Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 5:06 PM
339 online now:
DC85, granpa, halibut, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,976 Year: 25,582/21,208 Month: 1,209/2,338 Week: 330/450 Day: 23/72 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 151 of 194 (654572)
03-02-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by caffeine
03-02-2012 6:23 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
-

caffeine writes:

Let's put 200 people on that island

I don't need to believe. I already know. What about turning back time to 49,000 years ago and put them on an island called England

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by caffeine, posted 03-02-2012 6:23 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by caffeine, posted 03-02-2012 7:16 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 152 of 194 (654574)
03-02-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by celestialGyoud
03-02-2012 6:55 AM


Re: Population growth over the hills and far away
I don't need to believe. I already know. What about turning back time to 49,000 years ago and put them on an island called England

I was using a simplified hypothetical example to make plain the fact that there are constraints on population - it doesn't simply grow magically and consistently.

But if, instead, you just want to look at an actual historical example of population, fine. These figures are for the population of Great Britain. Up till 1801, they're based on a consensus figure from the Insitute of Historical Research, of the University of London.

43: 1,000,000
410: 1,500,000
865: 1,500,000
1000: 1,500,000
1348: 3,500,000
1350: 2,250,000
1642: 6,000,000
1649: 5,700,000
1801: 10,942,646
1851: 27,368,736
1911: 45,221,615

Notice that the population did not grow at any steady or consistent rate. It was reduced by plagues (1350) and war (1649) and, for long periods, remained basically stable. The population at the time of the Norman Conquest, as estimated from archaeological remains, historical records and what we know of agricultural technology at the time, was about the same as it had been 700 years earlier at the time of the Romans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-02-2012 6:55 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 153 of 194 (654578)
03-02-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
01-26-2011 8:10 AM


The Thin Red Line – Population growth Model
-

-

Taz writes:

Many of us have been in this debate long enough to see the hidden implication of the OP.

-

Taz, time for you to see the hidden timeframe implicated in the Opening Post.

-

Thin Red Line – population growth Model – Only the Fifth part survives

-

. . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons
. . . . . . . . . . 65 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 60 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 55 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons

1st cluster of 14,000 years – from 49 to 36 thousand years ago: population x 15 - 80 %

2nd cluster of 14,000 years – from 35 to 22 thousand years ago: population x 10 - 80 %

3rd cluster of 14,000 years – from 21 to 7 thousand years ago: population x 10 - 80 %

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 01-26-2011 8:10 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by frako, posted 03-03-2012 4:13 AM celestialGyoud has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2708
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 154 of 194 (654709)
03-03-2012 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by celestialGyoud
03-02-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Population growth Models – TWO DIFFERENT ONES
Year World Population in Millions
70,000 BC <0.015
10,000 BC 1
9000 BC 3
8000 BC 5
7000 BC 7
6000 BC 10
5000 BC 15
4000 BC 20
3000 BC 25
2000 BC 35
1000 BC 50
500 BC 100
AD 1 200
1000 310
1750 791
1800 978
1850 1,262
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454
2010 6,972

multiply the population number by 1 000 000 those are our estimates. found on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Add table codes, give graph a white background.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-02-2012 7:37 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 12:22 PM frako has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 155 of 194 (654847)
03-05-2012 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
01-26-2011 11:40 AM


Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
-

For some reason, not shown by the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body), 70 thousand years ago in Europe the Human population would have reached 2,000 persons. A number that would not increase until 49 thousand years ago.

-

. . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons
. . . . . . . . . . 65 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 60 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 55 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons

1st cluster of 14,000 years – from 49 to 36 thousand years ago: population x 15 - 80 %

2nd cluster of 14,000 years – from 35 to 22 thousand years ago: population x 10 - 80 %

3rd cluster of 14,000 years – from 21 to 7 thousand years ago: population x 10 - 80 %

-

Population growth Model: Thin Red Line [ 1 to 15 - 80 % every thousand years ]

