What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?

Over any timeframe of course. If you refuse to accept zero or negative population change as growth, the smallest possible growth is the addition of one individual. Anything less does not count as growth, to you. Thus the limit applies for any timeframe you choose, because anything less is not growth - as you define it.(Of course, this line of argument is unutterably silly. Population levels may remain stable or decline. Thus to model the change in population levels over time we really must acknowledge the possibility of zero or negative growth. Even if you find the idea aesthetically displeasing.)

quote:

---

You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand

---

I also know that actual rates of growth are rarely the minimum rate of growth. I also know that there are exceptional reasons behind human population growth. How long those will prove adequate to fuel further growth is a question that should be of some concern.I also know that people with good arguments do not resort to silly semantic games to discount factors that must be taken into account.Finally your argument really amounts to pointing out an inconsistency between your assumptions and the evidence. perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is your assumptions that are wrong.

quote:

---

According to the lowest possible rate of population growth, population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years, even when only the Fifth part survives you get 9,565,938,000 people in the end of 14 thousand years.

---

first you ah e to show that that is the lowest possible rate of population increase. Until you do it is just a assumption.

quote:

---

In order for you to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is population x 15 - 80 % the next thing to do ( on behalf of the theory )

​

was to answer or explain What is the lowest possible rate for Humans to keep on growing and multiplying since zero and negative are not growing nor multiplying either.

---

Firstly the burden of proof is on you to show that your assumed lowest possible rate of increase really is the lowest possible.Secondly playing silly semantic games does not prove your point. The only way to consider possible changes in population size is to take all possible changes - and lack of change - into account. Ignoring stasis and decline because they are not growth is to unacceptably (and idiotically) bias the process.

quote:

---

What is the lowest possible rate that the Humans could keep on growing and multiplying?

---

-100%. Yes, I do mean a negative growth rate. Extinction is a possibility, and that IS extinction.

quote:

---

With regards specifically to the origin of the Human body, the evolutionary theory is mathematically proven wrong. Because it is not possible that 2,000 people in Europe would have taken more than 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.

---

I look forward to seeing your proof. I hope that you will provide documented figures on carrying capacity of the land given the lifestyles of the people.

quote:

---

Also, it is impossible that evolutionary theory can explain the origin or appearance of 42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe.

---

Since biology does not deal much with language formation or cultural divisions I would not expect it to. You would have to go beyond biology for that.

quote:

---

The fact is that evolutionary theory named human origins is entitled to explain the origin or appearance of 42 different languages and ethnic groups in Europe

---

Since neither is primarily biological a theory of biology is obviously NOT entitled to explain either.

This is English: The English of about a thousand years ago.The changes in the language are not the result of biological evolution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is daft.