Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 9:17 AM
351 online now:
Aussie, ChristinaMoretti, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD (9 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,735 Year: 25,341/21,208 Month: 968/2,338 Week: 89/450 Day: 13/34 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons
Panda
Member (Idle past 1268 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 136 of 194 (652297)
02-13-2012 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by celestialGyoud
02-13-2012 9:41 AM


Re: The miscegenation system implied in the natural selection theory
CD7 writes:

Time for you to see beyond the spoon.


Yes!

CD7 writes:

your lack of evidence about human population being 10,000 at any point in history


9,999: Yes!
10,001: Yes!
10,000: Never!

Ok, ok - we get it.
But where does the Diamond and the 7 parts come from?


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-13-2012 9:41 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-14-2012 4:27 PM Panda has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 137 of 194 (652571)
02-14-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Panda
02-13-2012 10:35 AM


Re: The miscegenation system implied in the natural selection theory
-

Panda writes:

where does the Diamond and the 7 parts come from

-

Often when one does not know the name or authenticity of certain stones like jasper or sapphire, the nickname given to that stone is crazy diamond.

-

In regards to the Human body, the number identifies who has made it. There is a number, 7, or a pair of seven in the palms of everyone's hands.

-

book of Job, '(S)He seals the hands of every person, that all men may know it's his(her) work.' And in another fragment: 'Behold, I have graven thee on the palms of my hands: the map of thy terms [walls - mediations] is constantly before me.'

-

When a person has a pair of seven, the letters of the tetragram – the letter hê and the twins, jewd and vav, might be seen; two letters on each hand, and when the palms of both hands are gathered and kept pressed to one another with all one's strength then there is a trembling like a rapid-fire sequence.

In the time that the laying up of hands with trembling is directed toward the clouds then the clouds become gathered and separate themselves from their initial trajectory revolving to another Initial stability more close and immediate. And the clouds remain for a time suspended in a place that the person chooses.

With the sign of the lamb, the laying up of both gathered hands, the powers that are in heaven might be moved and the white clouds become like a tender row of fig branch having seven long leaves coming forth.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Panda, posted 02-13-2012 10:35 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Coragyps, posted 02-14-2012 6:09 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Panda, posted 02-14-2012 6:36 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5292
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 138 of 194 (652585)
02-14-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by celestialGyoud
02-14-2012 4:27 PM


Re: The miscegenation system implied in the natural selection theory
CD - Would you be willing to resell some of that stuff you are smoking? I think I can get a premium price for it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-14-2012 4:27 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1268 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 139 of 194 (652588)
02-14-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by celestialGyoud
02-14-2012 4:27 PM


Re: The miscegenation system implied in the natural selection theory
CD7 writes:

Often when one does not know the name or authenticity of certain stones like jasper or sapphire, the nickname given to that stone is crazy diamond.


Can you provide a link to more information about this?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-14-2012 4:27 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 140 of 194 (652630)
02-15-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by celestialGyoud
02-13-2012 9:41 AM


Re: The miscegenation system implied in the natural selection theory
CD7 writes:

n this, one ascertains that families of Humans did not spread to Europe during the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory which becomes obsolete.

We've discussed this before. There isn't anything spectacularly genetically different about most of those different "ethnies" you listed. We can find more diversity that in most American family trees that can be found among that list of white European people you provided. And nobody is using natural selection to explain the development of different language. A few thousand years of hanging out together is plenty of time for a people to develop new languages.

In other words, you haven't even pointed to anything that needs to be explained.

Time for you to see beyond the spoon. All these shallow subjects, .. how language evolved, .. your lack of evidence about human population being 10,000 at any point in history

I find this statement pretty silly. Don't you believe that the human population was once about 8, but now numbers in the billions? If so, surely the population must have been pretty close to 10,000 at some point.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-13-2012 9:41 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 141 of 194 (654175)
02-27-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
01-25-2011 9:34 PM


Population growth over the hills and far away
-

Taz writes:


It was only recently, around 10,000 years or so, that early civilizations began to farm on a scale capable of supporting more than a few dozen people in any area.

-

Knowing from real life that families formed of a few dozen people were able of supporting themselves, that's evidence that their children and the children of their children would be capable of doing the same thing for themselves.

It's evident that familes formed of only a few dozen people never needed the capability of supporting more than just themselves. For the generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children. Observation shows that they took care of themselves and their own.

