in a matter of 500 years the population could have been thousands .. its exponential .. people breed like rabbits ..
2007-08-18 13:33:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
When they repopulated the earth, humans were in much smaller numbers than they are now. The earth's human population has remained extremely small (compared to the modern population) throughout almost all of earth's history, until the last few centuries. That is why the environment is under such huge pressures from human activity now.
2007-08-18 14:08:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beng T 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
in case you recommend a duplicate soundtrack ... huge attack 0 7 Brazilian ladies might should additionally rotate some Feist, Cansei de Ser sexy, Prodigy, Lords of Acid, Sinatra and Leonard Cohen in there as nicely i'm versatile on those, because of the fact you may not repopulate, er, by myself i'm hoping the CD/mp3 participant is image voltaic-powered, cuz it is gonna take awhile; could additionally turn off the participant for awhile and make your person soundtrack >;) (warning: tacky porno-communicate will jinx fertilization and is hence prohibited) ***** Sookie: it is fairly going to take YEARS, 3 selections is somewhat restricting lol rockets: agreed and a brilliant style of the Lord's songs are approximately boinking besides *that honestly did no longer sound appropriate* i think of the intro to "I take a seat on Acid" will, ahem, put off the repro efforts although ;) mike: repopulatin/copulatin ... lol it is a few best Jesse Jackson / Johnny Cochran (Jackie Chiles) poetry there
2016-12-13 11:51:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by burrough 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not a Christan, but IF there were only eight people left on earth and they needed to repopulate earth... for the lack of a better term, they must screw each other many times over.
But if you were a true Christian (i.e., you believe Jesus, etc) then the answer could be "Immaculate Conceptions" and a lot of them... why not.... this explains the quickness.
2007-08-18 13:47:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by rk 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have alternative info that suggests humans may have been reduced to a population of 16/17,000 I need to check those figures, but dayum, if those figures caused a severe genetic bottleneck in humans, how would only 8 people fair?
In fact, think about it...if the human population was reduced to only 8 people, the chances are, it would probably have been extinct by now and it isnt...so well....
2007-08-18 13:36:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by town_cl0wn 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
if they all had 10 kids, then next generation is 40, then 200, then 1000, then 5000 then 25000. then 125000, 625000, 3,125,000, 15,625,000. thats 10 generations. A generation is about 40-50 years. So in about 400 to 500 years you have over 15 million with them having 10 kids. The kids might not be right, but you get the idea.
2007-08-18 13:40:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
To put it in perspective for you, people had only been populating the earth for 2,000 years before the flood (Adam to Noah), while it's been 4,000 years since the flood, so we've actually had more time to populate the earth since the flood than before it.
According to Wikipedia the world population in 1750 was 791,000,000. Today the world population is 6,600,000,000. That's an increase of more than 5,000,000,000 in only 250 years.
2007-08-18 13:36:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
LOTS of sex, Of course educated people realize that a gene pool of 8 people (5 of them already sharing the same gene pool) would have degenerated after only two or three generations into a group of drooling retarded incompetents. Oh wait... Christianity may have a legit claim here....
2007-08-18 13:34:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Socratic Pig 3
·
7⤊
2⤋
And of course this was after the stain of original sin and I don't think large-scale incest would be a really good idea at this point. Although it would explain a thing or two.
2007-08-18 13:38:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I believe the Bible should be read with more insight. You can't take every word literally. And it's not a science handbook.
2007-08-18 13:37:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Amelie 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
You ask how they did it so quickly. Read the text. It doesn't say that it was done quickly. No time frame at all is given.
2007-08-18 13:37:24
·
answer #11
·
answered by kcchaplain 4
·
2⤊
1⤋