Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[Zylka]

This one time, at band camp,

[aaglo]

Faded G:
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Humans haven't existed 3 million years. 500 000 years is closer to the truth. And for the most of that time the humans were hunters, not farmers (which makes a big difference which you don't seem to understand). During the last 2000 years or so the natural enemies (beasts, diseases) of human race have been eliminated - that is the main reason why population is growing so fast now.

Dinosaurs populated earth 200 million years ago - where are they now? According to the calculations you seem to rely on there should be 20 000 000 000 000 000 billion dinosaurs populating the earth...

So leave it, FG. And go back to school... it's good for you

[Urban Ranger]

Steve,

What's to ponder for evolutionists?

First of all, as many have pointed out, Homo Sapiens Sapiens hasn't been around for that long.

Secondly, ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out?" Or the more famous "lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Yes, mathematics doesn't lie, but people can. Anybody can build a skewered model to prove his little pet theory. Give Dr Spin the model and let him stomp on it

Thirdly, the whole thing has nothing to do with evolution per se.

[Tolls]

fg:
Dear oh dear...

OK.

First off, hunter gatherer societies can support about 1 person per 10 square kms...which isn't much considering most of the earths land area isn't particularly hospitable. This is known using current HG populations, as well as archaeological remains of settlements. So a population of (say) 20 million at around 4000 BCE (which sounds high to me), with a surface area of the earth of 150,000,000 sq km gives us 1 person per 7.5 sq km. The extra lot being the appearance of agriculture in a number of places, which can increase the density to 50 people per 10 sq km (in its basic form).

So you see that the food levels were such that we couldn't support the ridiculous numbers your source is implying...ergo it's rubbish.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Tolls


fg:


Dear oh dear...





OK.





First off, hunter gatherer societies can support about 1 person per 10 square kms...which isn't much considering most of the earths land area isn't particularly hospitable. This is known using current HG populations, as well as archaeological remains of settlements. So a population of (say) 20 million at around 4000 BCE (which sounds high to me), with a surface area of the earth of 150,000,000 sq km gives us 1 person per 7.5 sq km. The extra lot being the appearance of agriculture in a number of places, which can increase the density to 50 people per 10 sq km (in its basic form).





So you see that the food levels were such that we couldn't support the ridiculous numbers your source is implying...ergo it's rubbish.

Absolutely correct. It wasn't until agriculture came along around 6000-4000 bc, that we could support any substantial population per sq km.



The fossil and living hominidae:

(From: The Scientific Companion: Exploring the Physical World with facts, figures and Formulas. Chapter 9 The origion and early evolution of life. Ceasare Emilani, University of Miami)



Name:.........................................Age range...........Geographical distr.
..............................................(mil lions of years)

Australiopithecus Afarensis.........3.7-2.6................East Africa

Australiopithecus Africanus ........3.0-2.3................South Africa

Paranthropus Boises....................2.5-1.3................East Africa

Paranthropus Robustus...............1.9-1.6.................South Africa

Homo Habilis.................................2-1.8...................East Africa

Homo Erectus...............................1.6-0.4................Africa, Asia

Homo Sapiens "Presapiens".........0.4-0.125............Africa, Europa, Asia

Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis..0.125-0.030........Africa, Europa, Asia

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.................0.125-0...............Worldwide



Of these The Paranthropus and Neaderthalensis became extinct.



This table shows that it wasn't until Homo Erectus came along that humans migrated out of Africa, and not until Modern man (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) came along that humans had spread to the entire world. You also have to take into account a couple of ice ages, etc...



This along with what others in this thread have mentioned, makes it quite obvious that the calculations is totally ridiculous. I would also like to see the source.

[Giancarlo]

Which becomes even stupider is that Faded Glory can't even take natural disasters into account... the black plague for example wiped out 2/3s of Europe. He has proven nothing and never will, his support for creationism is based on idiocy.

[SilexMT]

faded indeed....