Therefore the belief based argument that the generations to come would not be capable of giving to their children the same support that their parents gave to them is inconsistent and if applied to a classroom setting will not be bought by the pupils that are not spoonfed by many books containing the belief that the size of their brain is a product of natural selection.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 01-25-2011 9:34 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by caffeine, posted 02-28-2012 11:10 AM celestialGyoud has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 142 of 194 (654244)
02-28-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by celestialGyoud
02-27-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
Knowing from real life that families formed of a few dozen people were able of supporting themselves, that's evidence that their children and the children of their children would be capable of doing the same thing for themselves.

It's evident that familes formed of only a few dozen people never needed the capability of supporting more than just themselves. For the generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children. Observation shows that they took care of themselves and their own.

If a population of a few dozen people are capable of supporting themselves, their population with persist. And you're right - they don't need the capability to support anyone else - just their own group.

If, however, they're incapable of supporting anyone else, their population cannot grow. There's a limit to how many people an environment will support, until you develop technologies that can increase the food supply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-27-2012 2:45 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by JonF, posted 02-28-2012 11:41 AM caffeine has responded
 Message 144 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-28-2012 4:21 PM caffeine has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 143 of 194 (654249)
02-28-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by caffeine
02-28-2012 11:10 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
A few dozen is an awfully small gene pool. Serious risk of dying out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by caffeine, posted 02-28-2012 11:10 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 02-29-2012 3:58 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 144 of 194 (654272)
02-28-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by caffeine
02-28-2012 11:10 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
-

caffeine writes:

There's a limit to how many people an environment will support

-

The referred limits appeared only after the Modern age.

In all ancient ages and in Medieval ages there was always the circle in which one thing leaded to another:

Population growth was the factor leading the new families of farmers to open up fertile lands in Europe.

-

Therefore the argument that a lack of population growth would have occurred in Early Europe because of an alleged environmental limit is inconsistent.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by caffeine, posted 02-28-2012 11:10 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by caffeine, posted 02-29-2012 4:09 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 145 of 194 (654306)
02-29-2012 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by JonF
02-28-2012 11:41 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
A few dozen is an awfully small gene pool. Serious risk of dying out.

This few dozen people wouldn't exist in isolation. There would be gene flow between them and adjacent populations. The point being made is simply that population size doesn't increase if the enviornment lacks the capacity to support a larger population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by JonF, posted 02-28-2012 11:41 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 146 of 194 (654307)
02-29-2012 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by celestialGyoud
02-28-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
There have always been limits to how many people an area will support. It is only in the modern age that we have overcome many of them, to allow our population to rise to such a large level.

If you're living in a hunter-gatherer society, the amount of food available to support your population depends on how much food there is around. This is a simple and undeniable fact. If the amount of food in a given area which people are able to obtain is only enough to feed 200 people a year, then only 200 people can live in that area. If there are more, some will starve, or kill each other fighting over the scarce resources.

The carrying capacity of each area varies a lot, of course. Hunter-gatherers in the Pacific Northwest could live at much higher densities than those in the Kalahari, because there's a lot more food lying around for the pickings. But once you're eating everything available then there's nothing more to eat!

The only way you can increase the population beyond an environment's carrying capacity is to increase the carrying capacity, usually by some technological innovation. Better hunting techniques that allow you to catch more animals to eat. Or, the one you mention - the domestication of animals and crops. Before there was farming in Europe, all Europe's fertile land was already occupied; by hunter-gatherers. But there were less peopl then, than there were after farmers made this fertile land produce more available food.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-28-2012 4:21 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Coyote, posted 02-29-2012 10:03 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 147 of 194 (654335)
02-29-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by caffeine
02-29-2012 4:09 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
A couple of other factors that apply.

The limit to population is the amount of food at the leanest part of the year, not the average.

This can be overcome to some degree by storage of food. As an example, you mentioned the Pacific Northwest; the fish from periodic runs were dried or smoked and stored for other parts of the year.

Trade with neighboring groups was also critical. Folks in lowlying areas would have access to different resources than folks in higher elevations and trade would help to even out the annual fluctuations and the periodic shortfalls.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by caffeine, posted 02-29-2012 4:09 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-01-2012 4:46 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 148 of 194 (654360)
02-29-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
09-13-2011 4:58 PM


Population growth over the hills and far away
-

Sample of questions brought to the front,

-

Taq writes:

Would you also agree that the human population did not have to be continuously growing at all times ?

