Well shoot! How could dozens upon dozens of Ph.D-holding mathematicians, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists have made such a simple mathematical error!? Back to the lab it is, and let's check the basic math this time ya dumb scientists -.-
Humans are in the genus homo, which is estimated to be roughly 2.3-2.4 million years old. A species of the genus homo is homo sapiens, which would have resembled modern humans quite a lot (only about 3/4 the brain size however) -- estimated around 500,000 years. No informed person holds to 200,000 as being the estimated time humans began walking Earth -- that is the estimated time frame for homo sapiens sapiens, which are dubbed a sub-species of homo sapiens (within the genus homo) because they're anatomically modern humans. Humans, as a species, have been on this planet much longer than 200,000 years.
It merey shows that education, in and of itsself, does not equal common sense. The simple math does not fit. I noticed how you didn't directly respond to the argument. Instead, you used another logical fallacy: Misuse of authority - this is an attempt to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real or alleged authorty in such a way that the conclusion does not follow. In other words, so what if many PhD holding people believe in evolution - the facts still must be proved. Anyone reading your response will notice how you do not demonstrate with a single bit of evidence where my math was wrong. Actually, it was wrong in a very specific sense. I kept giving the atheists the benefit of a doubt. The reality is that my numbers should have been much higher. I hope your reponses begin to really engage in the arguments.
Fair enough. Let's talk then...
Oh reallly... modern humans have been around for 2000,00 years. Yet, we have only about 6 Billion people on this planet. Talk about a mathe problem! WoW!
Heh, seriously? People thousands of years ago were not scientifically equipped for all manner of diseases, plagues, droughts, and other ills...therefore, populations were very much at risk for having large numbers wiped out. The explosion of population we see now is the direct result of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, which didn't happen until the 17th-19th centuries! Also the amount of progress we are expected to have in the 21st century alone is equivalent to 20,000 years worth of progress that came before it.
For someone who claims to have Ph.D's, I'm surprised you would say something so silly!
Mocking others before you present any facts is like advertizing for something you have never seen. You may end up looking foolish!
1. I did not know that scientifically equipping was the criteria for survival? This sounds a bit contradictory at the least.
2. Arbitrarily inserting the idea that large numbers were wiped out without any evidence is a mythical mindset. Not only have you not presented what "large numbers" really mean, but you also have not provided anything that is valid. This seems like a philosophical, faith based message, IMHO.
3. Here, let me help you: Let us take your theory concerning the timeframe for humans as 200,000 years (this number is quite arbitrary, but many evolutionists [not all] believe it).
So, the question can be asked, "how long does it take for the population to double? If one were to invest $100 in the bank at 7% interest per year, it would take 10 years for this to double - $200.00. It would take another 10 years for that to double - $400.00. So, for the sake of argument, let us take two people and double their number. We won't count twins, etc... In normal circumstances, this would take a little less than 2 years. How long would it take these 4 people to double their number if all things are normal? Another 20 or 30 years? [excursus: the reality is that the first couple could have children every year, which would double the population in 4 years, and in by 8 more years the population would double again. However, we are giving the evolutionists the benefit of the doubt] To help the evolutionists again, we will propose that it takes 150 years for the population to double. This means that after 150 years after one couple procreated, 8 people existed. Now, let us ask a silly question: "How long would it take for the initial population of the two to become 6.7 billion people? It would only take 4,800 years! This is simple math, and is only meant to show how evolution does not "add up!"
Now, let us pretend that "??" evolved to be a human 200,000 years. Of course, to give the benefit of the doubt to the evolutionists again, we will pretend that two have evolved at the same time. So, we will start with one couple. Now, let us really help the evolutionist's cause. Let us say that the each couple only lived 150 years (btw, using 150 years gives the evolutionist a great mathematical advantage), but only had 4 children during those 150 years. So, this would mean that every time the population doubled, 25% would die. So, you start off with 2 people. They have 4 people. These 4 people have 16. However, 25% leave because of attrition. This leaves 12. Let us really help the evolutionist and say that another 50% die because of famine, disease, war etc... every generation from the beginning of man's existence. Now, you have 6 people living at the end of the first 300 years. These 6 have 4 children each. This is 24, but again, attrition takes 25%, leaving them 18. 50% die, leaving them 12. So, in 450 years, there are only 12 people. So, instead of double each generation, they are only adding. It takes them 900 years to double. Now, take 200,000 and divide it by 900 years for each doubling. You will come up with 222 doublings by the year this year. This means that all one needs to do is double the population on the calculator 222 times. Just doubling it 30 times will bring the population to 6.4 Billion. Ok, let us help the evolutionist out some more. Let us say that there was a major catastrophe that took place after 30 doublings. Only 10% live! That would be 6.4 million. We go back to doubling the population every 900 years. After 30 doublings, we now have 675539943986144 in population. Ok, let us help the evolutionist again. Another big catastrophe! This time only one couple lives. So, we start over, and it takes 900 years to double in population again. Now remember, for 200,000 years to pass by, we need to double 222 times. We have only done it 30 doublings. We have over 200 left. Ok, let us help them out some more, we have two or three more catastrophes, and we are left with one couple again. This time it is about 27,000 years ago. All the criteria is the same. We are only allowed to double every 900 years. Oh no - our calculations tell us that we have over 6.4 billion people on the earth again. Who came up with this 200,000 mythical number anyway?
