine, but could not reach them. Then Aesop pretended to reveal the fox's thoughts. After admitting failure to get grapes the fox tried to minimize the loss by stating, "The grapes were probably sour." While animal thoughts might be presumed, the human does not have the sensory organs to detect animal replies or statements, unless a donkey might be impelled to mimic the voice of human and give a message, similar to a dog trying to wake inhabitants during a fire.

        As for the biography of Moses. The "laws of Moses" exist, it is presumed someone with a pen name of Moses had to write them. My personal trips to the Sinai and Negev and many hours in libraries reading Exodus theory, including records of historical volcanic eruptions in Northern Arabia have lead me to conclude the work of Exodus is a work of literature and not history. This does not mean there are no Hebrews, or laws of 'Moses,' only that Exodus is a fiction.

        The book of Kings contained some history verified in part by the Assyrian archives found at Kuyunjik/Nineveh across the Tigris River from Mosul, Iraq. The descriptions of the siege of Lachish in the Bible and in Assyrian cuneiform were similar. The archaeology of the citadel did not conflict with the two similar accounts, thus some history from the book of Kings was verified. Part of the book might also have been stories without factual basis that were kept by those without the ability to confirm nor deny them. Forging antiquities to try to prove one's own assumptions does not aid in the search for the truth.

        David Q. Hall

        "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...> wrote:
        Gary Greenberg wrote:
        > As there is no specific mention in Genesis of an apple being the forbidden fruit, would it be fair to say that the idea that Genesis refers to an apple as just a myth about Genesis.
        The idea that the fruit was an apple entered Western consciousness from
        Augustine who noticed the similarity between the Latin words for apple
        and evil.

        In any case, please do NOT include the who of an exchange in your
        messages to the List when you are responding to only a section of that
        exchange. Quote only as much of a post to which you are responding as
        is necessary to give your message its proper context..


        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Chicago, Illinois
        e-mail jgibson000@...

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.