forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2011,07:27) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds.
 See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| Quote | | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
|
You confuse spewage with argument. I'm rebutting a bad SciCre argument, and you are dredging up irrelevancies.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
|
Sorry, you haven't demonstrated any misrepresentation on my part. I've documented several lapses in even minimal understanding of the topic on your part.
I was quite careful in my rebuttal of the SciCre population argument exemplified by Williams to show that each element of the argument was actually what he intended to convey.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. | Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. | Quote | | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
|
|
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
|
I haven't seen you "using science". I have seen you make egregiously erroneous claims about stuff that you don't begin to understand. I do vociferously resist untruths.
If you think I have a double standard about quote mining, feel free to show anytime, anywhere that I've quoted someone where I've failed to note relevant context. Go ahead, we'll wait ... forever, I think.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused?
|
Science is not a kind profession to liars and frauds. Basically, science operates on trust. Violate that trust, and one will find it hard to practice science anywhere. This isn't limited to purveyors of antievolution falsehoods, so it shouldn't be a surprise if a default stance of conditional trust is withdrawn when that expectation is violated. Science does enforce personal accountability, so maybe the lack of that in their previous experience makes them expect to be coddled even if what they claim is plainly false.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
|
I just said that I didn't go looking for Williams, it was thrust upon me by a SciCre advocate. How could that possibly be "cherry-picking"?
Let's stay topical here. I have a rebuttal of a SciCre argument. You have nothing, apparently, to say about the substance of that.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html
You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
|
As already documented, you were quite mistaken about Mark Isaak's level of contribution.
Most of the material on the TOA went through a comment period in the talk.origins newsgroup, which included antievolution advocates as participants.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote |
Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not.
The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
|
The formula for doubling time is simple. You have a number for the initial population, a number for the final population, a number for the doubling period, and a number for elapsed time from initial population to final population. Fix any three of these, and the fourth is completely determined. Williams fixed his initial population (the "unity of the race"), his final population as 1.8 billion as of 1925, 5177 years as the time elapsed from initial population to final population, and got the only doubling time figure it was possible for him to get.
Demonstrate how you think Williams was wrong with math. Go to it.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
|
The empty set. Finally, forastero gets something right.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average.
|
What, according to you? Pardon me if I find J. Random Troll's opinion on this less than compelling.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
|
Really? Let's see some examples, with citations of the published scientific work and links to the antievolution guff. You claimed it, you get to back it up.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
|
Poppycock. You are assuming what you have to prove.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
|
Uh, no, that isn't true.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
“Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level”
http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yeah, let's look at that link.
| Quote |
In addition, there is abundant evidence that human populations waxed and waned over times, perhaps crashing to near-extinction during temporarily unfavorable climatic conditions in the late Pleistocene through early Holocene (from 100,000 through 10,000 B.P.; Harpending et al., 1993; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Hole, 1994). McNeil (1974) documents some of the innumerable epidemics that resulted in short-term population losses of 50 to 90 percent. In the early existence of our species, the population may have doubled and halved many times before reaching any net doubling. Population growth has not been consistent or monotonic.
|
You seem to be having reading comprehension issues again.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
|
Because we are currently in an exponential growth phase. That doesn't mean that human population has always been an exponential growth phase with the same parameters applying.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
|
I'm sorry, you seem to have let the cat play with the keyboard. Can you type something that parses next time?
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
 Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
|
I doubt it. In the context of the current exponential growth phase, Richard likely knows the meaning of "lag phase", which I'm sorry to say that you apparently do not. The graph also is likely too smooth in its depiction of early human population fluctuations, which would have had a number of growth phases and population declines.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote |
In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype
|
So saying that you have been arguing that everything is always in exponential growth is a misrepresentation?
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise.
|
You can say that all you want. Your only method of attempting to demonstrate that, though, simply reduces to the same argument Williams made. And that argument doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
|
Sorry, that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Williams' argument, and thus isn't topical.
Referring back to the link you gave previously, where the author actually notes that populations rose and fell over time, would indicate that one should find early periods of exponential growth. Those periods just aren't continuous with our current period of exponential growth.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
|
Your opinion again. You know how much that is worth, right?
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
| Quote | | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda.
|
I'm taking the SciCre argument as it was given and pointing out why it is a bad argument. Yes, I'm using the exact model I oppose for the purpose of deriving numbers. And, no, it isn't "my agenda" to use a final population. That is an intrinsic part of the SciCre argument. Like I said, if you don't like, get after them to up their game.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
|
Huh? I don't recall that. Can you explain what "correlation" you are blithering about now?
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yes, Hern, who single-handedly undercut your whole premise by saying that early human population fluctuated and isn't well-modeled by continuous constant exponential growth. Whether total population was 900 million, 1.8 billion, or 3.6 billion in 1925 would not salvage Williams' argument, and nobody is claiming that the population figure was off by a factor of 2.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
|
If you posit a doubling time value suitable to populate the world between Noah and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you will get completely counterfactual and ridiculous values for a current population of the world, the same sort of numbers that Williams claimed ruled out an evolutionary history of mankind. If you set a doubling time based on current populations, you get ridiculously small population values at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid and other historical dates. If you admit that the doubling time or growth rate could change in between the two, you have forfeited the argument that evolutionary deep time could not possibly exist based on the human population argument.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
|
Again, changes in population growth rates invalidate the argument from human population size.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) |
The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
C14 is not the only clue to the date of the Great Pyramid's construction. Egypt has a written historical record that, while not absolutely fixed, documents clearly the antiquity of the Great Pyramid. It doesn't really matter since the constant growth so vital to the argument from human population size will still give ridiculous values for historical dates without the ambiguity of the construction of the Great Pyramid. |
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | The formula for doubling time is simple. You have a number for the initial population, a number for the final population, a number for the doubling period, and a number for elapsed time from initial population to final population. Fix any three of these, and the fourth is completely determined. Williams fixed his initial population (the "unity of the race"), his final population as 1.8 billion as of 1925, 5177 years as the time elapsed from initial population to final population, and got the only doubling time figure it was possible for him to get.