-

1st cluster of 14 thousand years

From 49 thousand years ago - European population: 2,000 persons

_____________________________________________________________________________
|
| 1 thousand years | . . . . 2,000 x 15 = 30,000 - 80 % = 6,000 persons
| 2 thousand years | . . . . 6,000 x 15 = 90,000 - 80 % = 18,000 persons
| 3 thousand years | . . . .18,000 x 15 = 270,000 - 80 % = 54,000 persons
| 4 thousand years | . . . .54,000 x 15 = 810,000 - 80 % = 162,000 persons
| 5 thousand years | . . . 162,000 x 15 = 2,430,000 - 80 % = 486,000 persons
| 6 thousand years | . . . 486,000 x 15 = 7,290,000 - 80 % = 1,458,000 persons
| 7 thousand years | . . 1,458,000 x 15 = 21,870,000 - 80 % = 4,374,000 persons
|
| 8 thousand years | . . 4,374,000 x 15 = 65,610,000 - 80 % = 13,122,000 persons
| 9 thousand years | . .13,122,000 x 15 = 196,830,000 - 80 % = 39,366,000 persons
|10 thousand years | . .39,366,000 x 15 = 590,490,000 - 80 % = 118,098,000 persons
|11 thousand years | . 118,098,000 x 15 = 1,771,470,000 - 80 % = 354,294,000 persons
|12 thousand years | . 354,294,000 x 15 = 5,314,410,000 - 80 % = 1,062,882,000 persons
|13 thousand years | 1,062,882,000 x 15 = 15,943,230,000 - 80 % = 3,188,646,000 persons
|14 thousand years | 3,188,646,000 x 15 = 47,829,690,000 - 80 % = 9,565,938,000 persons
|______________________________________________________________________________

[ Source: non-published translations of SPOTLIGHT
Subtitle: Population growth over the hills and far away ]

-

Only the Fifth part survives: 4 from every 5 inhabitants do not multiply. This population growth model consists that in every thousand years 80 % of Humans were terminated or died because of wars, famines, diseases and other events and they've left no descendants. It's a model that reproduces a state of miserability in the entire Europe and a badly condition to population increase. As in the thin red line of a war front, the multiplication of the remaining 20 % is according to the Minimum of 1 to 1,5 every hundred years which equates to 1 to 15 every thousand years.

-

When verifying the mathematical truth one might see that, If indeed some families of Humans have been growing and multiplying on the Earth from 55 thousand years ago, even living in the edge where only the fifth part would survive; and multiplying according to the timeline of a war trench, the mathematical evidence is constantly heading to the open road that some many men can't see: 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 proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body).

These Math results do clear up that the Humans would have done to the place called Earth, during any of the three clusters of 14,000 years, all things that they have done to this planet in the recent 7,000 years.

-

There are no evidences that termination on a global scale had ever happened in Europe from 70 thousand to 10 thousand years ago. However one might give the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body) the benefit of the doubt, that some annihilation on a global scale would have occurred bringing down the European population, e.g. from 2 billions to 200 thousand inhabitants in the beginning of the second row of 14 thousand years:

-

2nd cluster of 14 thousand years – Beyond the Thin Red Line [ 1 to 10 - 80 % ]

From 35 thousand years ago - European population: 200,000 persons

______________________________________________________________________________
|
| 1 thousand years | . . . 200,000 x 10 = 2,000,000 - 80 % = 400,000 persons
| 2 thousand years | . . . 400,000 x 10 = 4,000,000 - 80 % = 800,000 persons
| 3 thousand years | . . . 800,000 x 10 = 8,000,000 - 80 % = 1,600,000 persons
| 4 thousand years | . . 1,600,000 x 10 = 16,000,000 - 80 % = 3,200,000 persons
| 5 thousand years | . . 3,200,000 x 10 = 32,000,000 - 80 % = 6,400,000 persons
| 6 thousand years | . . 6,400,000 x 10 = 64,000,000 - 80 % = 12,800,000 persons
| 7 thousand years | . .12,800,000 x 10 = 128,000,000 - 80 % = 25,600,000 persons
|
| 8 thousand years | . .25,600,000 x 10 = 256,000,000 - 80 % = 51,200,000 persons
| 9 thousand years | . .51,200,000 x 10 = 512,000,000 - 80 % = 102,400,000 persons
|10 thousand years | . 102,400,000 x 10 = 1,024,000,000 - 80 % = 204,800,000 persons
|11 thousand years | . 204,800,000 x 10 = 2,048,000,000 - 80 % = 409,600,000 persons
|12 thousand years | . 409,600,000 x 10 = 4,096,000,000 - 80 % = 819,200,000 persons
|13 thousand years | . 819,200,000 x 10 = 8,192,000,000 - 80 % = 1,638,400,000 persons
|14 thousand years | 1,638,400,000 x 10 = 16,384,000,000 - 80 % = 3,276,800,000 persons
|_______________________________________________________________________________

[ Source: non-published translations of SPOTLIGHT
Subtitle: Population growth over the hills and far away ]

-

This Model, population x 10 - 80 % every thousand years, is the lowest rate of population increase and it surpasses beyond the thin red line in terms of miserability and badly conditions to multiply. Indeed, if applied to any of the three clusters of 14,000 years, 1 to 10 - 80 % has got what it takes for a wind of change to become a twister that might shakedown the concepts of many highschools wherever they've been told what to do by the man.