Look, put too many living organisms in a limited space and the surplus will start dying. Pure and simple. They'll starve, or kill themselves, or get wiped out by epidemics, until such times as the numbers get back within limits. Some might emigrate, others will adapt and change their diet, maybe sentient beings will start inventing more efficient ways to produce food, but in the same problem will crop back again eventually.

Wars and famines and the rest are not phenomenon which affect population growth: they are phenomenons that are the direct consequence of population growth. The more individuals you have, the more will die before begetting offspring and a balance will be reached again.

And only the strongest individuals will be amongst the chosen... indeed if you look at it closely, your math not only doesn't discredit natural selection, it actually helps support it: it provides a solid argument to explain why living organisms keep changing from generation to generation, why only the fastest, the strongest, the smartest or the more versatile individuals survive to pass on their genes.

[rev]

Isn't anyone else interested in seeing a source for this data? I sure am.

[Provost Harrison]

I don't think I have much to add to some other peoples debunks of that total piece of crap faded glory. Over time and with more sophisticated agricultural methods, the ceiling on the number of people we can support has increased. If it is surpassed, people die through starvation, simple as that. In recent years agricultural yield has been increasing phenomenally, hence the population increases we have seen, and even 'just about' sustainable.

The bloke may have good maths, but his biology is complete and utter bollocks. Good reason why pure mathematicians should keep their nose out of things they don't have the faintest idea about. From my experience, people who are highly trained in the mathematical disciplines rarely have a faintest notion of biological systems. Like my mathematics is completely crap. I wouldn't try and debunk superstring theory with my rather rudimentary knowledge of mathematics, would I?

[aaglo]

PH:

here is a link to the official superstring theory site. It has a quite simple basic tour to the amazing (and totally mind-messing) world of superstrings (I like to refer "superstrings" as NOODLES, because they look like that).

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by faded glory
account.....war...famine..disease...old age...

Are you sure ?

Do you know that in the past (during anthic age and medieval age) there was plague (pest) which kill the half of living humans
on the earth ?

If you follow the evolutionalist theory , then you must discover that more there is human, more plagues evolve quicky and deadly.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Re: Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

Originally posted by faded glory
Well......I just heard the most damning evidence against evolution ever.

Mathematicians have set it is impossible that man could have walked the earth for 3 million years. According to them.if this was the case..the population should be roughly around 500,000 per SQUARE mile ...putting the total population on earth well above 5 trillion instead of billion.....

Darwin whores, Explain yourselves here

Actually, they're assuming that we've had a constant growth rate over all that time. Not so.

What conditions did they assume (growth rate, life expectancy, etc.)?

One thing you've neglected is carrying capacity, a rather important factor. Carrying capacity should be rather self-explanatory: the size of the population an environment could support. Up until 12,000 years ago, humans were hunter-gatherer-foragers. The carrying capacity if that's the only way humans get their food is somewhere around 20 million, at most. Once we had agriculture, Earth could support more than that.

-Look at it this way, a single bacterium can reproduce into a number of bacteria having a mass equal to that of the Earth in under a year. Why doesn't it? There's nothing to feed that many, and they die off.

Actually, wasn't it in a week?

[aaglo]

By the way, Mr. Faded Glory:

You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping...

The 1999 Ig Nobel Prize Winners

SCIENCE EDUCATION
The Kansas State Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and axwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.

Here is a link for more of the Annals of Impropable Research (AIR)

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by aaglo
By the way, Mr. Faded Glory:

You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping...

That is so stupid... that state can't even look at the proven facts of evolution. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Incompetence is not an excuse: the mathematician must be a creationist fraudster.

Only a very carefully selected figure for poulation growth can give a result which supports Young-Earthism. Because of the way exponential growth works, any figure used is almost certain to give a result which is either far too small or far too large. It is just as easy to pick a figure which "proves" that the human race is only a few centuries old.

With a good food supply, families with a dozen kids are common. That's a sixfold growth rate per generation. A population of a single couple will pass 6 billion in 13 generations. Assuming a quarter-century per generation, that's 325 years. Adam and Eve were created in 1676.

Not only have I disproved Darwinism, I've disproved Columbusism (1492), William-The-Conquerorism (1066), Christianity (0)... Oops...