Demonstrate how you think Williams was wrong with math. Go to it. |
Just google population + "decreasing doubling times" and you'll see why you and Williams are both wrong. For instance:
| Quote | | "One cannot reject the hypothesis of superexponential growth with decreasing doubling times. Furthermore, one of the simplest functional forms one can fit to such data is the hyperbola leading to a finite time singularity (which is also a better fit to the historical data than Kurzweil’s double exponential more often than not" http://singularityhypothesis.blogspot.com/2011.......on.html |
and
| Quote | | With decreasing doubling times and increasing rates of population growth over the past several thousand years, the human species has shown increasing parallels with a malignant growth. The number of doublings reached by the human population is 32.38, with the 33rd doubling expected at about 2013. This observation permits a more precise calculation of the total number of human beings who have ever lived (about 42 billion), and proportion of human beings who have ever lived who are alive today (about 13%). http://www.popline.org/ics-wpd....Display |
and
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) |
You seem to be having reading comprehension issues again. Yeah, let's look at that link. |
I have already mentioned that population waxed and waned globally during the Flood and partially during the tectonic fall of Babel. I see that you also willfully ignored the authors chart and following quote from that article:
| Quote | | For the sake of examining this question and illustrating the answer, I have constructed a table based on estimates from paleontological and archeological studies, beginning with the approximate time when Homo habilis existed (Table 1) with N = 1 and ending with 1998 when the human population was estimated to have reached approximately 6.0 billion (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). |
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Referring back to the link you gave previously, where the author actually notes that populations rose and fell over time, would indicate that one should find early periods of exponential growth. Those periods just aren't continuous with our current period of exponential growth. |
Again, the quote just above shows that you didnt read the article very carefully. Moreover, if you believe that the earth's population drastically rose and fell so many times, what is your explanation for our great human diversity from so many drastic bottlenecks? And try to make sure its not some pseudophylogenetic response
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Because we are currently in an exponential growth phase. That doesn't mean that human population has always been an exponential growth phase with the same parameters applying. |
I clearly said that the archeological studies were on prehistoric Amerindian and Aboriginal exponential growth.
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Your opinion again. You know how much that is worth, right? |
Isnt it a bit numb of you to scoff at our doubt of all this DNA surviving over so called deep evolutionary time?
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Yes, Hern, who single-handedly undercut your whole premise by saying that early human population fluctuated and isn't well-modeled by continuous constant exponential growth. Whether total population was 900 million, 1.8 billion, or 3.6 billion in 1925 would not salvage Williams' argument, and nobody is claiming that the population figure was off by a factor of 2. |
How? The guy is a devout evolutionists who compares humans to cancers yet he clearly disagrees with your premise when he quotes and graphs exponential growth rates from a small group of H. Hablis to modern population; so who are you trying to fool?
If its that you are having trouble understanding itm just look at table 1 here http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | If you posit a doubling time value suitable to populate the world between Noah and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you will get completely counterfactual and ridiculous values for a current population of the world, the same sort of numbers that Williams claimed ruled out an evolutionary history of mankind. If you set a doubling time based on current populations, you get ridiculously small population values at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid and other historical dates. If you admit that the doubling time or growth rate could change in between the two, you have forfeited the argument that evolutionary deep time could not possibly exist based on the human population argument.
Again, changes in population growth rates invalidate the argument from human population size. |
Again, your model doesnt recognize a global Flood or Babel vicariance, or huge preexisting genetic diversity as does mine. Since you dont believe the first humans started small, your model seems to assume some sort of parallel evolution where apes mutated into homos at various times and then slowly evolved genetic diversity.
However, evolutionists tend to disagree with you. For instance, the following book is another of many that describes small group of first humans growing exponentially with decreasing doubling times.
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
...and the article that you claim "undercuts my whole premise" says:
| Quote | | But we may be reasonably sure that the first doublings, at some time lost to history, was when the number of humans, however defined, went from one to two and from two to four, and so forth. Given our mechanisms of reproduction, the impossibility of defining the “first human being” at any point in time due to the overlapping and simultaneously evolving hominid species from 3.5 to 1.5 million years ago, an actual starting point for the doubling of the human population is only a theoretical construct. At some point, we became interbreeding members of a single biological species, and we cannot determine with any precision when that occurred....The 32nd doubling was reached in 1976, unless we start counting with “Adam and Eve,” the point at which there were two members of the Homo genus, in which case the 31st doubling was reached in 1976. This is not a trivial difference, but the speculative nature of the enterprise, the difficulty of defining the first human among the various competing hominid species, and the time spans between early doublings makes this point moot and irrelevant. What matters is the number present now, and that number means that 32.5 doublings have occurred. |
Bottom line is that even though the estimates are always rough and populations suffer perturbations (as seen in modern developing countries), population always grows as a whole, unless of course you include the global Flood
|