-

Let's take 70 families with children under 21 living in Europe when European population was 1,000 persons. And let's consider that from 70 families living in Europe, 47 families would always cease from existing because of wars, famines, diseases and other eventualities, and they would surely not continue to multiply nor keep a continous genealogical series.

In regards to the remaining families – Could one state with certainty or scientifically demonstrate that the remaining 23 (twenty-three) families total would not continue to multiply keeping a continous genealogical series from that point up until these days?

-

The allegation that annihilation on a global scale would have often occurred and with regularity for over 55 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 15 thousand years has been proved inconsistent for lack of evidences.

In regards to the allegation that the lack of technology would have impeded the families formed of a few dozen to farm for the generations to come, the arguments have omitted that when families are formed of dozen persons this had to include their children.

quote:
Observation shows that they took care of themselves and their own. And they never needed the capability of supporting more than just their family.

-

The generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children because the less technology a farmer had, the more manpower a farmer required to do the job.

And the more children a farmer had, the more labor force was available for them to increase the production of the farm.

On this, given the lack of technology in those days and the need of labor force, the population growth was a solution and not a problem.

-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants
1st cluster of 14,000 years – from 49 to 36 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
2nd cluster of 14,000 years – from 35 to 22 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
3rd cluster of 14,000 years – from 21 to 7 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

-

Indeed, explanations have been asked but in response no answers based on real life were brought to the front that could possibly explain an alleged total lack of population growth from 70 thousand years ago to 50 thousand years ago; and from 49,000 years ago until the completeness of three rows of 14,000 years prior to the recent 7 thousand years.

Neither some many men can see the open road that is called science (ascertained truth of the facts) so that they could see, verify and ascertain the truth in the fact that all things the Humans have done to the planet during a single cluster of 7,000 years,

they would have done the same thing anyway during any of the three clusters of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7 thousand years.

-

On this, darwinism has a debt with the truth and unfinished business that needs to be answered in response for a lack of consistency in the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body) because in real life there is a disconnection of time and place between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time that the darwinism has proposed for their multiplication.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 09-13-2011 4:58 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by caffeine, posted 03-02-2012 6:23 AM celestialGyoud has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 149 of 194 (654447)
03-01-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Coyote
02-29-2012 10:03 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
-

Coyote writes:

.. by storage of food. As an example, you mentioned the Pacific Northwest; the fish from periodic runs were dried or smoked and stored for other parts of the year.

Folks in lowlying areas would have access to different resources than folks in higher elevations and trade would help to even out the annual fluctuations and the periodic shortfalls.

-

Now you're bringing up facts of real life. And this can be ascertained from History of the World and Encyclopedia Britannica;

There is nothing indicating that living in a planet Earth the minimum average of 33.3 % – a third part of Human population would not continue to grow and multiply a continuous genealogical series.

-

quote:

Let's take 70 families with children under 21 living in Europe when European population was 1,000 persons. And let's consider that from 70 families living in Europe, 47 families would always cease from existing because of wars, famines, diseases and other eventualities, and they would surely not continue to multiply nor keep a continous genealogical series.

In regards to the remaining families – Could one state with certainty or scientifically demonstrate that the remaining 23 (twenty-three) families total would not continue to multiply keeping a continous genealogical series from that point up until these days?

-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants
1st cluster of 14,000 years – from 49 to 36 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
2nd cluster of 14,000 years – from 35 to 22 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
3rd cluster of 14,000 years – from 21 to 7 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

-


-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Coyote, posted 02-29-2012 10:03 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 150 of 194 (654570)
03-02-2012 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by celestialGyoud
02-29-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
The generations to come were capable of giving the same support for their children because the less technology a farmer had, the more manpower a farmer required to do the job.

And the more children a farmer had, the more labor force was available for them to increase the production of the farm.

On this, given the lack of technology in those days and the need of labor force, the population growth was a solution and not a problem.

Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we have a volcanic island, out in the ocean miles away from anywhere. The island is approximately two acres square. The land is quite fertile, thanks to the volcanic dust, so a lot of the land can be farmed. The inhabitants have basic farming technology. Let's put 200 people on that island, and then gradually keep adding more.

As more people are added, there are more hands to work the farmland. Do you believe, then, that we could keep adding people indefinitely and that the food supply would indefinitely increase, or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by celestialGyoud, posted 02-29-2012 4:24 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-02-2012 6:55 AM caffeine has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017