Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 8:01 PM
456 online now:
frako, jar, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 450 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,957 Year: 6,563/21,208 Month: 2,324/2,634 Week: 512/572 Day: 59/70 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   How long has modern man been on this earth?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 16 of 71 (483788)
09-24-2008 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by SHEKINAH
09-24-2008 4:34 AM


Topic Reminder
This is your topic, and it's about how long modern man has existed, not the origin of life. From the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-24-2008 4:34 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 17 of 71 (483873)
09-24-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
09-23-2008 3:16 AM


How long has modern man been on this earth?

Only a few seconds. Whenever a baby is born they are the most modern. So the most modern man has been on the earth right now.... no, right now...... no, wait, right now. :laugh:


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-23-2008 3:16 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 1928 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 18 of 71 (483875)
09-24-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SHEKINAH
09-24-2008 12:05 AM


I found this graphic that gives information on world population going back to about 100 000 years ago.
I don't know how reliable the information on it is, but I hope it helps.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-24-2008 12:05 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15471
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 19 of 71 (483896)
09-24-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SHEKINAH
09-24-2008 12:05 AM


Well the Creationist would say that 4400 yrs ago after the flood occured the earths population was 8, that be Noah and the rest of his crew. They say that 4400 yrs is more then enough to bring the population to where it is today. Now if that be the case, what would the population be like if we had 200,000 yrs to populate the earth?

Well, if you totally ignore the facts that we require food to eat, fresh water to drink, oxygen to breathe and a place to stand, then taking that rate of exponential growth the human population would be approximately

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000.

Give or take an order of magnitude.

This is quite a good illustration of why, when trying to think about biology, you should not ignore facts about biology which are known even to small children. In other words, don't be like Kent Hovind.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-24-2008 12:05 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15471
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 20 of 71 (483905)
09-24-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by SHEKINAH
09-24-2008 4:34 AM


yes i have seen some of kent Hovinds presentations and i have to say he is very convincing for someone that the Evolutionists say doesant have a clue.

Has it occurred to you that the reason you find him convincing is that you are also short on clues when it comes to the relevant subject matter? Only I notice that the man doesn't manage to convice many biologists.

Just a thought for you to ponder.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-24-2008 4:34 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 21 of 71 (484145)
09-26-2008 6:34 PM


Modern Homo Sapiens did appear about 200 thousand years ago. However, if we can agree the science of the human genome correct, we can all trace our origin to some guy living in Africa only 60,000 years ago. The Kalahari Bushmen are thought similar. Ten thousand years later his descendants arrived all the way to Australia.

It comes to no surprise to me why this tribe survived whatever calamity felled every other human. Recently a trove of exquisite beads made of tiny shells was found in a cave near an estuary. The settlement dated around 70,000 years. These intelligent smooth skinned people were most likely very adept in the water. Food sources available to divers probably continued to be harvestable after the African landscape had been made inhospitable 60,000 years ago.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 22 of 71 (484450)
09-28-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by arrogantape
09-26-2008 6:34 PM


However, if we can agree the science of the human genome correct, we can all trace our origin to some guy living in Africa only 60,000 years ago.

"Y-Chromosone Adam" lived around 60,000; but that is not our most recent common ancestor, they lived much more recently. Just 7000 years ago, according to Rhode (other estimates put them between 5000 and 15000 year ago, and the most recent ancestor of all Europeans (and white americans) around 1000 AD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arrogantape, posted 09-26-2008 6:34 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2008 6:39 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 23 of 71 (484462)
09-28-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Jack
09-28-2008 5:32 PM


relative time not fossil time (quibble)
Just 7000 years ago, according to Rhode (other estimates put them between 5000 and 15000 year ago, and the most recent ancestor of all Europeans (and white americans) around 1000 AD.

Which is just a measure of the mixing of genes.

Curiously none of the genetic information really says where or when these people lived, and the chronologies developed from DNA are only relative relationships. The time is estimated made based on assumed rates of evolution being relatively constant in these periods and assumed correlations with certain fossils.

We don't really know for sure whether mtDNA-eve correlates better with 195kyr old Homo sapien skull than yDNA-adam does, or how far apart in time they were.

Now if we had a 150kyr male or female fossil with soft tissue and extractable DNA we might be able to get a better estimate. My recollection from the discussion of Neanderthal DNA comparisons to sapiens DNA was that the fossil DNA records did not go back that far.

You could probably estimate a time baseline from the N/s DNA comparisons to compare to fossil records for when common ancestry was likely, but this is still an estimate pending further information.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 1990 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 24 of 71 (484483)
09-28-2008 8:06 PM


RAZD,

Now we are hearing from the Neanderthal Code (not the cable program) That Neanderthal might have split as much as 500k years ago. Now, that is a mind bender. They are also finding no evidence of sapiens mixing in. I kind of figured that when the red hair gene for both were different.


    
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 1164 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 25 of 71 (492091)
12-28-2008 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by SHEKINAH
09-24-2008 12:05 AM


Here is a graph from Wikpedia showing population growth since 10,000 BCE. Note that it is virtually flat up to c2000 BCE, and again from c200 BCE to c1000 CE and then takes off (there is some evidence that it's flattening off at the moment).

Crucially it is nowhere near logarithmic.

The pattern seems to be long periods of stability/slow growth, with bursts of growth occasioned by exploitation of new territory or technological changes, e.g. agriculture, medical advances.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-24-2008 12:05 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 26 of 71 (492093)
12-28-2008 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SHEKINAH
09-23-2008 3:16 AM


about the same length of time that the written language has been her
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SHEKINAH, posted 09-23-2008 3:16 AM SHEKINAH has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 12-28-2008 6:18 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2008 10:35 AM Peg has responded
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 12-28-2008 1:35 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 12-28-2008 7:02 PM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 71 (492094)
12-28-2008 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
09-24-2008 5:38 AM


if evolution is not about the origin of life

1. why do so many evolutionists disbelieve in a God?

2. why do evolutionists laugh at intelligent design?

every evolutionist i've seen, is very anti God and anti creation ... evolution is 'how we got here' according to them


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 09-24-2008 5:38 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-28-2008 6:21 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 12-28-2008 7:14 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 71 (492095)
12-28-2008 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
12-28-2008 6:02 AM


about the same length of time that the written language has been her(sic)

Do you ever get tired of making baseless, wrong statements?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 12-28-2008 6:02 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 71 (492096)
12-28-2008 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
12-28-2008 6:08 AM


if evolution is not about the origin of life

1. why do so many evolutionists disbelieve in a God?

2. why do evolutionists laugh at intelligent design?

Or changing the subject?

Why do so many theists accept TOE?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 12-28-2008 6:08 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 71 (492097)
12-28-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
12-28-2008 6:08 AM


Topic Reminder
EvC Forum is for debate on specific topics. In the science forums and in the religion forums, discussion is intended to take the form of debate on specific topics outlined in the opening post. Discussions in these forums are not conversations wandering from topic to topic. The way to change the subject is to propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 12-28-2008 6:08 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017