For those who want to think deeper about this:
http://ldolphin.org/popul.html
a) populations do not grow in a similar exponential manner as you suggest. You're completely ignoring those who die - quite a thing to ignore. In fact any animal population grows according to the basic difference equation:
N(y+1) = N(y)*F(1-N(y))
where N(y+1) is the population next year, N(y) is the population this year, F is the fecundity (ie a measure of how randy and how fertile the population is). N(y) = 1 is the maximum population. N(y)=0 is extinction.The important thing to note is the 1-N(y) - this represents natural limits on the population. These include resources and other environmental factors (availability of food, shelter etc). As the population rises (ie as N(y) gets bigger) then the growth factor slows down (1-N(y) gets closer to 0). This is obvious - increased competition for finite resources.
b) What is this nonsense about each couple 'only' lasting 150 years? Do you know any 150 year old couples? Neither does this 'give the evolutionist an advantage' - it is just fantasy. By saying that people live to 150 you are in fact allowing the population to increase more rapidly, not less rapidly. In fact the early hominids probably had a lifespan of 20 years or so. Even in the 17th century the average lifespan of a human was not much more than 30.
c) You completely ignore 'minimum survival' limits. Below a certain size all the energy of the group must go into foraging for food - this means that any children born are a drag on the survival of the group which in turn means pressure to limit population. You might think the thing to do would be to breed like mad to get more people to gather more food - but in the 6-10 years it takes to raise the children the group will have died out. This is one reason that we see populations go up and down like crazy. This is well known and can be observed in the lab with such specimens as the fruit fly (a favourite for this type of research because they are very short lived, thus you can breed a lot of generations in a short time).
d) We don't actually need to guess - we have pretty good data for human population numbers over the last couple of thousand years - the Romans were great census takers. It is estimated that just over 55 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire (CE 300–400).
The Plague of Justinian caused Europe's population to drop by around 50% between 541 and the 700s. By 1340 Europe had a population of about 70 million and the world population is estimated at somewhere between 420 and 460 million. By 1400 the black plague reduced this by 100 million or so back to around 350 million.
It is only with the advent of the city that populations really started to climb (say around 7000 years ago). Before that the population scraped along pretty static - just as we see with modern primates. Even in virgin forest you do not get an explosion of chimp numbers, because the environment will only support so many and because of the high natural loss.
In short you're spouting nonsense based on a lack of understanding of population dynamics and simple maths. The "simple math" doesn't work, because you're understanding of the simple math is incorrect. Once you posit that a factor (be it population or whatever) grows in an exponential manner then, by definition, it will grow massively after a short period. Consider the story of the peasant who does a service for the emperor. The emperor asks the peasant what he would like as a reward. The peasant points to a chess board and says -
'Highness, put one grain of rice on the first square. Now put 2 on the second, 4 on the third, 8 on the fourth and continue until you have filled all the squares. I will take that as my reward.'The emperor instructs the vizier to do this small thing. The vizier returns after a few hours and speaks to his majesty thus:
'Your highness, you are bankrupt and still our debt is unpaid.'
2^64 grain of rice is more rice than the entire world has ever grown or ever will grow.
One of two things is going on here: you don't know what you're talking about or you do know and you're being purposely dishonest. Either way, I don't particularly care. Your positions have yet to seem genuine to me in any thread and I know trolling/flamebaiting when I see it.
Community Forum
Show Posts
). ps: regardless of "not pompous" vs. "pompous"... I think if God tried all these FC forum posts by fire, yours would be the ones that remain unscorched. Blessings!
I guess I didn't give it much thought at all, forgetting that some people get very offended when you bring up religion. And that makes me very sad that I can't even talk to people decently about it on occasion; it gets protected by this blanket of "taboo".
The truth is often offensive to people, but it is the truth nonetheless. I believe its inevitable, and likely necessary, to offend others at certain points in time.