What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?

Hi CrazyDiamond7 A theory is obsolete when it has been proven false or it is superseded by a new theory that explains the known information in a more complete or simpler manner. Evolution has not been proven wrong, and it's reality is observable in the world around you -- both (1) and (2) have been observed to occur, and thus are based on fact as opposed to theory.There is no documented incidence where (1) and (2) are incapable of explaining the diversity of life as we see it.The original theory (of descent with modification via natural selection) has actually been improved by identifying additional mechanisms, including the underlying genetic mechanisms that are the basis of inheritance of genetic traits. Curiously, mathematics is hopelessly incapable of proving reality wrong, so if your mathematical results do not match the reality around you, then you have made a mistake in the math. Your mathematical model is wrong.Mathematics can only model reality, and any discrepancy between model and reality is in the failure of the model to be a complete explanation.For instance, Newton's Law of Gravity: This explained observed data fairly well, but there were a couple of anomalies (orbit of Mercury is one). These anomalies did not prove the theory to be invalid or obsolete, just that it was incomplete in its ability to explain all the data. Then we got relativity: and even this does not explain all the data completely, hence the invocation of dark matter and energy to balance the equations ...BUT the thing to note here is that Newton's Law of Gravity is not invalidated -- first because Einsteins Relativity equations devolve into Newton's law in most everyday situations, and as a result it was used to calculate the Mars rocket trajectories (the unknowns in the the calculations causing greater difference\error than the equations). Rather the use of the formula is restricted to those cases where relativity devolves into Newton.Similarly any new theory that would make evolution obsolete will not invalidate the application of the theory, but add to it, as it adds to our base of information and understanding of life, the universe, and everything (D.N.Adams).The mathematics of population dynamics is much more complicated than your simplistic system. I suggest reading Robert Fischer on this topic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : ...

Hi CrazyDiamond7 Sadly, for you, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution theory per se. Misunderstanding this is indicative of using misunderstanding and incomplete knowledge. The science of abiogenesis is relatively new, and there are exciting studies being done in the field, but none of them involve evolution per se. See again what the process of evolution involves Message 35:

quote:

---

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

Note that it is rather impossible to have this process work without a living breeding population to start with -- biological evolution starts after breeding populations have developed, ...Note further that it is rather impossible to have divergent speciation without first having a living breeding population to diverge from, Message 35 again: ... and finally, please note that when you are talking about the Theory of Evolution, then you are necessarily talking about biological evolution, again Message 35:

quote:

---

(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

---

Now if you want to discuss where we are in the study of abiogenesis, I can recommend you start with two other threads -- see:

1. Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I), and
2. Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)

Actually, we have several observed facts involving abiogenesis:

1. the earth apparently formed 4.55 billion years ago, from star dust, ...
2. before 3.7 billion years there is no evidence of life on earth, ...
3. after 3.7 billion years, the oldest rocks that show fossils, show fossils of fully developed life (breeding populations), ...
4. prebiotic molecules exist in space (see link A above), ... and
5. self-replicating molecules can form spontaneously by chemical means (see link B above).

Based on these observations, it would appear possible that life formed from self-replicating molecules somewhere between 4.55 billion and 3.7 billion years ago, and this would appear to be an hypothesis worthy of additional study and investigation in order to expand our knowledge of the natural history of life on earth. The size of the human brain is likely due to run-away sexual selection, a process that occurs much faster than natural selection based on individual survival. See 2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. This concept becomes obsolete by Four different means,‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’, 'Evidence of Simultaneity - Previous Non-miscegenation of the European population', 'Impossibility of creating a beginning of life outside of what is already living' and ‘Physical proof that results from Genesis Experiment’. [/qs]Again your ‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’ only proves that your math is faulty or incomplete, not that the information\data\observations are wrong. Math is a way to model reality, and the validity of the model is related to how well it represents the information\data\observations. This is only valid as an observation if you list all the pre-colonial languages of the indigenous people, rather than Portuguese, else you are comparing apples to oranges. ... which has not happened ... ... which has not been demonstrated ... Curiously, science is not about "ascertained truth" - rather it is about determining what is probably the best explanation for the information\data\observations available -- so the best science can hope to do is approximate truth through testing and invalidation of false concepts (eliminating false ideas). ... so therefore your proposed "system of miscegenation" does not explain the evidence and most like is what is in error: the model does not match the information\data\observations.Curiously, DNA patterns for populations appears to match language patterns, thus demonstrating that the inheritable traits of the breeding population -- in genes and memes⁽¹⁾ -- generally match and tend to validate the evolutionary model for the spread of humans on earth.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - memes are culturally conveyed concepts\behavior rather than genetic traits, taught to members of a culture and thus passed from generation to generation in much the way genes are, and this would include languages.