In the likeness of '1 to 15', '1 to 10 - 80 %' is a model that won't do good to many doctorates on Human Origins because it is mathematical evidence that the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body) becomes obsolete.

-

dwise1 writes:

.. assuming a pure-birth population growth model ..

We recognize CrazyDiamond's model as pure-birth

-

One can't recognize anything by 'believing' since it is not knowing nor applying solid science = ascertained truth of the facts.

To see a pure-birth model where it isn't is clearing up that whenever a doctrine says 'believing, we see!' that's where their blindness increases.

The solid message from Population growth over the hills and far away is that no matter how accurate a population growth model is, many men still can't see the open road, because Many is a word of whom only leaves one guessin' by providing you a number that equates to MANY:

The natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body) provides you no significant numbers, that equates to telling you this: 'you would find MANY, many people living out there 49 thousand years ago in Europe', rather than give you accurate numbers for your population growth model. And that 'Many' leaves one guessin'

Guessin' bout a thing you really ought not to lie. You really ought to know.

-

[ There's an ancient Hebrew fragment that translates: If men don't speak then the rocks will do it. So let the lyrics speak sometimes. ]

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2011 11:40 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 7:44 AM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 157 by caffeine, posted 03-05-2012 11:09 AM celestialGyoud has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2708
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 156 of 194 (654857)
03-05-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 7:00 AM


Re: Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
There are no evidences that termination on a global scale had ever happened in Europe from 70 thousand to 10 thousand years ago.

You dont need a global termination to keep numbers down.

Why do you think Lions have not overrun Africa by now ? They keep breeding right but their numbers stayed relatively the same untill man started to hunt them why is that maby because there is only so much food to go around.

Now how many desieses where incurable 70 000 years ago? How much food where our ancestors able to produce in that age hunting and gathering, could they store the food for the winter? What was the survival rate of births for both mother and child? in angola currently 180 children die at birth for every 1000 births how many die in their first year of life?? What was their average lifespan? 20 years maby 30?

The reason our population exploded in the last 100 Years is because our medicine advanced to the stage where 3 children die at birth per every 1000 births, and moste live trough their first year of life. We also can feed our population, lots of people live to be 100 years old or older our average lifespan has tippled. We have eradicated Smallpox, Rinderpest, we are on our way to eradicate Poliomyelitis (polio),Dracunculiasis, regional eradications of Malaria, Lymphatic filariasis, Measles, Rubella, Onchocerciasis, Yaws. And we can cure moste of the stuff that gets thrown our way. While 70 000 years ago if you caught it you would most likely die and so would your tribe.

And all of this than x to SCIENCE not your magic man up in the sky

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 7:00 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 11:48 AM frako has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 157 of 194 (654885)
03-05-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 7:00 AM


Re: Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
For some reason, not shown by the natural selection theory (for the origin of the Human body), 70 thousand years ago in Europe the Human population would have reached 2,000 persons. A number that would not increase until 49 thousand years ago.

First things first. The 'natural selection theory' says nothing about the population of Europe 70 thousand years ago. This is the province of historical demography.

And from where did you pull these random figures?

. . . . . . . . . . 70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons
. . . . . . . . . . 65 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 60 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 55 thousand years ago . . . . . . . ?
. . . . . . . . . . 50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . 2,000 persons

The people who try and figure out pre-historical populations do so by considering how many people a land can support, based on the technology they used at the time and the climate at the time.

Here's the abstract of a study from the Journal of Archaeological Science which tries and estimate the population of Europe in prehistoric times. It deals not with the time period you mentioned, but the one immediately following it. They looked at the distribution of archaelogical sites in this period, and at the climate records, and obtained a figure of around about 5,000 people between the time from 50,000 to 25,000 years ago. There's a wide margin of error included in their calculations, since this is obviously difficult to be precise about, so their 95% confidence interval puts the population between 1,700 and 37,700 people.

After this, the population would have decreased, because we know that the climate got colder and made much of the continent uninhabitable - they retreated into refuges. Once things started to warm up, the population would have increased again as people recolonised the more hospitable continent. They estimate it grew to between 11,300 and 72,600 people.

To carry on further, the basis of calculations need to change, because agriculture was introduced to Europe, allowing much greater food production and greater population growth.

That's how historical demography is done, by looking at the evidence of the real world. We don't need your back of an envelope calcuations based around numbers you pulled out of the air and which ignore the realities of technological and climatic limitations to growth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 7:00 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-08-2012 4:22 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 158 of 194 (654894)
03-05-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by frako
03-05-2012 7:44 AM


Re: Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
-

Frako, Why not go straight to the point and bring up your population growth model, e.g.: from 50 thousand years ago until 21,000 years ago, in order for people to verify how accurate it is.

Only the specificity of Math results can be called evidence to this matter. Evidences based on comparing lions with humans and other stories are not evidences but tales to help bulls fall asleep.

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 7:44 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 11:52 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 11:53 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2012 12:16 PM celestialGyoud has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2708
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 159 of 194 (654895)
03-05-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 11:48 AM


Re: Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
Only the specificity of Math results can be called evidence to this matter.

They could if you had the exact birthrates and death rates for every year in the past 70 000 years if you dont then your math is useless.

As for my growth model relatively no big growth until technology allowed it. Technology that enabled farming as an example.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 11:48 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 160 of 194 (654896)
03-05-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 11:48 AM


Re: Beyond the thin red line – Population growth Model
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

Frako, Why not go straight to the point and bring up your population growth model, e.g.: from 50 thousand years ago until 21,000 years ago, in order for people to verify how accurate it is.

He did that in Message 154 - you haven't responded yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 11:48 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 194 (654902)
03-05-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 11:48 AM


Population growth and other crazy ideas
Only the specificity of Math results can be called evidence to this matter. Evidences based on comparing lions with humans and other stories are not evidences but tales to help bulls fall asleep.

This is absolute nonsense.

Your ideas concerning population growth are just plain wrong, otherwise the earth would be covered with bacteria to the outer atmosphere.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 11:48 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 12:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 162 of 194 (654904)
03-05-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by frako
03-03-2012 4:13 AM


Re: Population growth Models – TWO DIFFERENT ONES
-

frako writes:

Year World Population in Millions

70,000 BC | <0.015
10,000 BC | 1

-

There is no Specificity, no real Math working but simply a jump from 70 directly to 10.

Is this to be called a population growth model ?

-

Bring up a more specific Model, if you have one, please

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by frako, posted 03-03-2012 4:13 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 12:55 PM celestialGyoud has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 163 of 194 (654906)
03-05-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Coyote
03-05-2012 12:16 PM


About comparing humans with lions
-

Coyote writes:

This is absolute nonsense.

I agree. He should have compared humans with coyotes

-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2012 12:16 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2708
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 164 of 194 (654908)
03-05-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by celestialGyoud
03-05-2012 12:22 PM


Re: Population growth Models – TWO DIFFERENT ONES

This graph any better for you to understand.

500 000 - 10 000 Growth limited do to lack of technology to build shelter (living in caves etc

10 000- 2000 years ago Growth increasing slightly do to farming, houses, eaven early forms of medicine,

500 years ago a technological revolution harnesing wind and water to do what labour had to do before,

100 years ago technological revolution x10 allowing for a baby boom on an unprecedented scale

Simply put there was not enough food to go arround before to sustain a higher population.

first we hunted and gathered
Then we farmed with stone tools
We made better tools farmed more food
We discovered that crop rotation increases yeald
We discovered that mixing the soil with shit increased crop yeald

then 100 years ago til now we discovered
Tractors that equalled the work of 100 men working a full day in a matter of hours
We discovered soil supplements that increased plant growth
easy irrigation
Geneticly altered plants
Numerus protective agents against insects, mold and other problems that would ruin our crops
Refrigiration
.....

It is our technology that allowed us to multiply so much and the lack of thecnology that prevented us from multiplying before.

Simply put we could not feed 7 billion people 70 000 years ago but we can feed them today

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 12:22 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by celestialGyoud, posted 03-05-2012 2:33 PM frako has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 165 of 194 (654912)
03-05-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by frako
03-05-2012 12:55 PM


Model p x 10 - 80 % is uniquely a measurement line
-

quote:

This population growth Model p x 10 - 80 % is uniquely a measurement line that clears up what the multiplication rate is. It's not an equation taken from real documents since there are no real documents from 50 thousand years ago.

The multiplication rate p x 15 - 80 % is not presented as a product of research brought from official rates but solely a Model that proofreads the multiplication rates proposed by a theory that places the Humans to multiply on the Earth for more than 70 thousand years ago.


-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 12:55 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 3:31 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 167 by frako, posted 03-05-2012 6:27 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017