|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
I didn't give a growth rate. I did a mathematical calculation. Looking at the population charts, I notice a considerable change in the growth patterns of the earth in the past 50 years.
The fertility rate is 1.5 in developed countries, and 3.1 in underdeveloped nations. The growth rate 2/3 lower in 1950, and slightly lower during the 1700s. This means that the population is increasing more rapidly than commonly thought, and the population was not here as long as most people think. Based on statistics from the Population Reference Bureau
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
LOL!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fnord Inactive Member |
I did a mathematical calculation. Can you tell me more about that? What were the birth rates you used to begin with? Can you show the calculation that you did with them, and the result you got? f. Het is even onvoorstelbaar dat God wel bestaat, als dat hij niet zou bestaan - C. Buddingh'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
It's obvious that William Williams' estimate was wrong, so I didn't use exponential units.
Since the developed countries account for approximately 1/2 of the population of the earth, and the underdeveloped for the other half, I merged the two factors and did simple averages. This arrived me at a worldwide birthrate of 1. Based on census records, it went down a mere 0.2 percent overall from 1800-1950. Before this, major fluctuations in population growth occurred in the 1700s, and in the early years after the death of Christ (the anno Domini years). The OVERALL population pattern showed an OVERALL growth rate of 0.8, as opposed to the 0.312 received from JonF. Well, since 0.8 is 2.5641 times larger than 0.312, that means the world's population was growing at more than double that rate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:Your calculations are meaningless unless the numbers you put into it are valid. Can I interpret this statement as meaning you have no figures for population growth before 1700? So how can you assume your calculations have any validity before 1700?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fnord Inactive Member |
Your calculations are meaningless unless the numbers you put into it are valid. Can I interpret this statement as meaning you have no figures for population growth before 1700? So how can you assume your calculations have any validity before 1700? My point too. Even more: population growth follows from population figures, not the other way around. The main point is, you can not simply take birth rates from the last 300 or even 2000 years and extrapolate them backwards to calculate the world population in 4000 BC. And btw, who is William Williams? Het is even onvoorstelbaar dat God wel bestaat, als dat hij niet zou bestaan - C. Buddingh'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:A point I was going to make, too, fnord, but then I decided the limited scope of the data set was a more interesting quibble. Another intesting point that I have brought up before. Newguy is attempting to use a mathematical model to come to conclusions about the real world. The results he is getting contradict what is already known about the real world. What he doesn't understand is that mathematical models never, ever refute actual data, nor do they ever invalidate well-established hypotheses. When a model produces results contradicting established fact, the first thing one does is to examine the model and either see if it can be fixed or whether it is too simplistic to be accurate. One can, of course, look at the data again to determine whether another interpretation of the data is warranted, or whether the collection of the data was problematical; but if there is no reason to dispute the data then one must always keep in mind the very real possibility that the model is in error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990
that was published in 1993 IIRC, they may be able to check. I have a note that says he set the pre-christian era growthrate at about .0007 and from the year 1 until about 1700 at .075. J. R. McNeil & William H. McNeil, in The Human Web, placed the growth rate from 1-1700 at about 12% per century. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Moving on to Shannon and information, let us use an example that illustrates just how random mutation creates information. Take a gene in a population of organisms that codes for eye color. The population has only three eye colors, each coded by a specific 4-bit sequence or message (we'll use 1's and 0's to keep things simple, but they could as easily be the CAGT nucleotides of DNA).
0001 blue 0010 green 0100 brown Please keep in mind that the 4-bit sequences are the messages, while the colors are the expressions of those messages, in other words, the meaning. No other sequence ever appears for this gene until a random mutation occurs due to copying error during reproduction, and our message list increases by one:
0001 blue 0010 green 0100 brown 1000 yellow New information has been added to the gene pool for our population. Where before there were only three eye colors, now there are four. If the yellow message (the proper term is allele) is dominant then the organism has yellow eyes, otherwise its eyes will be the color of the dominant message. If it is recessive then it will have to await spreading a bit through the population until an organism receives two copies of the gene, and only then will the population gain a member with yellow eyes. Of course, as we've already discussed here, favorable mutations are rare. It is much more likely that a copying error in a coding DNA sequence would result in a negative outcome, eg:
0001 blue
0010 green 0100 brown 1100 blindness, organism dies Well. a) You are using examples like 0001 is blue, 0010 is green, 0100 is brown, 1000 is yellow...something like it is and, simply, it was. But why? Why 0001 is not green, 0010 is not yellow, 0100 is not blue and 1000 is not brown? There is no explanation to this in your posts, Percy. b) Lets do a small exercise/example. Take a paper. Draw a circle. ...and now... tell me why it is a circle? Why it is not a square? I would like to read your answer, thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How do you know it is a circle? maybe it's a square with a hole in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Charles Knight writes: How do you know it is a circle? maybe it's a square with a hole in it? Good try. But I'm not interested in "philosophical" fantasies (as this is not that kind of forum, I guess) but in facts... The same but different way for you:Lets build a house. Now tell me why it is a house? Why it is not a bicycle? I hope you understand my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I do entirely - you are attempting to reach for the god of the gaps coupled with the "the water fits the hole in the ground".
Your analogue is weak. At the moment, you may think that you have posed a problem that nobody has ever asked posed here before. It's not, it's the first one that most creationist try. I could just tell you why it's wrong, but where is the schooling in that? The next move is generally the "something couldn't come from nothing". This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 08:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
I do entirely - you are attempting to reach for the god of the gaps coupled with the "the water fits the hole in the ground". Well, what are you talking about? I'm asking clear question. If you do have answer on how was information "evoluted" , tell me the answer for this one as well, because you used it in your definition so, surely, it is very important part to know.
Your analogue is weak. So your one is strong?
At the moment, you may think that you have posed a problem that nobody has ever asked posed here before. It's not, it's the first one that most creationist try. That means you know the answer? So why those words? Give me an explanation. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.
I could just tell you why it's wrong, but where is the schooling in that? Is it wrong? Really? What exactly is wrong?
The next move is generally the "something couldn't come from nothing" SURE ! ...I think the evolucionists believe in this as well... or am I not right? So what's the point of this sentence? One last thing... I'm not curious about "scientific-philosophical" thoughts... I'm interested in facts, Charles. I'm not interested what you think about me or somebody else, what you think about my thoughts etc etc. So if you don't know the answer, or you don't want to answer me clearly, spare your words for different threads. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
because you used it in your definition I'm confused - what definition? I don't remember offering one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
"you" = "evolucionists"
Read message 264. It was pointed exactly to Percy's definition (as stated). ...I thought you knew, what Percy was talking about in this discussion..... so why do you answer to questions you don't read and understand?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024