Hi CrazyDiamond7 We don't ... nor do we NEED to know in order to study the evolution of life on earth.Your quote is full of arguments based on false or misleading information. Garbage in = garbage out. There is no such thing. Abiogenesis and Evolution are different aspect of life sciences.People that use the term Dawinism and similar (Darwinian) when they are purportedly addressing evolution are intentionally misrepresenting evolutionary science. Darwin's work is a part of the science of evolution, and does not involve elements of evolution not known or conceived of in his time -- like genetics. Because it absolutely does not affect the application of evolutionary biology science and to study the diversity of life on this planet. Evolution happens, it has been observed, therefore it is capable of being studied via scientific principles. Ah yes, the victim card ...People that think there needs to be a link are underinformed or misinformed or both.We do not need to KNOW the origin of species "A" to study it's subsequent evolution and observe if the breeding population divides into two or more daughter populations (speciation - see Message 35) and to document the change in species from one generation to the next (evolution - see Message 35) LOL. The study of abiogenesis is one of the most exciting fields of science today, see links provided in Message 38 for just a summary view of the amount of investigation taking place. Logical fallacy of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion ... rather sad argument. LOL.Just as we are worried that the studies of gravity will reflect poorly on evolutionary theory ... that is to say not at all.The studies of abiogenesis have, and will continue, to reflect well on the process of science in expanding out knowledge of the universe and life.Once you understand that they are not linked then you can understand that no matter what abiogenesis discovers regarding the beginning of life on earth, the study of the evolution of life of earth will still be based on evolution and the scientific process -- we will still observe evolution and speciation and alterations in the diversity of life by these processes. ROFLOL. Trying to cast scientific study as the rote learning of beliefs (how religions are taught) demonstrates abject failure to understand science and scientific processes.Science advances by showing previous concepts to be wrong, faulty, or incomplete. Science lives to overturn traditional thought not wallow in it. What you need to understand is that there is a difference between linked and dependent. All science is linked into understanding "Life, the Universe, and oh Everything" (Douglas Adams), but each field is independently studied.The study of geology is linked to the study of how planets formed, and the study of how planets formed is linked to the study of gravity, and the study of gravity is linked to the study of how the universe began ... but each can be studied independently.Geology does not become inseparable from Astronomy or Physics, it isn't dependent on KNOWING how the earth formed: the earth is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes.Life is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes. That study is the science of biological evolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : (oops) correction per StragglerEdited by RAZD, : coding

There still is: Lose the 'quotes' ... and lose the confused\confusing terminology. I expect that what you are trying to say is:E.g., Scientific point of view about the origin-of-life (OOL) again I suspect that you are really trying to say:Scientific theory rather than evolution theoryIf you restrict\use the words evolution, evolutionary, evolutionist (and any other variations) to apply only within the biological life science of existing life, as scientists do, then you will not be as confused\confusing. Evolution is not synonym for science:

quote:

---

Synonyms: change, enlargement, evolvement, expansion, flowering, growth, increase, maturation, natural process, progression, transformation, unfolding, working out

---

Evolutionists are scientists but not all scientists are evolutionists.
Geologists are scientists but not all scientists are geoplogists. We know that when the earth formed there was no life as we know it.
We know that there is life (as we know it) on earth now ...
THEREFORE it began at some point. OOL occurred.We can even narrow that "point" down to being somewhere between 4.55 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago. Yet we do know that life (as we know it) on earth did not exist before 4.55 billion years ago, and we do know that life (as we know it) has existed on earth since 3.5 billion years ago.That IS a perception of the reality, based as it is on the objective evidence currently available, and THAT makes it teachable in science classes.Enjoy.

What you have is a mathematical model by which you try to show that objective empirical evidence is wrong. What is wrong is your model.Long cut and paste with no reference is not evidence of your argument.The evidence of evolution is around you every day.The process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis have been observed.The theory of evolution is that these two processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.This has not been invalidated by objective empirical evidence and certainly not by incomplete mathematical models that don't reflect reality.There is no demand that population growth follows your paradigm, especially when your parameters are incomplete and do not take into effect well known ecological interactions.In any contest between math and reality, it is reality that wins, handily.Sorry, but you are still wrong.Enjoy.;

bellybutton dustballs dandruff and toejamwhy nose hair keeps growingSO much to do, so little time

As I've told you before CrazyDiamond7 (see Message 35), math cannot change reality, so if your math calculations result in something that doesn't match reality it is your math that is at fault. Usually a missed assumption.Curiously it was the fact that animal populations did not increase to massive numbers (Malthusian formulas apply to all living species) is what gave both Darwin and Wallace the inspiration for natural selection eliminating those less adapted to their ecologies.And, humans seem particularly well adapted to culling their own populations with on going wars ...So you argument is invalid, because it ain't real. It was invalid 4 years ago, and time has not changed that.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .